Please, Southern Water, answer these questions

I have been unable to uncover any evidence that due diligence has been part of the process undertaken by Southern Water for the Huon Valley Regional Water Scheme, which it is now constructing. The scheme is designed to supply mains water from the Huon River at Glen Huon (a few kilometres upstream from Huonville) to a total of about 2000 properties at Geeveston, Port Huon, Franklin and Cygnet; and to maintain the existing supply to Huonville (also about 2000 properties).

The scheme has been on the minds of some councillors and staff at the Huon Valley Council for years, but a formal proposal for it never came before council and it was never discussed with Huon Valley ratepayers and residents.

Nevertheless, during the 2007 federal election campaign, council staff gave a presentation on the proposed scheme to the ALP (ie, Julie Collins and Kevin Rudd) and subsequently $12 million of federal money was promised on condition the Huon Valley Council provided the balance, then estimated at $9 million.

In July 2009, while still in its planning stage, the scheme (with the $12 million federal money) was handed over to the newly established Southern Water, which is jointly owned by Tasmania’s 12 southern councils.

Under Right to Information legislation, I sought information from Southern Water. The answers I received late last year show that Southern Water:

— Does not have a business plan or any other information to demonstrate the viability for the Huon Valley Regional Water Scheme.
— Has done no research on alternatives to the scheme, such as improving existing local supplies.
— Has not investigated demand-reduction measures (eg, minimising leakage from existing old mains; detection and reduction of leakage from water mains and diversion of water for agricultural use; introduction of two-part pricing; and public education).

Water use in the Huon Valley

Mains water consumption in the Huon Valley has consistently been recorded at more than 700,000 litres per year per connection. This, amazingly, is twice the Tasmanian average. And no one seems to know where most of this water is used.

Water meters have been in place in Cygnet and other parts of the Huon Valley for about five years. However, water charges (above the fixed charge) start only when annual consumption is more than 350,000 litres per connection (about 1000 litres per day per connection).

Huon Valley Council’s 2008 ‘Project Plan’ for its scheme states that total water demand could be reduced by up to 50 per cent through metering and two-part water pricing; and that unaccounted-for water losses (presumably leakage from old water mains and diversion of water into agriculture) could be reduced by 20-30 per cent.

Why were these points raised in the council’s 2008 project plan for the scheme, then costed at $22,586,627, not thoroughly investigated by Southern Water before it began work on a scheme that is now estimated to cost at least $33 million? If these usage reductions had been achieved, would there have been a need for the Regional Water Scheme? If dramatic reductions are actually achieved through the scheme now being constructed, how can it be financially viable for Southern Water? Water utilities, just like power utilities, must sell more of their product and/or raise their prices, if they are to stay financially viable.

Cygnet has water storage of at least 210 ML (megalitres) in two dams on Grey Mountain, a natural environment almost wholly unaffected by human activity. This is a similar water storage to Bicheno’s recently opened 220ML dam, costing $1.5 million and providing “more than a year’s supply at average usage rates” for the 700 houses in Bicheno (Miles Hampton, chairman, Southern Water , Mercury March 18, 2011). Coincidentally Cygnet has around 700 houses on the existing water supply – but without Bicheno’s tourist influx in summer.

When the Regional Water Scheme (inherited from the Huon Valley Council by Southern Water and inplemented, apparently without question) comes into operation, treated water from the Huon River at Glen Huon will be pumped to Cygnet. Water quality in the Huon River at that point is affected by forestry activities, roading, aquaculture hatcheries (for which Environmental Protection Notices have been issued at various times), agricultural and horticultural run-off and septic tank overflows. How much of this contamination will be removed by conventional water treatment?

A business plan — including a cost-benefit analysis, exploration of local supply options (including hydrology of the Grey Mountain supply), and reduction in demand (through genuine two-part pricing and a local campaign to save water during dry periods) — would have provided vital information as to whether the commitment of at least $33 million of public money to this scheme is justified.

I ask these questions of Southern Water about the Huon Valley Regional Water Scheme:

— Why is there no business plan?
— How much water would be needed if the potential reductions in water use were achieved?
— If the reductions were achieved, would the existing local supply systems have then been adequate, especially in the case of Cygnet?
— With fewer than 5000 households serviced by the scheme, who is going pay for the final capital cost (at least $6600 per connection)?
— Who will pay for the maintenance of the infrastructure?
— Who will pay for the escalating cost of the electricity that will be needed to pump water over a total distance of more than 40km?

Please, Southern Water, answer these questions.