Author: Neville

  • Methane capture halves DCC’s carbon footprint

    Methane capture halves DCC’s carbon footprint

    Home » News » Dunedin

    Sat, 22 Dec 2012
    News: Dunedin | DCC

    0 0 ShareThis

    Turning methane gas into electricity at the Green Island landfill has helped the Dunedin City Council slash its carbon footprint in half.

    Figures released by the council yesterday showed its carbon emissions had been cut by an estimated 56% in two years, from 71,231 tonnes a year to about 31,000 tonnes a year.

    Council finance and resources general manager Athol Stephens said in a statement the landfill’s methane-capturing project was the ”major” contributor to the result, alongside efforts to cut electricity and LPG use.

    Under the landfill initiative, methane gas generated by the landfill’s contents was captured and used to generate electricity, rather than being allowed to escape into the atmosphere. .

    However, other initiatives were also being considered to further reduce the council’s carbon footprint, he said.

    That could include reducing the council’s use of diesel fuel and cutting back on flights taken by council staff. Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull said reducing non-renewable energy use was the key to addressing climate change, and public bodies had a responsibility to lead the way.

    The initiatives would also help ensure Dunedin moved towards achieving ”energy resilience”, he said.

    The council was among the first in New Zealand to measure its carbon footprint and, in October, received independent verification – from carboNZero Holdings Ltd – its emissions had been measured correctly.

    ”This has provided an important line in the sand by which we can measure improvements in the future,” Mr Stephens said.

    – chris.morris@odt.co.nz

    » Login or register to post comments
    Printer-friendly version

    A name, residential address, and (preferably residential) telephone number is required from readers who comment on ODT Online. These details will not be visible to site visitors.

    Carbon release?

    Submitted by MikeStk on Sat, 22/12/2012 – 7:07pm.

    When the DCC burns the captured methane what do they do with the resulting CO2?

    I suspect they release it into the atmosphere – the amount of carbon being released is probably about the same, though of course CO2 is a much less dangerous greenhouse gas than methane, burning it is a good thing – still not better than releasing neither of them.

  • Floating heliport plan put on hold

    Floating heliport plan put on hold

    Date December 22, 2012 – 5:16PM 101 reading now
    Read later

    Jonathan Swan

    Reporter

    View more articles from Jonathan Swan

    Follow Jonathan on TwitterEmail Jonathan

    inShare.
    Pin It
    Email article
    Print

    .

    Farcical … ‘If you put this into an episode of Yes Minister nobody would believe it,’ said Malcolm Turnbull. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
    Exclusive: Heliport approved without safety check

    The controversial Sydney Harbour floating heliport has been put on hold following a storm of criticism over the state government’s mishandling of the project.

    “Effective immediately, Newcastle Helicopters has put the project of the Sydney Harbour Floating Heliport on hold until further notice, in order to consider the feasibility of the operation going forward,” the company in charge of the heliport said through its PR agency on Saturday afternoon.

    “It is Newcastle Helicopter’s intention to address the relevant concerns and queries with thoroughly considered and accurate information, and is taking the appropriate steps to do so”.

    Advertisement

    Public anger has been rising for a month since the O’Farrell Government granted Newcastle Helicopters a licence to run unlimited flights from a barge on Sydney Harbour. It came to a head this week when federal opposition frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull labelled the project a “reckless” and “undemocratic” disgrace.

    The Deputy Premier Andrew Stoner announced the projecton November 20, but it soon attracted criticism.

    The agency responsible for approving the heliport, Roads and Maritime Services, granted the licence without consulting the community, doing an environmental impact statement, testing for noise or putting the plan out to tender. After an angry community meeting in North Sydney on Monday night, Newcastle Helicopters hastily arranged a noise test on Sydney Harbour to prove that the helicopters were as quiet as they said they would be.

    But embarrassingly for the company and for the government, Fairfax Media revealed that the “expert” employed to do the sound tests, Carl Holden of Airport Friendly Solutions, had never previously produced a noise report for helicopters. He also conceded that he had been wrong to describe himself as a member of the Australian Acoustics [sic] Society. The peak body, which is actually called the Australian Acoustical Society, told Fairfax Media Mr Holden has never been a member, although he used to subscribe to its magazine.

    The first ”noise assessment” report Mr Holden wrote for Newcastle Helicopters, the company planning to operate the heliport, has since been ridiculed by industry leaders and removed from the project’s website.

