The development of a desalination plant on the Kurnell Peninsula represents the latest industrial development in the area and a continuing trend to view and treat Kurnell as “industrial land” rather than as the ecological, historical treasure that it is. This industrial development was marked by heavy opposition from the community, environmental groups and the State Opposition with protests beginning immediately after its proposal. This universal opposition from the environmental movement stemmed from concerns about the ecological impacts of its presence and construction, as well as the massive power consumption that would be needed to run it. There is also significant economic concern associated with this plant as the $1.9 billion construction fee and operational costs are likely to raise Sydney water prices. Despite this opposition the plant was constructed and is currently operating and producing up to 250 million litres of water each day which is being pumped to Erskineville and contributing to Sydney’s main water supply.
The impetus for such a project was NSW’s extended period of drought since 2001 which had led to water levels being deemed as critical and substantial water restrictions enforced. The decision was also influenced by similar developments in Perth (complete in 2006) and Victoria (due to be completed in 2012). Initial feasibility studies for this project began in 2005 with Kurnell ultimately selected as the preferred location (out of fourteen possible sites) based on the criteria that there was sufficient land space available, which was already zoned for industrial land and that its construction was in keeping with other industrial activity in the area. Additionally it was deemed a site that would keep construction costs and timing at a minimum and one “away from homes and schools”. Approval for this development was given in November 2006 with construction beginning in 2007 and the plant became operational in January 2010.
The desalination plant has been constructed in a pre-existing industrial zone which was already largely cleared of its natural vegetation prior to construction. However this site also contained 15 hectares of habitat containing endangered ecological communities which although being retained on the site will undoubtedly be affected by their proximity to the plant. These include the endangered Grey-headed Flying Fox colony, Green and Golden Bell Frog, Wallum Froglet and Large Footed Myotis, and important biodiverse landscapes that will be affected by noise pollution and any further clearing. Although Sydney Water has agreed to monitor and manage these concerns it is yet to be seen what the long term consequences of the plant’s construction will be on these species breeding patterns and life cycle.
In total the desalination plant occupies approximately 30ha of land, with 20ha of this being covered in impervious surfaces (such as buildings and roads) which will significantly increase the amount of run-off from the land and in turn affect nearby ecosystems (see http://kurnell.blogspot.com/2010/10/case-study-towra-point-in-focus.html). Despite the site being declared as “away from homes and schools” the plant is actually located on 750m away from Kurnell village and the local primary school is only 1km away. These details appear at odds with the conclusion that the site would have minimal impact on the community. Although during the post-construction period there are minimal noise, dust and traffic concerns these were a significant burden during its construction as was the giant sound barrier and construction walls established. There is also continuing visual pollution despite claims that the design of the buildings would integrate with the local landscape. These daily impacts on the community affect not only those in Kurnell but also the community at Bungendore where the Capital Wind Farm was developed to power the desalination plant. While this initiative is to be supported for addressing environmental concern about the increase in energy use that would have been associated with the plant, it has led to its own community protests and questions of injustice.
However it is predominantly the construction impacts that were of prime concern to scientists and environmentalists, including the impacts of constructing the undersea pipeline. Such concerns were expressed in a Sydney Morning Herald article in September 2007 at the time when construction had been underway for a few months:
“Construction and operation of the plant would threaten smaller creatures such as sponges, giant cuttlefish and weedy seadragons. The noise might force migrating whales further out to sea...’People think of Botany Bay as a bit of a wasteland but it really isn't,’ Dr Williamson said. ‘Juvenile nurseries of fish and associated fauna live in remnant patches of seagrass’, she said. ‘Two types of seagrass occur around there - one that recovers quickly and one that takes a long time to recover. This will be fairly impacted.’ Dr Williamson said the area around the plant's outlet tunnel, which would be used to deposit waste water after the desalination process, could also be affected. ‘There is a rocky reef with a really diverse range of invertebrates such as weedy seadragons. Effluent would be dispersed at this site that will have warm saline water that will be highly turbid with increased nutrients. A number of sea urchin species could be wiped out’, she said. ‘The other problem is the dredging associated with attaching the pipeline to the sea floor. It could resuspend sediments, stir them all up. There could be historic industrial waste that could cause transient pollution events.’ (http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/water-plant-we-might-not-need/2007/09/01/1188067429776.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1)There were also a number of concerns about the necessity of such a plant since by September 2007 dam levels had returned to almost 60% (well above the 30% level which was to be the impetus for construction). Indeed dam levels had never reached the 30% which the State Government would be required before the plant would be constructed. This drew further criticism about the real motive and necessity of its construction. More recently there have been criticisms from the fact that the minimum running time of the plant has been increased from the two year period indicated to the regulatory tribunal to at least four years at maximum capacity, producing 75 billion litres in 2010, 85 billion the next year and 90 million for the following two years. Also from the fact that Sydney Water has stated the plant will only operate when dam levels fell below 70-80%--a level which has not been reached in NSW since 2001. Thus by all indications this plant will be used nearly all the time, without proof it is needed, increasing water costs indefinitely.
