Ald Jeremy Ball Pipeline Public Meeting Tuesday June 10 6.30pm Tailrace Centre Launceston. History of Gunns pipeline project and how it has been rebadged as potential public infrastructure. The role of the new Northern Regional Water and Sewer Authority and the part it may play.
Again we go back to Premier Bartlett’s statement of May 29. “For any infrastructure project to receive government funding, it will have to pass a strong public-benefit test,” he said. And ex-Premier Lennon’s original statements about Launceston’s sewerage problems, more water for industry, agriculture and drinking water for George Town. Whether intentionally or not the reframing of hugely expensive private infrastructure as necessary public infrastructure for ‘public benefit’ appears to allow any number of options for the Premier and the government or other authorities with regards to acquisition, funding and ownership.
HAVING been involved in this issue for five years it astounds me that it is still the public who are forced gather at meetings like this to discuss the important issues to do with this Pulp Mill.
Tonight we are talking about the proposed water pipeline and yet the government and Gunns Ltd. have missed a crucial step in the discussion – have we even got enough water?
How much water is the Pulp Mill going to need? Hydro Tasmania has a draft agreement to supply between 24 and 40 gigalitres per annum – a gigalitre being 1 billion litres.
Gunns says its Pulp Mill will initially need 26 gigalitres per year and with the Pulp Mill set to operate 350 days per year you’re looking at around 75 megalitres per day. Trevallyn Dam is already under stress. Low flows and warmer temperatures and overloads of nutrients have seen Blue Green algae outbreaks.
The Great lake which provides most of the flow through to Trevallyn hovers around 16% capacity down fro 62% in 2000 and there are already pipes going into the Dam to provide Esk Water with drinking water for the West Tamar and Hydro’s pipe for the Tail race power station not to mention the 129 megalitres per day need for the Gorge environmental flow.
What does the Pulp Mill need?
The Pulp Mill requires a pipeline 1.2 metres in diameter going 35 kms to Long Reach and then an effluent pipe 19kms plus an ocean outfall 2.7 kms out to sea.
Gunns originally was going to dam the Pipers River and use a greatly enlarged Curries River dam and I well remember seeing a photo from a bloke ankle deep in the Pipers River suggesting that Gunns better have a look at the river before they made any grand plans.
It was then that Gunns decided to use the Trevallyn Dam option of course there are some cynics who joined the dots between the Meander Dam project and the Pulp Mill’s water needs and thought that this might have been the idea all along but we don’t have time for that tonight.
Gunns announce Trevallyn
In July 2005 Gunns announced an agreement with Hydro Tasmania to take water from Trevallyn Dam and pump it 35 kms to Long Reach.
This pipeline had never been spoken of before – That is to say a water pipeline from Trevallyn Dam to Bell Bay or George Town or beyond has never been on a list of strategic state water projects.
This pipeline project was announced by Gunns, to be for Gunns as part of their Pulp Mill project – end of story. The retrospective framing of this project as ‘critical state infrastructure’ which may well give ‘long term benefits to the people of the Tamar Valley’ is a nonsense.
Lennon announces the Pipeline Project
However it was on the list of former Premier Lennon’s key strategies. On March 3 2008 Sue Neales in a piece for the Mercury entitled Public Money in the Pipeline reported the following
THE Lennon Government may declare the 35km water pipeline supplying the proposed Gunns pulp mill in the Tamar Valley “critical state infrastructure”.
“Premier Paul Lennon has confirmed he has asked Infrastructure Minister Steve Kons to investigate all “community benefits” that would flow from state ownership of the mill’s water and effluent pipelines.
In the same article it goes on to say
“He said classing the pipeline as essential state infrastructure would allow other industries at Bell Bay or farms along its route to access more water for industrial or irrigation use.
The Premier also suggested that state ownership of the effluent pipeline might solve some of Launceston’s sewage disposal problems, while the water pipeline might be used to give George Town residents better drinking water. “
This ploy to talk about Gunns water pipeline as public infrastructure has been very effective and this is something to consider when thinking about the new northern regional Water and Sewer Authority which I will speak about briefly in a moment – because Paul Lennon was looking at state ownership not only of the 35 km water pipeline but of the 19 km effluent pipeline as well. ( you’ll notice no one ever mentions the effluent pipeline, even spin doctors can’t make a 19 km effluent pipeline pumping toxic waste into Bass Strait sound appealing – it doesn’t work).
There has been much talk about the water pipeline but the 19km effluent pipeline and ocean outfall were also originally planned for potential state ownership.
Cost
Figures for the water pipeline range from 50 – 80 million and the effluent pipeline could certainly cost half as much again. We can only surmise however that $100 million plus for both infrastructure projects can easily be imagined.
In the same Mercury article Gunns executive chairman John Gay denied he had specifically asked the Government to take over the mill’s water and effluent pipelines but he admitted he had discussed the matter with the Launceston City Council, which could have then approached the Government.”
This is an issue which I followed up with our General manager Frank Dixon.