    Then on Saturday, Fairfax Media revealed that the government only thought to question the safety of the helicopter service two weeks after it had approved the licence.

    At 10am on Saturday about 100 opponents of the heliport met at the McMahons Point Community Centre to hash out their plan to stop the project.

    By 11am, motions had been passed, a resolution drafted, and a high-powered group called the Friends of Sydney Harbour had been formed.

    They include the federal opposition frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull, celebrated yachtsman and former lone round-the-world sailor, Ian Kiernan, the North Sydney mayor, Jilly Gibson, and many lawyers.

    Mr Turnbull said the heliport decision had descended into farce.

    ”They gave the licence, then they thought, gosh, there might be some aviation safety issues here. Dear me, we might write a letter to CASA [the Civil Aviation Safety Authority] and ask them about it. If you put this into an episode of Yes Minister nobody would believe it.”

    Asked what he thought about the announcement that the heliport was on hold, Mr Turnbull said: ”I am not sure what this announcement really means. But our position remains that the government should revoke the licence and if Newcastle Helicopters want to have a floating heliport in the harbour they should make an application that goes through proper planning processes.”

    The mayor of North Sydney, Jilly Gibson, said: ”I commend James Guest and Newcastle Helicopters for listening to the community and responding so quickly.”

    The Premier, Barry O’Farrell, is still avoiding responsibility for the heliport debacle and deflecting questions to the Deputy Premier’s office, even though the licensing agency, Roads and Maritime Services, reports to Roads and Ports minister Duncan Gay. Minister Gay’s office is also referring questions to the Deputy Premier.

    Mr Stoner said through a spokesperson that ”Newcastle Helicopters has advised the NSW Government that the Sydney Harbour Floating Heliport project has been put on hold, pending further discussions with relevant stakeholders”.

    Newcastle Helicopters could not be reached for comment.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/floating-heliport-plan-put-on-hold-20121222-2bsep.html#ixzz2FlT2vyhk

  • Politicians never learn, and so they keep on promising

    Politicians never learn, and so they keep on promising

    Date December 22, 2012 Category Opinion 14 reading now
    Read later

    Lenore Taylor

    Chief Political Correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald

    View more articles from Lenore Taylor

    Follow Lenore on Twitter

    inShare.
    Pin It
    Email article
    Print
    Reprints & permissions

    .

    Illustration: michaelmucci.com

    If politicians learn one thing from this sorry Parliament it must surely be not to make promises they can’t keep.

    You’d think they’d have figured this out after Bob Hawke’s 1987 campaign launch promise that by 1990 no Australian child would need to live in poverty, an impossible pledge he has said is one of his biggest regrets.

    But since 2010 the government has proved that rash promises – far from reassuring and convincing voters – can disastrously distract from the merits of what it has been doing.

    Julia Gillard’s broken promise that there would be ”no carbon tax under a government I lead” has helped undermine her legitimacy and authority as leader and the sensible policy rationale of the carbon price she succeeded in introducing.

    Advertisement

    It was made when she was still saying she would introduce an emissions trading scheme at some stage, which she must have known was likely to start with a fixed price, that is, a tax.

    And when in 2010 Treasury projected the budget would be back in surplus by 2012-13, the Gillard government rashly turned that projection into a ”come hell or high water” guarantee, repeated with increasing forcefulness over the ensuing 2½ years (the Coalition can provide the full quotes list, in fact it tweeted most of them on Thursday).

    Given that Treasury projections are just that – projections – and often end up being wrong, or buffeted by unforeseen events, it was crazy not to add some kind of caveat.

    Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey are perfectly justified to hold Labor to account for this. Yes, revenue did not meet Treasury’s projections. Yes, the government did absolutely the right thing to concede it would be counter-productive to still try to achieve the surplus with the economy slowing and revenue falling. And possibly they could have spent less on stimulus during the financial crisis or cut spending more in the budgets delivered since. But as things stand, trying to deliver a surplus next year would be a destructive triumph of politics over good economic management.

    But voters are entitled to be cynical, especially since senior ministers kept repeating the ”Labor will achieve a surplus” script even when everyone knew it was nonsense and right up to the point when Wayne Swan’s announcement delivered them with a new one. And that cynicism clouds the economic arguments that support the decision the government has made.

