Perceptions of different groups

Introduction

As discussed in the previous chapter, most current systems for water use and waste management in Australia are unsustainable. Rapidly depleting water supplies and inefficient waste disposal methods are simultaneously causing a range of concerns in many of Australia's towns and cities. While everyone acknowledges that Australia's water shortage is now critical, proposals to combat this by recycling wastewater have attracted a wide range of opposing viewpoints. Changes to water and waste management systems have a significant impact on the people and environments to which they are being applied. It is therefore important that people feel comfortable with the outcomes that are reached and that decision-making processes take into consideration the viewpoints of all stakeholders.

This chapter will explore the varying community viewpoints that the issue of recycling wastewater attracts. It will then assess the various perceptions reflected during Toowoomba's 2006 referendum held on wastewater recycling. This example provides valuable insight into the factors that influenced the pro and anti-recycling campaigners. It will also assess the perceptions of local councils and governments towards this issue and the viewpoint of the scientific community.

Community viewpoints

Opposition

Public opinion polls held in Australia have reflected that there are a few reasons why people oppose drinking recycled wastewater. Some people do not trust those who claim it is safe. Some argue that there are other, better alternatives, while others seem to be against it for psychological reasons. In the Toowoomba referendum over recycling wastewater, held in July 2006 (refer to Chapter One), this last reason proved to be one of the biggest challenges that pro-recycling advocates were unable to overcome. In this case, a little over 60 per cent of the town's population expressed that they did not support the wastewater recycling initiative, meaning that the system will not be introduced, at least not for some time. Although the town is facing a dire water shortage, with no other option but to recycle wastewater, it seemed as though many people could just not come to terms with the concept of it.

One community group against the Toowoomba proposal was 'Citizens against Drinking Sewage' (CADS). Campaigners in this group were unconvinced of the reliability of current technology used to treat wastewater and argued that drinking sewage effluent could therefore be dangerous. Other members of the community who opposed the initiative were local farmers, many of whom use the town's wastewater to irrigate their crop and pasture fields. If the 'yes' campaign had succeeded, these stakeholders would have lost a considerable amount of their water supply because it would have been redirected to town drinking water supplies. This, in turn, would have affected their agricultural yields and eventually their income. See image 1

In submissions presented to the Goulburn Mulwaree Council during early community consultation stages in 2003, some residents argued that the solution to water shortages lies in improved education about water use. These people believed it would be more effective for the council to provide better information to people about how they can reduce their level of water consumption. Other submissions expressed the opinion that, instead of recycling wastewater, the town's dams should be made bigger and that residents should be permitted to install larger domestic rainwater tanks.

Support

Many people are wholeheartedly in favour of using recycled wastewater as a supplement to drinking water supplies. Environmental groups in particular have shown strong support of wastewater recycling proposals in Australia, arguing that it is inevitable given the country's rainfall, climate and population needs. These proponents believed that, had they voted 'yes', the residents of Toowoomba would have pioneered an innovative approach to tackling an environmental management problem that is set to trouble many towns and cities across Australia in the near future. Supporters also point to the fact that there is a great deal of support for wastewater recycling within the scientific community.

Those who campaigned for the 'yes' vote in Toowoomba included various non-government organisations, the local independent government and other political entities including the Australian Greens Party and independent senators. According to these supporters, Toowoomba had no other option but to introduce the water recycling scheme. Desalinising seawater (reducing its salt content to drinking-standard levels) was deemed unfeasible given the town's inland location. Constructing a new dam was also ruled out as an option because of the town's location upstream from Brisbane.

Government and council viewpoints

Recent debates over wastewater recycling in Australia have suggested that the general consensus amongst governments and local councils towards this issue is one of support. This is most likely due to the fact that it is a cheaper and more sustainable long-term solution to waste and water management problems. Other alternatives, such as increasing dam sizes or building new dams do not solve the problem of low and unpredictable rainfalls. Desalinising seawater is also more expensive than treating wastewater and only applicable to towns and cities near the coast.

The social and economic impacts of water shortages can be detrimental to areas which have been suffering sustained periods of drought. This is particularly true of smaller towns, where even the slightest decline in economic productivity can have very large social implications. Some of these include decreases in employment opportunities and a subsequent reduction in population size. Across Australia, local councils and government bodies at the State and federal levels have realised that the critical nature of Australia's water situation will adversely affect the liveability of our communities if sustainable solutions are not implemented.

Scientific viewpoint

Treated wastewater is recycled and used to top up drinking water supplies in many parts of the world (refer to Chapter One). It has been scientifically proven that, after purification processes are complete, water recycled in this manner is safe for human consumption. Many scientists argue that recycled drinking water is even purer than traditional forms of drinking water, due to the extensive treatment processes it undergoes before reaching household taps. See image 2