Protests against this plant have occurred ever since it was first proposed back in 2005. Residents have throughout this time been concerned about the expense associated with the plant (which would raise water prices), the potential disruption of marine life from dredging in the bay to build pipelines, and their opinion that the plant is an unnecessary intrusion since dam levels were not near “emergency” levels. There was also significant concern about the associated increase in industrial presence in the area, with one resident stating that the area is “turning into an industrial quagmire” (Alan Shorton “‘Stop the Desal’ Protest”) and resentment that they had not been able to bring their concerns directly to Premier Iemma. A web page was set up by Kurnell residents during the campaign which demonstrates some of these concerns: http://www.kurnell.com/desalfacts.htm
 |
| Source: "Desalination protesters demand attention", ABC News |
 |
| Source: Desalination Protest Meeting, Nature Conservation Council of NSW |
It should be noted that Sydney Water did engage with stakeholders during the preparation of its Environmental Impact Statement, particularly with the various government departments concerned (including Department of Environment and Heritage, Department of Environment and Conservation, and Department of Primary Industry) and with local councils (the La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council and Sutherland Shire Council). It also sought to inform the community through television advertisements, distribution of community briefings to Kurnell residents and public presentations about desalination. The public was also invited to forward submissions in relation to the Environmental Assessment during the 71 days following its release on the 24th February 2005. However these consultation efforts predominantly focused on informing the community of the government’s decision rather than engaging with the community on whether the plant should be built in Kurnell. This lack of public consultation and participation reflects the continued promotion of industrial interests over communities and is further to blame for the unhappiness surrounding the proposal.
The long term ecological impacts of this project have not yet been reported as the plant is only in the early stages of its operation, however its economic costs have been noted. It was recently reported that the water produced by this plant costs approximately $2.24 per thousand litres compared to dam water which costs about 15 cents per thousand litres. It also consumes a significant amount of energy—on average between 3.5 and 4.3 kWh compared to dam water which uses 0.2 kWh—and although much of this is provided by a wind farm it is still a significant energy use. Put in perspective this means Sydney households will pay at least an extra $103 a year in water bills to pay for its construction.
Overall, the Kurnell Desalination Plant represents a project that received no support from residents or from green groups, was labelled as unnecessary considering that dam levels never reached the critical 30% and appears to be a purely political decision, in reaction to a perceived threat that did not eventuate, and which may possible undermine future water saving and recycling initiatives. Whilst the extent of environmental damage associated with this plant has not been fully reported it has certainly had an impact on the community through increased industrial presence and economic costs. It also reflects the continued opinion that community consultation of the viability of a plant and suitability of a site is unnecessary but can be wholly determined by government officials. Furthermore it shows a persisting belief that Kurnell is merely an industrial site not a place of historical, ecological, community and Indigenous significance, and the continuation of industrial development and imposition that has characterised the Peninsula since the Caltex Oil Refinery was constructed in the 1950s.
Sources
Bita, N 2010 "Water's quick fix a long term drain", The Australian, January 23, accessed 20 September 2010 <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/waters-quick-fix-a-long-term-drain/story-e6frg6z6-1225822734703>
Bita, N 2010 "Desal plants fuel hikes", The Australian, July 22, accessed 20 September 2010 <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/desal-plants-fuel-hikes/story-e6frg6nf-1225895299244>
Edwards, H 2007 "Scorched earth for water plant we might not need", Sydney Morning Herald, September 2, accessed 20 September 2010 <http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/water-plant-we-might-not-need/2007/09/01/1188067429776.html>
Jopson, D 2010 "Tilting at windmills: why failies are at war", Sydney Morning Herald, April 2, accessed 20 September 2010 <http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/energy-smart/tilting-at-windmills-why-families-are-at-war-20100401-ri4p.html>
Nature Conservation Council of NSW 2010, Desalination Protest Meeting, Nature Conservation Council of NSW, accessed 27 September 2010 <http://nccnsw.org.au/index.php?Itemid=890&id=1755&option=com_content&task=view>
Papadakis, M 2008 "Desal leads to a Great Wall of Kurnell", The Leader, February 21, accessed 20 September 2010 <http://www.theleader.com.au/news/local/news/general/desal-leads-to-a-great-wall-of-kurnell/501497.aspx>
Robins, B 2009 "Water plan rubs salt into ratepayers' wounds", Sydney Morning Herald, October 12, accessed 25 September 2010 <http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-plan-rubs-salt-into-ratepayers-wounds-20091011-gsdo.html>
Sydney Water 2005, Ch11: Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement, Planning NSW, accessed 27 September 2010 <http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/asp/pdf/chapter11.pdf>
Sydney Water 2005, Ch4: Construction of the plant at Kurnell, Planning NSW, accessed 27 September 2010 <http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/asp/pdf/05_0082_preferred_project_report_4_construction.pdf>
Sydney Water 2008, Annual Report 2008, Sydney Water, accesed 27 September 2010 <http://www.sydneywater.com.au/Publications/Reports/AnnualReport/2008/Performancereview/Water_efficiency.cfm>
Welch, D 2007 "Stop the desal protest", Sydney Morning Herald, July 3, accessed 20 September 2010 <http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/stop-the-desal-protest/2007/07/03/1183351162581.html>
2007 "Desalination protesters demand attention", ABC News, July 3, accessed 20 September 2010 <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/03/1968206.htm>
2010 "Sydney gets its first taste of desalinated water", ABC News, January 28, accessed 20 September 2010 <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/28/2803186.htm>
Very informative and authoritatively referenced.
ReplyDelete