    (Changing script has been a problem for Labor historically. Remember when the global financial crisis hit and Labor couldn’t even say the word ”deficit” – leading to this ludicrous November 2008 7.30 Report exchange.

    Kerry O’Brien: Will you accept going into deficit, if you have to, to maintain appropriate stimulus of the economy under the threat of recession and high unemployment?

    Wayne Swan: Kerry, it would be silly to speculate along the lines of your question.

    Kerry O’Brien: Why?

    Wayne Swan: Because I’ve made it clear. We are projecting modest growth and modest surpluses but if the situation were to deteriorate significantly, it would have an impact on our surpluses and it may well be the case that we could end up in the area that you’re speculating about.

    Kerry O’Brien: Well, say it. In a deficit.

    Wayne Swan: I am not going to say it, because we’re projecting modest surpluses Kerry.

    Two weeks later then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd finally said the ”d” word.

    So scared was Labor of the political ramifications of running a deficit that it prefaced every mention of ”deficit” with the word ”temporary”. And that’s why it seized on Treasury’s 2010 forecast for a surplus in 2012-13, which is how it ended up in such a bind.)

    But this week’s decision might just free us up to have a sensible economic and policy debate in the lead-up to next year’s election.

    Instead of fiddling around looking for tricky ways to create the illusion of a surplus, Labor can concentrate on how it intends to encourage growth, protect employment and pay for the promises it has made on education in response to the Gonski Review and the introduction of a national disability insurance scheme.

    And instead of taking the Annie Oakley approach (anything you can do I can do better) by promising bigger surpluses than Labor come what may, the Coalition can simply calculate the budget position it will be in after all the spending and saving policies it will unveil in an election year.

    To be fair, Joe Hockey has been careful to say that the Coalition’s surplus promise was ”based on current forecasts”. And it now seems more likely that forecasts for future financial years, when a Coalition Government would be delivering budgets, will also be revised. That means his sensible caveats might end up coming in handy.

    Which brings us to two promises made in the dying days of 2012 which politicians should be absolutely held to in 2013.

    The first was from Julia Gillard.

    In one of her final interviews for the year with the ABC’s Sabra Lane, the Prime Minister said the Australian people would ”see from us every cent for Gonski and the National Disability Insurance Scheme over the forward estimates and they’ll see more than that. They’ll see us detail a long-term funding strategy. We will be absolutely transparent with the Australian people. Budget forecasts properly done, Treasury forecasts, all the rest of it, every dollar, every cent and a long-term funding strategy.”

    The promise of a major long-term funding strategy is a huge one, since the disability reforms will cost at least $8 billion a year when fully running and the Gonski reforms ramp up to an annual cost of $6.5 billion.

    The second promise was from Joe Hockey, who said this, as he explained that the Coalition’s surplus promise was ”based on current forecasts”.

    ”We are not going to deliver overblown rhetoric and set benchmarks that cannot be met,” he said.

    A very Merry Christmas to that.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/politicians-never-learn-and-so-they-keep-on-promising-20121221-2brc1.html#ixzz2FjfZ1HyX

  • Letter: Fear and loathing on sea level rise BAY POST

    Letter: Fear and loathing on sea level rise Save

    Dec. 21, 2012, 10:13 a.m.

    .
    Coastwatchers seems to have inveigled council’s old guard into an ill-considered clutching onto its interim sea level rise policy (Bay Post, December 12).

    See your ad here

    Their argument is that sea level rise needs to be taken seriously and that council needs a sea level rise policy.

    As a scientist I agree that sea level rise needs to be taken seriously.

    I even agree that council should have a policy, although most other NSW coastal councils don’t yet share this view.

    But what we have in the Eurobodalla is the wrong approach.

    Coastwatchers and council’s old guard don’t seem to be able to understand that there can be more than one sea level rise policy.

    Nor do they seem to grasp that the current one, with its “fear and loathing” approach of simply running away in the face of seal level rise, is the wrong foundation for its policy.

    For example, it appears that Councillor Harding has been frightened into clinging to the current policy by the flooding in the CBD during the storm in June.

    However, the CBD is effectively excluded from the policy.

    As David Lambert pointed out in his letter (Bay Post, December 14), the State Government changed sea level rise legislation because some councils were taking a rather apocalyptic approach to their planning for it.

    The government seminar held in Batemans Bay only a few short weeks ago made it abundantly clear that a more measured “risk management” approach was required.

    Perhaps the council old guard weren’t listening.

