The water park discussion has heated up in recent days.. it is great that we are finally starting to get some solid debate happening here. We will hold off on new topics for the moment. We kick in with the latest edition of Nancy Says from John Neve:
“We need the water park and more” Nancy Says. While having
an open mind on the matter, I do have some concerns regarding
the money involved. Nancy Says (12/4/08), $3 million has been
earmarked by the state government, her paper (9/4/08), tells us
the state government has “pledged $5 million”, what’s two million
you may ask. A lot of money to people in Tiaro or Woocoo who
now, via their rates will be asked to contribute.
Nancy Says the government has made it clear the money is
dependant on “one site only” being used! Surely if it’s built at all
it should go on the best site to obtain maximum benefit for the
community?
Whatever sum the state provides, should the park cost more,
where does the money come from? Ratepayers or, yes there is
an “or”. A meeting of tourist operators at Defino’s Resort who
“didn’t care where it goes, just get it going”, could always
contribute to an attraction they feel will benefit their businesses.
I am sure all future tourists, plus local users would appreciate
such a gesture from our local business community.
Enough of building things, why don’t we promote what we have.
The Bay, a playground for fishing, boating, windsurfing,
snorkelling, swimming etc. Do we promote these interests
enough? I’d say not, even our local fishermen are hard pressed
to find a launching place. Where do visitors park their boats
safely? Are there any venues that hire out surfboards, skis,
kites or snorkelling equipment? Do we have planned snorkelling
trips for beginners? How about a windsurfing championship?
Why go on? We have Chamber of Commerce and a Tourism
Board that discuss these issues over lunch.
John A Neve
Strewthisback writes: John, I feel there might have been a typo (surprised?) in the Chronicle if they used $3 million as a figure. To my knowledge the figure being tipped in by State Government has always been $5 million with the expectation of it being matched by council. $10 million would buy a pretty flash Water Park! However, community support is definitely there for the project and like libraries, sporting fields, parklands etc it will require public funding to maintain but the community benefit will inevitably be greater.
Positivity is desperately needed within the community to help us move forwards. Negative attitudes, narrow mindedness and lack of vision has held this region back for much to long and the sooner the community embraces the need for change the better. Change does come with a short term monetary cost however the long term financial gain to the community can be significantly more.
Ben,while I take your point re moving forwards. The term community to me means better than 50% of the population. Also the bulk of any tourist dollar should stay in our region. What impact will these pie in the sky ideas have on most residents? How much of the tourist dollar stays within our region and how much goes south of the border? Ben, I stand by what I have always said, ratepayers should not subsidize entrepreneurs. Unless 50% of residents benefit it’s not on and remmember we are a much larger region now.
WATER PARKS
$10M would see an artificial wetland system created in the Burgowan area, which could see 50% (9mgl) of Hervey Bays daily demand of ca 18 mgl, being brought back to 5 star potable quality. This is the equivalent of Lenthalls Dam having enough rainfall every day to produce 9 mgl of daily storage; this is enough to allow for a 50% increase in daily demand or an annual extension of the storage capacity of Lenthalls Dam to 50%.
This is enough for the retirees of Hervey Bay to not have serious restrictions.
This would then see the current growth levels maintained and would form an adequate ‘buffer’ against climate change projections of less rainfall and therefore less run off into Lenthalls Dam.
This would require of course the reduction in proposed plantations by WBW as this treated water would be made available for the repotable scheme.
The level of Global accolades which would come to the entity which creates this project would be far in excess of the ‘back slapping ‘from the creation of a water park.
The Great Sandy Marine Park combined with the Great Sandy Ramsar Wetland, are 2 of the worlds greatest ‘water parks’, right here, right now and the remediation of treated water via an artificial wetland system, rather than discharging it into these ‘saline water parks’, would be seen as a demonstration of sustainable management of the Marine sections of the Fraser Coast Biosphere.
It would be remiss of the Queensland government to invest in a terrestrial water park, in the Ministers electorate while the quality of the Marine Parks, which they are charged to protect, continue to be degraded.
It should be included as part of the Widebay Burnett Water Supply Strategy.
From my observations over the past 37 years either from near or afar, it has always seemed to me that the major reasons this area has been held back is more a case of parochialism, mates interests coming before the needs of the region, much too much control over the Council by developers, Councils readjusting development conditions to suit the wishes of the developers against the advice of administrative staff and public objections, the inferiority complex shown by Councils by accepting third rate developments and supported and encouraged by the local media, genuine progressive and at times unique proposals rejected because it might interfere with the interests of some of their mates, the media’s constant interference in Local Government elections, corruption enquiries, results of these enquiries and recommendations well hidden from public view by the local media, positive incentives put forward by anyone not of the “in” set hidden away so that the results, if adopted and successful, several years down the track are then credited to the “establishment.” Incorrect information given to potential industries wanting to move to town, so blatantly that many just left and were not brave enough to try again due to almost getting financially burned. Prime development land now covered in grotty little almost third world development that they look like a modern day version of the Bronx.
