EPA puts Wannon Water under the pump over ocean outfall
Carol Altman – The Terrier
Happy news: I am supposed to be taking a break…but there has been a breakthrough with the fight to stop Wannon Water’s plans to continue to pour effluent into our ocean off Thunder Point for the next 20 years.
Before this $40m, more-of-the-same project goes any further, the EPA has asked WW to provide a whole raft of extra, expert detail on, among other things:
1. Public Health Concerns, including assessing pathogens in the wastewater and the impact of humans being exposed to these bacteria and viruses in the ocean, including through seafood.
2. A health risk assessment of the ‘dirty decants’ (like that pictured) where solids and untreated waste water are released into the ocean.
3. Marine discharge concerns, including phosphorous levels.
4. Treatment process concerns, including the dirty decants that the EPA agrees have happened “multiple times in the past two years” and how these will be prevented.
5. Preventing the discharge of microplastics and;
6. Responding to each of the 83 public submissions received on this proposal, of which 78 were against the plan as it stood.
The fight is not over, but my word, this is a victory for the voices and for Colleen Hughson’s bravery in the face of immense corporate pressure, and for all of those people who took the time and effort to say ‘not good enough’ to Wannon Water.
We care about our ocean and we don’t want some cheap option that “will do” for the next 20 years.
Industry needs to sort out its own pollution and not expect to use Thunder Point as a dumping ground, or they should pay more toward making sure this is a first class/tertiary treatment plant that disposes only clean water into the sea.
Our kids and grandkids will thank us for this fight.
(If you haven’t watched the community video yet, tonight is the night. Most people have/had no idea what is happening out there near Shelly Beach, but they do now.)
Enclosed harbour expensive, risky and unnecessary: letter
Way back when: Warrnambool’s Lady Bay has been subject to many ‘calming’ measures over the years, all of which have had significant environmental impacts – now the push is on to build a fully enclosed harbour. (Image: Victorian State Library)
[box] The Warrnambool City Council is getting closer to making a decision on how to improve boat launching facilities at the breakwater, with increasing political pressure to build a fully enclosed harbour. Bruce Campbell explains why this is the worst option:[/box]
By Bruce Campbell
Leader, Warrnambool Coastcare Landcare Group
Member of Safer Launching & Retrieval of Boats Community Reference Group
[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color: #A02F2F;”] ‘C[/dropcap]r Brian Kelson’s call to construct a fully enclosed harbour flies in the face of the very thorough consultation process that he himself was involved in.
One section of the boating community is conveniently ignoring the facts and aggressively lobbying councillors in order to pursue their self-interest.
The Safer Launching and Retrieval of Boats project is about precisely that: finding a way to launch and retrieve boats more safely.
It is not about spending millions of taxpayer dollars on a pipe dream to try to steal some of Portland’s competitive advantage. I hate to break the bad news but Portland’s deepwater harbour and proximity to fishing grounds will always outcompete Warrnambool.
The project is also not about floating restaurants (yes, this has seriously been proposed) or the floating seasickness medical centres that would then be required beside them. The project is not about creating mayhem on Pertobe Road with queues of cars and boat trailers preventing locals and non-fishing tourists from enjoying Lake Pertobe and the foreshore.
The project is also not about choosing the most expensive and environmentally risky option – a fully enclosed harbour – rather than the cheapest but completely practical option – installing a larger, cleverly designed boat ramp that reduces wave surge and ongoing dredging.
According to the project’s technical advisory group, this simple option will successfully provide safer boat launching and retrieval for 90% of the time. 90% also happens to be the proportion of time that ocean conditions make it safe enough for boats to leave the harbour.
The proposed enclosed harbour: one of three options under consideration for the Warrnambool breakwater. Image: Warrnambool City Council.
[dropcap style=”font-size: 60px; color: #A02F2F;”] ‘C[/dropcap]oastcare groups, less vocal sections of our boating community and many passive recreational users of the harbour area do not want to see a fully or partially enclosed harbour for a range of reasons. Many fishers also do not want to see this because they understand the potential environmental impacts on fish numbers.
There are serious concerns with the unknown long term impacts of new breakwaters on beach erosion and sand movement and with the likely introduction of marine pest species to Merri Marine Sanctuary via increased numbers of boats and trailers. There are many examples of this occurring after harbour developments, including at Apollo Bay where the nearby marine sanctuary is now threatened by an invasive pest.
Our Merri Marine Sanctuary protects a very large number of significant plants and animals and it produces a large quantity of fish that supports recreational and professional fishing. For example, on a calm day professional lobster fishers know to set their pots just outside the sanctuary for good catches. Putting this at risk would be a very poor and shortsighted decision.
The minimal development option will provide safer boat launching and retrieval, will allow the sailing community to continue their activities unhindered, will not destroy the wider community’s enjoyment of our wonderful Lake Pertobe and foreshore area, will cost less taxpayer’s money and will be the least environmentally risky.
And finally, for those who love to just sit in the car at the harbour carpark and look across Lady Bay, you won’t lose your view.”
