What are your thoughts about the recommendations within the summary report?

I am strongly opposed to the pressure drainage system, due to:

1. the potential for significant damage due to a failure in the pumping and/or backflow prevention devices.

2. my property already has an easement within it for the future provision of sewer drainage. If this is not used for the pressure system (it uses the street) then this easement should be removed and all costs borne by YVW

3. Personal costs to connect to a pressure system will far outweight the costs to connect to an equivalent gravity system, due to the location of the systems in our location. This would be a 5-fold increase (at least) and require more significant external works within our property, as all drainage currently falls to the grey water and septic systems on the opposite side of the property to the street and proposed pressure main (in preparation for the future gravity drainage through the easement).

I am surprised the report recommends a pressure system and not the gravity or hybrid system.

Each system requires a number of pump stations with the pressure system requiring the most.

With every property requiring a storage tank and pump and valve pit I cant imagine this to be more economical than the hybrid system when around 40% of properties would not require the tanks/pits.

As our treatment plant is only 18 months old and serviced regularly is draining the effluent to the sewer system an option as it would already have been treated. Could this reduce fees, charges to the property owners as we already pay for quarterly services?

With the pressure system would the in line booster pump stations be concealed? underground?

With the gravity and hybrid system pump stations be concealed? underground?

Any visible pump stations would impact on property values nearby.

Thank you

Black water pumping systems must present a significant maintenance effort and cost. Who will bear this ongoing maintenance burden? Power cost for operation - a burden for the property owner? Pump failure effect on service (sorry can't use the toilet or take a shower because the pump has failed - again). As the owner of an electric treatment plant who is amazed at the actual operating cost (power, maintenance and the high incidence of failure) I wonder how any electric up-hill solution could be anything but big trouble. Show us the precedent of a delighted community with this proposed wizardry - or come up with something that is not a cure far worse than the disease.

Unfortunately there is insufficient information in the report to allow any view to be formed as to the recommendations, although I do appreciate a system which allows smaller pipes would have a significant advantage. But the description of the hybrid system is quite vague. My house and the two adjacent houses are on a steep hill above the road, where the sewer is proposed to run. Do we need a pressure pump each, when gravity feed would be more than reliable? Just curious.

More importantly, I'm wondering if this project could embrace a look at the water supply. We have had more than one interruption to service in my street in recent times due to rusty mains, plus several of us are alleged to depend on old 'private' mains, in some cases quite vulnerable - plastic and near the surface. While we're digging up the road reserves, would it make sense to consider other underground opportunities? Come to think of it, powerlines and trees don't mix that well either!

Whatever method is chosen, the property owner should bear minimal cost. Anything over $500 is onsite plumbing costs is unacceptable and unafforable to me. I don't intend on taking out a loan either.

Tackling pollution from waste water is important, but it is only one of several important environmental goals. Another is water recycling. Water is a precious resource for both people and the natural environment, and any opportunity to recycle it should be pursued with all water projects. Our suffering rivers deserve nothing less.

$25+million ($24,000+ per property) of public funds will likely be spent on this project to reduce water pollution but the reported analysis attributes no tangible benefit to those options that allow treated water to be reused on site or returned to the environment. In particular I would like more…

Is this all just a PR whitewash? The more I read on these forums the more concerned I become. The YVW preferred system is going to be an expensive eyesore and potentially more dangerous than the septic systems we have now. When it works it will take water away from a very dry area. When it fails it could be disastrous. The stated 6 hour callout time on blocked pumping stations is only applicable during business hours. So what happens when the pumping stations block after 5pm on a Friday night? And why is the customer satisfaction data from existing installations in Donvale, Heathmont etc not made available as a matter of course instead of just 'on demand'? Finally, at a time when we are all trying to conserve energy why is YVW intent on installing something that will collectively use a great deal of energy? Warrandyte is nothing but hills so even with an intermittent pump that's a lot of effluent getting pumped UP HILL. Isn't it time we started planning for the future and a /lower/ carbon footprint?