See also:

Penneshaw sewerage dam safety questions need an answer — Cr Liu 2013.09.13

Penneshaw : the LGA CWMS committee (2013.03.25) is not prepared to subsidise the full scheme

Penneshaw threatened by proposed sewage dam — Knight, Shirley, 2013.03.03

 

Att. Kangaroo Island Council CEO, Mr Andrew Boardman

Subject   Submission re Penneshaw CWMS Project

RE:   PROPOSED WASTE-WATER TREATMENT PLANT FOR PENNESHAW CWMS

Dear Mr Boardman,

We have the following concerns about the proposed CWMS project for Penneshaw.

1.     THE CONTENTIOUS DAM.

The present site is at Cheopis Street and The Lane in the township of Penneshaw.  The dam is for a 13.5 Ml capacity.   The design indicates other dams to be constructed in the future.  The council chose this design because it believes that sometime in the future they would like to expand the scheme to the whole town.   The Local Government Association Management Committee charged with designing and Project managing the scheme resolved that they were not prepared to subsidise the whole town but accepted to subsidise a smaller section of the town that is the CBD, Levels area, and school plus a few adjacent properties.  There will be 135 connections which would only require a dam with only 5 Ml capacity.

 

The LGA Committee also stated there should be “compelling evidence” of the need to expand.   As ratepayers we will also be seeking that evidence if an expansion is suggested at a later date.   In my view locking in the extra cost of infrastructure for say ten to twenty years would not be cost effective and a waste of council’s resources.   Our operating deficit of $4,000,000 should inhibit the council from spending any more than is absolutely necessary.
Our population growth is estimated at around seven people on average per year. (Census 2011)

Additionally, by the time we need to expand the scheme other cheaper options which are more cost effective and more environmentally friendly will be available.   The science is already here but the take up by governments is lagging behind.
For example Dr Jeff Foley’s study shows carbon emissions from deep sewer systems are very much higher than first thought   Worm and micro-organisms as a means of eliminating effluent and leaving the cleaned effluent to irrigate gardens, ovals and parks etc.  This is life changing and is here now.   On block self-management should be one of those options in the future for Penneshaw.   The community has not been requested to have a say about this project now six years in progress and it is probably why it has not been completed now.
There has been an unusual determination by this council to stick to the approved 100 years old technology in septic systems.

2.    LOCATION:

The Dam will be a blot on a significant landscape of Penneshaw.  It will be in view of people arriving by ferry.

Residents will be looking down on it from Cheopis Street and above it in a northerly direction; in fact it will be visible from most directions.  Is this what was envisaged for Penneshaw when the 10 year strategic plan was published?

The most concerning problem is the construction of an earth dam on a hillside in this location and should there be a catastrophic event such as a flood or even a significant earthquake… There have been low Richter scale events this year (Kangaroo Island is on a fault line).   Neither of these things can be ruled out.

Dam wall failure is also a threat to residents below the dam.  The flow of water could lead to loss of properties along its path and life could be threatened.   It is not good practice to construct a large earth dam at such a location with residences below and any risk to life and property is not worth taking just because it may be a little cheaper.

During the Public Consultation one map of the dam site had an insert (very small font) in relation to the Engineer’s liability to any person using the said maps.   However, this map was replaced by another map which did not include the non-liability notice.  The impact of this omission not being corrected by informing the ratepayers in person or by mail of the amendment could be significant in terms of insurance.

3.    ALTERNATIVE SITE?

In our view there is no doubt that other sites should have been thoroughly considered on a cost, community, and environmental basis.  In fact the CEO made a sole judgement on which only one of three sites were recommended to Councillors with apparently no such analysis; according to his report.

There is another site a short distance out of town at the junction of Willoughby Road and Charing Cross Road.
A)  This land does not have the same hillside problem.
B)  It is agricultural land without residences being able to view the dam or threat of dam break.
C)  It is adjacent to the Council Depot.
D)   It will be buffered by native vegetation on the Willoughby Road side.  There are no Casuarina trees to make it a problem for the glossy-black cockatoo.

4.    GLOSSY-BLACK RED-TAILED COCKATOO

Calyptorhynchus lathami halmaturinus (common name: glossy-black red-tailed cockatoo) is a Matter of National Environmental Significance and will trigger an application of the EPBC Act.  An Environment Assessment would place this bird in high order of the obligation and responsibility of the Council in its decisions to the proposed CWMS in Penneshaw.  I understand that the Council has made an approach to the Department of Environment in Canberra, however the community have not been informed of the outcome of their enquiries.

PRECEDENTS
The council’s original CWMS proposal was to use the land on Binney’s track not far from the current location and there was a rejection of this land for a CWMS development by the Department of the Environment due to it being a habitat of the Glossy Black Cockatoo.  It is surprising that the Council has remained silent on the possibility of this current land being rejected because of the presence of the Glossy Black Cockatoo.

The land adjacent to the Council Depot mentioned above would need to be investigated as a habitat for the Glossy Black but on viewing, there is not much evidence of casuarina trees on that site.

 

In conclusion I believe, for the reasons mentioned above, the CWMS Project for Penneshaw should be deferred until all these matters are addressed to the satisfaction of the community who are responsible for the cost of this project and their duty of care for the environment of Penneshaw.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to inform the person chosen to conduct the Prudential Review and also the Panel carrying out the investigation for the Department of Planning.  I wish to present my submission in person if members of the community are allowed.

 

Yours sincerely,

Shirley Knight

Lot 69 Frenchmans Terrace,
Penneshaw SA 5222
Phone 0885531115
Email   randsk@bigpond.com

Jeff Foley’s study can be sent on request.