Funds for river, not recycling?

The above photo of me was taken this time last year during the unofficial federal election campaign. Yes, that is actually the Hawkesbury River under that carpet of weed. Unbelievably disgusting. How did we get rid of it? We never did get rid of it completely after hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on a harvester and toxic chemicals. Greens Councillor Williams and I said they were bandaid measures that did not attack the core problems.

What were the problems of the Hawkesbury River back then? Too many to list here but the major problems are: lack of fresh water flow as a result of drought and excessive water demand from humans; treated sewage pumped into the river; and agricultural (and other) runoff.

Some factors have changed, but not for the better: the State ALP Government has swiped funding to testing river quality AND cut the fresh water flow from the dams by 50%; and local developement has gone full speed ahead adding greater water demand and more residential runoff.

In this weeks Hawkesbury Gazette (click here) it was announced that the Hawkesbury River will get a massive injection of funds, to the tune of $14.1 million dollars. This is quite a sum of money and duly needed. In this articles it stated that the money will, 'treat the causes of our river's problems, not just the symptoms'. I hope so.

However, little was said how the money will be used to attack what causes. If the money was to attack the causes, it would me a dramatic change in the way we engage with the environment. For example, the first step would be the instillation of a sophisticated and extensive system of water recyclying and reuse. This is a big (but achievable) task. I doubt the $14.1m will be used for such a project. This is confirmed when the Gazette editor stated:

At the gathering, Riverstone MP John Aquilina expressed reservations about recycling, concerned too much would limit the amount of water returned to the river, but surely if Sydneysiders require less fresh water then there would be more of it flowing down the river?

Huh? The editor is quite right and Aquilina obviously has no idea what he is saying. The river has no chance when ignorance like this prevails in government.