THE COST of constructing and operating the Macquarie pipeline was the number one concern of residents at an Orange City Council forum on Tuesday, with many calling the project “a waste of money”.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Orange residents who attended the information session questioned whether the amount of water Orange would get from the pipeline justified the money being spent on it and the burden this would put ratepayers.
Tuesday’s forum was pitched as an opportunity for concerned residents to ask council staff about the project, and was better attended than many of its previous community forums.
“It’s a waste of money because when you need it the Macquarie River is going to be dry,” Orange resident Les Kirby told the Central Western Daily at the forum.
“I think it’s too expensive and I want to know what are the ongoing running costs?
“Have they factored in rising electricity costs, because Orange ratepayers are going to be paying through their nose.”
Many residents at the forum, including the Orange Ratepayers Association, said they thought the council should be increasing its use of the stormwater harvesting scheme, before building a pipeline.
Others felt the running costs for the pipeline would be too high when the council only planned to pump water on approximately 58 days of the year.
“I think it’s a lot of money and without a guarantee that they’re going to get much use out of it,” resident Glenda White said.
“I’m also concerned for the people further down the river - not just farms, but towns, as well, that depend on the river for water.”
Resident Charlie Smith said the city was being “railroaded over a white elephant” while another resident, Ron Gander, said he was concerned the council did not understand the electricity costs involved.
“Once you run a pump for half an hour, you pay for the full month - that’s called a high voltage demand tariff,” Mr Gander said.
Council corporate and community relations manager Nick Redmond said council was doing more research into the operational costs of the pipeline.
He said current estimates put the annual running cost at $1.5 million, which would increase the average household water bill by $60 to $80 per year.
“We’ve looked at other options and this is the best option for the city over the long term,” Mr Redmond said.
Residents along the pipeline corridor who attended Tuesday’s forum said council had failed to address all of their concerns about the environmental impacts of the pipeline.
Colin Young, who owns a Long Point Road property, said community interest in the pipeline was growing.
“I think people are more concerned about this than they were a fortnight ago,” he said.