    See your ad here

    The new guard were. That’s why they moved to repeal the old policy. That’s why they were overwhelmingly elected and the old council thrown out.

    But perhaps the old guard, and the new and old mayors in particular, don’t understand that either.

    John Rice, Long Beach

    .
    ..

    Post as …

    Image

    .

    Sort by popular now Sort by best rating Sort by newest first Sort by oldest first

    Showing 0 comments

    M Subscribe by email
    S RSS
    .

    Latest News

    Ponting prepares

  • Sydney Airport II

    Sydney Airport II

    Date December 21, 2012 – 11:47PM 14 reading now
    Read later

    After years of inaction, there’s a renewed push for an airport in Sydney’s west, write Jacob Saulwick and James Robertson.

    inShare.
    Pin It
    Email article
    Print
    Reprints & permissions

    .

    Waiting game … houses in Badgerys Creek. Photo: Ben Rushton

    The promise of a rural life brought Pauline Rowe to Badgerys Creek about 16 years ago. Now that lifestyle seems under threat, but from what she cannot say.

    “It could be the airport, it could be development,” she says.

    “It will feel like the urban area is chasing after us.”

    In support … businessman Tarik Houchar at his Merrylands shop. Photo: Ben Rushton

    Badgerys Creek, in far-west Sydney, sits between Penrith and Campbelltown, and about 20 kilometres to the east of Liverpool. By Sydney standards there is not much there, even now.

    Advertisement

    When Rowe moved there in the late 1990s, she remembers a “ghost town”. Back then, the debate about building an airport in the area was in full swing. Rowe, though, had grown up in St Peters, and a hypothetical runway did not worry her, even if later plans that would have meant an airport running through her living room did.

    But nothing happened, the airport did not get built, and Rowe is now planning a second house on her block for her daughter.

    Against flight plans … Pauline Rowe. Photo: Ben Rushton

    “The wheel turns slowly; that’s why we’re not putting it off any more. If you sit and wait, things just don’t happen.”

    Rowe, however, is making those plans just as a push to build a new airport is starting up again.

    The talk is being fuelled by the impending crisis of capacity at Sydney Airport, and the desire, stronger now than at any time in the tortuous history of the second airport debate, to do something large to bring jobs and industry to Sydney’s west.

    “The search for Sydney’s second airport site has concluded with the selection of Badgerys Creek . . . Because of the thoroughness of this work and the fact that 40 years of indecision by previous governments has been brought to an end, I am confident of a broad measure of support for our decision.”

    Those were the words of the federal aviation minister Peter Morris in 1986. Morris’s statement led off a glossy brochure titled “The Decision” that committed the Hawke government to build another Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek.

    That decision, of course, never amounted to much.

    The governments of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating locked in behind Badgerys Creek and purchased the 1700-hectare site, just to the north of where Rowe lives. But they never built the airport.

    In 1989, the Hawke government instead decided to build a third runway at Sydney Airport, a decision at odds with the one on Badgerys Creek, and one that in several ways would make it so much more difficult to build an airport in western Sydney.

    Mascot’s third runway opened in 1994 to benign predictions of increased airport noise.

    These predictions were wildly optimistic.

    Almost immediately, dramatically increased noise levels across large parts of Sydney’s inner west, inner north and eastern suburbs sparked one of the most effective single-issue political campaigns in recent history.

    The No Aircraft Noise party, founded in 1995, peaked at the state elections that year. The party’s candidate won almost a quarter of the primary vote and 40 per cent of the two-party preferred vote in Marrickville.

    In Port Jackson, since renamed Balmain, the No Aircraft Noise candidate won about 20 per cent of the primary vote and 37 per cent of the two-party vote.

    But despite running candidates only in the inner west, the political momentum captured and fostered by No Aircraft Noise would also start to shape airport politics in the city’s greater west.

    In 1997, when a Badgerys Creek airport remained the stated policy of both major parties, 10 western Sydney councils chipped in tens of thousands of dollars each to start the Western Sydney Alliance.

    The alliance would spend the next couple of years commissioning reports and polls into the environmental and political folly of building an airport near Rowe’s house at Badgerys Creek.

    Some of these reports were written by Noel Child, an environmental and transport engineer. Child remembers the campaign as being driven by the desire to tap into the No Aircraft Noise enthusiasm. Aspiring Labor politicians, in particular, found they could get elected to council by taking a strong stand against a federal Coalition government and western Sydney airport. (These days, those political positions have reversed.)

