Latest News

Add My News • Search Old News

Gippsland › Latest news › Craig Ingram

Committee Gets It Wrong On Melbourne’S Water Future: Ingram

The Independent Member for Gippsland East, Craig Ingram, has submitted a dissenting report to the Environment and Natural Resources Committee (ENRC)

By Craig Ingram - 12th June 2009 - Back to News

on its investiOn its investigations into Melbourne’s water supply future, which was tabled today in the Victoria Parliament.

In his report, Mr Ingram -- who is also deputy chair of the committee -- said that due to political views and sensitivities, the majority of the committee has avoided the hard questions and the best options for the next major water supply augmentation for Melbourne.

"I believe the committee has failed in its duty to provide the real and needed leadership and direction on Melbourne future water supply options," Mr Ingram said today.

"Most disappointing is that the committee has avoided making any recommendations or clear statements on purified recycled water for political reasons.

"Purified recycled water – also referred to as indirect potable reuse (IPR) -- stacks up as the best option for Melbourne’s future water supply.

"It is a safe, reliable secure water supply option; it uses less power than desalination; has much less environmental impact than dams; and is utilising a resource that currently causes a significant environmental problem in our oceans and bays.

"The committee found that Melbourne Water customers are already drinking purified recycled water through a number of direct waste water discharges into the Yarra River upstream of Melbourne’s water supply intakes.

"The committee, which also comprises of Labor, Liberal and National Party members, could not bring itself to counter the politics of recommending putting purified recycled water into Melbourne’s potable water supply, even though it’s already happening."

"Because of the failure of the committee to make solid recommendations on these issues I could not support the recycling chapter as it is a weak, incomplete section without any clear direction, finding or conclusion."

"Without adequately dealing with recycling, the report does not move the water debate forward in any positive manner."

Mr Ingram rejected the calls by the coalition members of the committee to build new dams for Melbourne’s water needs.

"They have completely ignored the evidence by prominent water experts and scientists," he said.

"In a response to a question from the committee on new dams, Professor John Langford (recognised as a leader in urban and rural water management reform) outlined the often proposed or potential sites for dams and why a new dam was not an acceptable or viable alternative to desalination or other major augmentation options.

"A number of groups used the inquiry to push for damming the Mitchell and other rivers in Gippsland.

"This is extremely disappointing, considering many of these groups are opposing the current government’s water plans, yet believe that damming a river like the Mitchell should be supported.

"The evidence submitted to the committee was clear -- dams are not the solution to Melbourne’s water needs, and would not be supported by Gippsland," Mr Ingram concluded.


Source: http://gippsland.com/

Published by: news@gippsland.com



Edit this news article




Related Articles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Baw Baw Bass Coast Cardinia East Gippsland Latrobe City South Gippsland Wellington
© 2001-2025 gippsland.com Print this page | Subscribe to Newsletter | Feedback / Inquiries | Login
Care has been taken in compiling the component parts of this website. However, Gippsland.com does not warrant or represent that the website is free from errors or omissions, that the qualifications claimed by an advertiser are valid or that the published details of any advertiser are as stated on the website. Please review the full statement of our Terms and Conditions of Service and disclaimer.