He assured me that even though Gunns had approached the Council informally to pitch the idea of Launceston’s effluent being piped to the Pulp Mill and potentially beyond, when Gunns approached the Council again last year they had been told in no uncertain terms that all discussions were to cease as Launceston City Council had now withdrawn support for the pulp Mill as it posed an unknown risk to public health and safety.
Under questioning from the Greens in Parliament in March this year ex Premier Lennon revealed that a consultant had been employed to undertake a cost benefit analysis of the water and effluent pipeline project.
Some questions for people to take away from here tonight might be;
What has become of this consultant and the cost/benefit analysis?
What were the Terms of Reference?
Has the consultant finished that report and when will Premier Bartlett make it public?”
Premier Bartlett
With new Premier Bartlett now taking the reins we have a real opportunity to send a clear message that it is time for all public funding for this private project to cease.
The Premier has made a lot of encouraging sounds on the Pulp Mill funding issue and he should be congratulated for the way he has publicly distanced himself from the project however he has left the door open for the public funding of any Pulp Mill infrastructure as evidenced by his comments reported in The Australian on May 29 2008
Mr Bartlett said other infrastructure needed for the mill, which includes a 19km effluent pipeline, an upgraded wharf and a road interchange at the mill site, would only be funded if they met a stringent public-interest test.
“For any infrastructure project to receive government funding, it will have to pass a strong public-benefit test,” he said.
So the reframing of the Pulp Mill infrastructure as being of ‘public benefit’ and serving the ‘public interest’ has been carefully thought through.
Water and Sewer Authority
Where the issue of public funding and ownership of the proposed water / effluent pipeline sits in relation to the new regional water and sewer authorities which will come into place on July 1st 2009 is a very interesting question.
It is my understanding that ‘Acquiring authorities’ can compulsorily acquire land and easement rights under the Land Acquisition Act 1993.
An “Acquiring authority” includes:
the Crown;
a public or local authority; (which the Water and Sewer authority would seem to qualify as.
Interestingly Part 1A of the Land Acquisition Act 1993 allows the Crown to compulsorily acquire land (or an interest in land) on behalf of a private sector infrastructure project. …
The Minister must be satisfied that such an order would be in the public interest and must give affected landowners an opportunity to comment on the proposed order. The Governor’s order must be approved by both houses of Parliament.
However, this power only applies to infrastructure in connection with the provision of services to “the public or a section of the public”.
Again we go back to Premier Bartlett’s statement of May 29
“For any infrastructure project to receive government funding, it will have to pass a strong public-benefit test,” he said.
And ex-Premier Lennon’s original statements about Launceston’s sewerage problems, more water for industry, agriculture and drinking water for George Town.
Whether intentionally or not the reframing of hugely expensive private infrastructure as necessary public infrastructure for ‘public benefit’ appears to allow any number of options for the Premier and the government or other authorities with regards to acquisition, funding and ownership
But back to the Northern Water and Sewer authority
So it can be safely assumed that the proposed Sewer and water Authority Board will have considerable powers as an acquiring authority and we also know that the northern authority will be the owner and manager of hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure.
Could a new authority, armed with a favourable consultant’s report as to the ‘benefits’ of a water pipeline from Trevallyn Dam to Bell Bay George Town borrow against the assets it holds to fund the construction of that pipeline?
It certainly seems the case that it could.
The eight Northern Tasmanian Councils will own the northern sewer and water authority, with equal shareholding, but the greatest equity will be held in Launceston’s infrastructure.
There will be a 6 member board which governs the three authorities however the chairperson and 3 directors will be common to all three boards. Only the remaining two directors will be specifically picked for the north.
Certainly you could imagine that the chairperson and directors of this new authority could play key roles in deciding the future of the proposed water and effluent pipelines and any public funding of them.
I will be taking a particular interest in the progress and recruitment issues surrounding the new authority over the next 12 months as I find it inconceivable that a priority for any water and sewer authority would be the construction and ownership of what is clearly a private project for shareholder profit.
Of course there might be benefits that flow from piping water along the East Tamar but at what cost to the community?
What about the opportunity cost of spending $80 – $100 million on water and effluent pipelines rather than on far more pressing sewer and water issues that will yield long terms benefits,
Any Sewer and Water Authority would surely look at Launceston’s ageing combined stormwater and sewer systems and put them first on the list for repair and replacement to stop the occasional surges into the Tamar.
The days of limitless fresh water for all are over, climate change is here to stay and in the drying north of Tasmania we need to be treating water and our water catchments with far greater respect.
Surely in the 21st century the tens of millions of dollars that are talked of being poured into this project would be better spent developing and installing the most efficient water recycling systems and water efficiency measures into our homes, businesses and industries.
Spent on developing domestic and industrial water and effluent systems that need little or no infrastructure but are closed loop, statements of sustainability that lead the nation in their innovation and efficiency.
Won’t this attract the best and brightest people to work on our infrastructure challenges and isn’t that the way forward for the Tamar Valley?
Jeremy Ball, Greens Alderman, Launceston City Council