Lack of anything viable to get the youth of the city off the streets. (That one in the “too hard” basket)
The list is endless and unfortunately, it hasn’t been the community that have held it back but the greed of the ones running the place or pulling the strings of those that do.
Had the CJC inquiry of the early 90’s been allowed to run it’s course without the political interference that appeared when the culprits appeared to be heading for the long jump, my guess is that this place would be an entirely different place now, but where are some of those who were involved in that? Well doing exactly what they were doing in the early 90’s and doing very well, thank you very much.
Ben, positivity is needed, certainly, BUT what encouragement have we been given over the last ten to twenty years for us to suddenly respond in a positive manner?
Of course people are negative, by your definition, due to the ongoing onslaught by biased vested interests and a fraudulent media.
All very well dumping on our community, but look at our history over this time.
I suggest local attitudes accurately reflect the seeds sown by the these influences.
Until people percieve a change in governance and communications who can blame them for being sceptical?
Negative attitudes, narrow mindedness and lack of vision - not in my town, mate!
If, on the other hand, you are talking about our community leaders and media this comment may be true!
Until such times as government and media can accurately reflect the expectations of the electorate and report the truth, warts and all, then expect a healthy cynicism in response, and do not expect any UNINFORMED enthusiastic support of ANY program that is promoted as being in the ‘best interests of the community’
Finally, “long term monetary gain” For who? certainly not the community to date. Look around you, soup kitchens each Mon, Wed & Friday in Maryborough should be a good indication of reality!
On the subject of the ‘Water Park’ project which seems to be considered so desperately needed and essential by some, I’m not at all convinced that $10M (and even more council debt) really buys very much at all these days, as far as ‘Water Parks’ are concerned anyway!
If $10M is enough, then what exactly ARE we going to get for such a sum, which is relativly small compared to announced/completed similar projects elsewhere (eg Southport Broadwater). So far, there has never even been an artists ‘impression’ released for INFORMED public comment, let alone any sort of independent, formal supporting report outlining the why’s and wherefore’s. Surely such documents must have been produced in order to have the state government grant approved? So where is the summary of it? Not even a SWOT analysis or sketch on the Council web site has been offered so far, so why would any RATIONAL business person be overly supportive of the project or its location without knowing ANY REAL facts on the matter?
I personally support any properly planned project that addresses this region’s current lack of essential tourism and social infrastructure; however, prioritisation and future impacts need consideration as well as the usual ‘emotive’ issues. If the ‘Water Park’ being proposed is what I imagine it to be (based on the little information made available to date), then I think there are better sites for it than the Sea Front oval area which has so much potential for something much grander. Unless, of course, this $10M Park is simply the first stage of a much larger vision and longer term innitiative? Is it, I wonder?
If not, then a better site might perhaps be high on the hill on the Mbo/HB road, near the current old, unattractive go kart track and waterslide constructions currently serving as HB’s unofficial ‘entrance statements’. A flash, beaut childrens Water Park would be much more impressive in that location, and probably just as economical?
Bayzeyes , the principal and most overiding need for this region is an adequate , secure and sustainable water supply , it is not a politically motivated theme park located in the Ministers electorate , eyed by the prodevelopment lobby as a necessity for the ‘long term benefit of the region’.
I simply make the case for an alternative investment of the taxpayer contribution , which becomes a win win situation , the ratepaters of the region ( Hervey Bay) get a secure water supply , the prodevelopment lobby get a secure water supply , the distribution entity gets to resell the water it treats( increased profitability) and a stamp of approval from the conservation sector and the enviroment ( the Burrum River and the Great Sandy Ramsar ) gets increased envionmental flows and less pollution.
Who could ask for more ?, even the Minister would get a pat on the back for promoting sustainability !
Surely the business case for a secure water supply is paramount to a ‘feel good’ and uncosted amusement park?
Roger Currie’s post deserves it fair share of policy focus.
Biological strategies are likely to become the next quantum leap technology. They have the potential to exceed More’s Law in computing, where for the last 30+ years we have been blessed with twice as much output for half as much input cost, every eighteen months or so.
Nature has been perfecting her processes for millions of years in the areas of energy capture (eg photosynthesis), recycling (eg the nitrogen cycle), and the general sustainability of ecosystems.
Did anyone see that item on ABC Landline where the landowners found a little marsupial that eats oniongrass bulbs. Believe me eradicating oniongrass is hard work. This little guy does it for free.
Roger, I would like to be able to see the geographical basis of your model. As a newcomer to the area, I am not even sure where the water flows through our region.
And to Hon. Min. Andrew, can we simply ask, “Why Not?”
Roger Currie,
Methinks you have me mistaken with someone else; Dilbert perhaps?