    “Back before a third runway at Kingsford Smith, most of those councils actually supported an airport at Badgerys Creek,” Child says.

    “What changed the political landscape was the emergence of the No Aircraft Noise party and the fact that opposition to aircraft noise became a big dynamic in Sydney local government.”

    One of Child’s reports looked into the risk of a increase in air pollution from an airport at Badgerys Creek. He stands by the work, but “the reality on the environment risk . . . there was always a greater threat of getting the ground transport wrong than from an airport itself”.

    Sean Macken ran the campaign for Labor’s Andrew Refshauge in Marrickville in the 1995 election and today runs a planning consultancy. Macken agrees the politics of No Aircraft Noise did as much as anything to frame the debate on a western Sydney airport.

    “I can remember seeing all the mayors on billboards at Liverpool saying ‘Build Badgerys Now’,” Macken says.

    “When the third runway opened and the No Aircraft movement took off, suddenly all those mayors dived under the table.”

    (This interpretation is challenged by some. Hall Greenland, the No Aircraft Noise candidate for Port Jackson in 1995 and now the Greens candidate to stand against Anthony Albanese in Grayndler in next year’s federal election, says it is “hugely elitist” to think western Sydney residents would not have opposed an airport without the referred trigger of third runway angst.)

    But the alliance worked. In 2003, the federal transport minister John Anderson declared the Howard government had no plans for an airport in the city’s west.

    And, flailing around to boost an ill-fated leadership, Labor’s opposition leader Simon Crean and his transport spokesman Martin Ferguson overturned the party’s long-standing policy in support of a Badgerys airport.

    At the time, that decision met with howls of outrage by Albanese, the man who would become the present Transport Minister. But the policy stuck. Labor remains formally committed to not building an airport at Badgerys Creek.

    So what has changed? According to the federal government, the urgency of supplementing Sydney Airport has become more pressing.

    “Sydney needs a second airport, and it needs it sooner rather than later,” Albanese said this week.

    A study commissioned by him, but including Sam Haddad, the director-general of the NSW Department of Planning as co-chair, reported in March that by the end of the decade it would not be possible to fly any more planes in and out of Sydney Airport during the peak morning and evening periods.

    A proposal by the Premier, Barry O’Farrell, to increase the cap on flight movements from 80 to 85 at Sydney Airport, buys only a few years of extra capacity.

    Albanese has commissioned another study into Wilton, more than 80 kilometres from the city centre. But the expectation is that that study will deliver a negative verdict, leaving him with no choice but to try and reverse Labor’s policy on Badgerys Creek.

    And some councils and politicians in the region are once again preparing to back the idea of an airport in Sydney’s west.

    In 1999, David Borger was the mayor of Parramatta, one of the councils contributing funds to the anti-Badgerys campaign.

    Borger, who went on to become the roads minister in the Keneally government, now works for the Sydney Business Chamber as its western Sydney point-man, and is an enthusiastic backer of a Badgerys Creek airport. Last week, he helped organise a meeting with western Sydney councillors and business people to hear the merits of a proposal.

    The meeting was addressed by Barry Murphy, the former chief executive of the Federal Airports Corporation, and Chris Brown, an adviser on the recent joint report.

    Both Murphy and Brown back an airport for its economic stimulus. Murphy is enthusiastic about the creation of a “Sydney West Airport Partnership” to update the voluminous work already prepared into a proposal for Badgerys Creek.

    Tarik Houchar is the type of western Sydney resident the partnership would appeal to.

    The 24-year-old started his company, Hijab House, 2 years ago and owns stores in Bankstown and Merrylands, filled with blue and silver headscarves for the fashion-conscious Islamic woman.

    “Young Muslim girls had nothing to wear: we’ve filled that gap,” Houchar says.

    “In Australia, the hijab has become a commodity like any other item of clothing. There’s a constant need for new [designs].”

    Houchar spends $50,000 a year on freight, bringing headscarves from China. Like many businesses in western Sydney’s $83 billion economy, his depends on freight.

    “Shipping out to Smithfield or Bankstown or Merrylands is very expensive,” he says. “A second airport would open a lot of possibilities.”

    On Child’s reasoning, the prospects of an airport in the west could be determined as much by the state of the economy as anything else.

    “In the 15 years when that opposition to an airport was at its peak, that was at quite a buoyant stage in the Australian economy,” Child says.

