When SWAMP met with the EPA and council last week, the Merimbula News Weekly was invited along to observe.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
No doubt many of the viewpoints and ideas around the room have been spoken about at length in committee meetings, over a beverage, or in council offices, but it was enlightening to have them all distilled into the one room for a couple of hours though.
No doubt this is a sticky situation - and perhaps a little smelly.
Pumping treated effluent into our ocean seems an entirely outdated solution to an age-old problem. However, it may also be the most cost-effective for the council in the short term. But given the talk around the table last Tuesday there are far greater issues at stake than the current council budget.
Water is undeniably a valuable resource. That we are considering pumping it into the ocean rather than looking to repurpose it seems counterintuitive. Even more so when taking into account the council's own climate resilience strategy.
The strategy sets out seven areas of response: protecting our natural systems; preparing for natural hazards; liveable and connected places; safe, active and liveable communities; diverse and thriving economy; energy security; and food security. You could argue the effluent ocean outfall, or an alternative use, impacts all seven of those.
Among the speakers at last week's meeting were local farmers keen to invest in infrastructure if the council and state government allow treated effluent to be used on their farms; a long-time abalone diver who said the pristine nature of our coast is the best it's been in decades; the local recreational fishing club president who said it's "crazy" to be dumping good water into the ocean, especially so near the artificial reef - itself a project of the state government.
There was also a tourism spokesman who said the ripple effects of any potential reputational damage was incalculable should an ocean outfall fail. To be honest there's a degree of reputational damage in just having an outfall in the first place, let alone if it fails.
Think of the reputational boost - and long-term benefits - of being a region that repurposes its effluent to positive community effect, perhaps by helping our local farmers and food producers. We've turned around our thinking on food and organic "waste". Why can't we do the same with water?
The council is tied to EPA constraints and legislation, as was also outlined at the meeting, but it's a conversation worth continuing.