THE NATURAL WAY
Thank you for your comments Brian , if you would like to follow this link , http://rogercurrie.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/recycled-water-park/, you will see what i mean .
All it will take is an open, genuine gesture of trust , scientific endeavour and commitment to work together , from those of us who are local technical people to make it a reality, after all , we are now all ratepayers in the Fraser Coast , cheers roger
If i have Bayzeyes mistaken you , i do apologise , i did not intend to demonize , i was just attempting to conservationize !, cheers roger,
Hey, guys! I thought we were discussing the proposed ‘Water Park’ here, not some new-fangled scheme that has suddenly emerged from the wide blue yonder. Maybe one of us is posting to the wrong thread or something? If so, I don’t think it’s me, but my apologies for confusing you all if I am?
The word around town is that the yet-to-be properly explained ‘Water Park’ is definitely going ahead very soon (if we ever seriously doubted it wasn’t). The favoured site is said to still be at the end of Main Street, somewhere between the Pialba Caravan Park and Sea Front Oval.
Assuming ample provision will be made for the increased traffic flow and parking associated with such an attraction, I wonder what changes will be necessary in the area? Will we see road or even caravan park closures? Maybe the interesting little roundabout will be removed?
One might have expected such a facility to perhaps be more appropriately located in the larger, mostly unused area South of Sea Front oval adjacent to Tuan Tuan Creek and the Flying Fox colony? If it was, then perhaps WBW might be able to include the creek water in its proposed educational purification and recycling process? Just a thought?
Why the blazes do we need the thing for anyway? As has been pointed out if such a gimic had any commercial possibilities then private enterprise would have been negotiating to get the best possible deal from our compliant councils long ago.
For Pete’s sake, we have the best water park in the country, courtesy of mother nature!
There are any number of projects needing this taxpayer funding that are far more deserving.
Reminds me of the circuses used to keep the uninformed masses amused while Rome burnt!
Dilbert , can you please give the names of the people you have got ‘ the word around town ‘ from? The area you refer to is designated as open space under the Town Plan ( zoning map 9) .Are you proposing a travelling allowance for those of us who are ratepayers in the region and must travel up to 100km to use this facility?
You see those of us who live in the ‘wild blue yonder’ are focussed on the real necessities of life such as an adequate water supply.Something which Hervey Bay does not have, just ask WBW.
You all need to ‘pull the collective cranium’ out of the sand and stop thinking that a ‘new water toy’ , will make the reality of a deficit in water storage for future growth , go away , it wont , despite what WBW or the Minister for Sustainablity may have you believe.
As a professional intimately involved in the water resource issues of this region , believe me when i tell you , there is a water crisis coming. The water park is just a pathetic attempt at diverting public focus away from the mismanagement of water supply .
The use of ca $10M to fund a public relations excercise in ‘feel good water politics’ , would be a wonderful display of contempt for the ratepayers of the region , who do not live in Hervey Bay .
If anybody would like to read about treating water for repotable use please follow this link :http://www.scec.org.au/water-booklet/index.php
its the best way for us to maintain a secure supply .
The Law And You , this ones free , courtesy of your local conservation sector, because ‘we care’.
http://rogercurrie.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/free-environmental-law-workshop/
Pancho and Roger Currie are spot on. The first knee-jerk reation of most people is “A water park. That should be great!” BUT:-
Who will really benefit financially from the waterpark? In real dollars? Certainly not the ratepayers of Hervey Bay! Have no doubt, it will cost a lot to build and a lot to maintain. Yes possibly a few commercially oriented tourism businesses will benefit. Let them pay for it! But then again, there has not even been a feasibility study done.
Who will benefit socially from the waterpark? Possibly some of our youth. But according to the local press, the wave rider will be the only thing to attract a usage fee. I can’t imagine the underprivileged youth in Hervey Bay spending too much time on it. Possibly people wanting to learn about water use efficiency will benefit from it. But there is already an overabundance of that information out there. Every level of government is throwing it at you, not to mention the internet sources. No need to pay [a hell of a lot of money] to produce more of the same.
Who will benefit politically from the waterpark? That is easy. Wide Bay Water and Andrew McNamara. Lots of back slapping and media releases flooding out!
And when did the State government last promise millions of dollars to a project before a feasibility study is even started? From what we read in the ChronicallyIll, Andrew McNamara has not only promised the money but has already handed half of it over!
Does anyone else smell something suspicious here?
Finally. insidetrader brings to our attention the real reason for the building of the water park in HB.
Something to do with a certain minister of the state who only has an 800 vote margain and needs to hang onto his lucritive job.
Wasn’t there a water park in HB previously. As has been said, if it was a genuine commercial prospect the private sector would have done it long ago.
And if it is for the people of the region who do not have access to good aquatic recreation areas then wouldn’t it be more appropriate for Maryborough.