    But the area has de-industrialised, becoming more dependent on freight and transport than manufacturing.

    “Everything that was a factory is now a warehouse, and people are a little nervous,” he says.

    Houchar, for instance, travels to China about four times a year and is negotiating with a new supplier in India. He takes advantage of cheaper fares but the cost of a cab to Sydney Airport from his Guildford home can run up to $100. An airport at Badgerys Creek would be more convenient for his personal travel and his online store.

    “We expect things faster and quicker, yet the . . . city hasn’t caught up with that,” he says.

    Councils in the area are responding to these sorts of arguments. The Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils had been a vocal opponent of an airport; it will review its position in February.

    One of the leaders of the 1990s campaign against Badgerys Creek was Allan Ezzy, a former mayor of Holroyd Council. Ezzy insists an airport remains a political killer.

    “Any sitting members who opposed it would be done dinners at the next election,” he says.

    But the mayor of Holroyd, Liberal Ross Grove, is now a backer.

    “There is no question in my mind that construction of a Sydney West Airport would serve as a catalyst to local job creation – in aviation, in logistics, the visitor economy and high-tech industries,” Grove says.

    “Every morning we see a massive exodus of our workforce head down the M4 to other areas of Sydney to work. It is as if each year the CBD gets further out of reach for people in Western Sydney – we need to bring these jobs closer to home,” he says.

    Ned Mannoun, the new Liberal mayor of Liverpool, is having a bet each way. “As council spokesperson, I have to go with council’s position, which is that we are against the airport,” Mannoun says.

    But he is open to “having a discussion about the airport”.

    “We need commitments to bring jobs out here.”

    Above all, he says the area needs certainty. “We are going to build 50,000 homes on the doorstep of Badgerys Creek. People need to hurry up and make a decision.”

    The foundation director of the urban research centre at the University of Western Sydney, Phillip O’Neill, offers a word of caution. He would support a western Sydney airport, but only if it was conceived of as part of an “aerotropolis” of distribution centres, logistics parks, convention and exhibition centres, hotels and entertainment, and sporting complexes for the area promising good jobs.

    “If all it is is two runways and some sheds, you are being sold a pup,” he says.

    At Badgerys, the ghost town has been stirring. On the airport site, the federal government-owned homes remain frozen in time, backing onto empty paddocks bound by barbed wire.

    But a couple of kilometres south, developers have been busy. On Medich Place, there are vast mansions with security cameras and fountains.

    “It will definitely lose its rural appeal,” Rowe says.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/sydney-airport-ii-20121221-2brn3.html#ixzz2Fj9O4YdI

  • The great water wait of 28 years

    The great water wait of 28 years

    Vikki Campion
    The Daily Telegraph
    December 22, 201212:00AM

    Increase Text Size
    Decrease Text Size
    Print
    Email
    Share

    Pirrama Park at Pyrmont / Pic: Phil Rogers Source: The Daily Telegraph

    A PROJECT to put a recycled water tank under a Sydney harbourside park has received strong criticism because it will take around three decades to make a return to ratepayers.

    Sydney City Council wants to install a 200kL storage tank and irrigation equipment worth $577,000 underneath Pirrama Park at Pyrmont, allowing for 80 per cent of its irrigation needs to be met with recycled water.

    But a report to council showed the cumulative savings of the original capital would not be met until the 2036-37 financial year, with the return on investment not kicking in until the financial year 2039-40.

    Despite the project being tipped to save 7.94 megalitres of water per year, Liberal councillor Edward Mandla is a critic.

    He said if he was a door-to-door salesman offering a return in 28 years “people would call Fair Trading”.

    He said recycled water seemed like a good idea but councillors had been shocked to learn it would take 28 years to pay back.

    Council reports said savings of $577,00 would be achieved after a 25-year period.

    “Overall payback period inclusive of the operating costs is 28 years. The design life of the tanks is expected to be 50 years,” it said.

    Council CEO Monica Barone said infrastructure investment with a long life generally took longer to see pay back.

    “It’s difficult to defend not doing a water-saving project,” she said.

    “It’s a policy decision. I think that recycling water is something people have come to respect.”

    Councillor John Mant said Sydney’s forefathers didn’t have four- to seven-year payback periods when they built the Harbour Bridge.

    He said it was an investment in fundamental infrastructure, not borrowing for a purely financial purpose.