Perth Voice Interactive

MAYLANDS resident Kevin Russell attended a recent meeting held by the City of Bayswater to discuss the Maylands lakes masterplan and remediation options, which was attended by consultants Alluvium and Josh Byrne and Associates. This was his take on the meeting.

THE degradation of the lakes has been festering for a significant number of years and has now reached a crisis point.

Prior remediation action has been ad hoc and ineffective.

Only about 70 residents attended, others may have commented via the engage Bayswater website.

I thought numbers may have been greater given that this is an issue that affects all CoB ratepayers.

Residents had been provided with pre-reading. 

Three options were presented, ranging from minimum, medium, or high intervention concepts.  

The effectiveness, cost, time and disruption to amenity increased at each intervention, but no indicative cost was provided.

There was one graph showing capital expenditure ($30 million) against operating expenditure which intersected at the lower end of the medium intervention, but it wasn’t clear if it was to be interpreted literally or as an example.

This is where the problems with the process started to emerge; should decisions be made without knowing the cost?

Few, if any of the crowd, have scientific or environmental credentials, so how were we able to judge the validity and effectiveness of the proposed interventions? 

This dilemma was very clearly highlighted in relation to a report commissioned by the City of Bayswater in 2016.  

In part, it concluded the source of the nutrient load within the lakes (a principal contributor to lake degradation) was stormwater runoff, while groundwater contributed very little.

This was the direct opposite of the conclusion presented in the meeting’s pre-reading and presentation.

Who amongst us is qualified to assess this contradiction? Which conclusion is valid?

Is this a case of ‘trust me, I’m an environmental consultant’?

There was extensive discussion by the community regarding these issues.

Groundwater was shown as flowing towards the lakes from the 40-hectare golf course, which effectively abuts the lakes.

The golf course probably needs fertiliser to stay green, but it was assessed as not contributing to the lakes’ nutrient load because hydrostatic pressure was maintaining equilibrium.

Figures provided appeared to validate this conclusion, but few present would be able to competently comment.

There was lively discussion around the options proposed and the role of cormorants in relation to their contribution to nutrient load.

A very contentious figure of 25 per cent was arrived at by the consultants, hotly disputed by many present.

One of the masterplan options was making the lakes shallower and filling them with clean sand to reduce algal bloom.

One resident calculated that 10,000 trucks of sand would be required to fill the deep pits in the lakes.

There was a suggestion the lakes could be reconfigured and partially filled, with a more manageable aquatic environment, though it’s an option likely to be met with strong opposition.

The potential risk possessed by cyanobacteria was diminished by the presenter, despite residents such as those in Hinkler Loop expressing concern about a cluster of significant adverse health diagnoses for several residents. 

While they acknowledge it was unquantified, it was enough of a concern to be raised.

Many residents wanted to see a significant reduction in chemical use within the lake precinct.

There was a very clear perception by many that the consultants were sincere and knowledgeable, but had been given the job to sell the masterplan.

Whilst many of the councillors present appeared sincere, there was a general air of scepticism and distrust by residents regarding the process.

It was noted that Dan Bull, councillor, Labor candidate for Maylands and former mayor of Bayswater during a period of rapid lake degradation, was not present.

Whilst CoB did identify the lakes as a key advocacy project, they lack the funds for a high-intervention solution.

Two topics that require further examination remain include whether the City should simply return the lakes to WA government control as well as why the council and community had to wear the cost of remediation.

Given that Satterly didn’t install biofilters in the initial development, shouldn’t they bear some financial responsibility? Or was there some form of payment in lieu? 

Shouldn’t the state bear some of the financial burden given it would have ultimately approved the subdivision?

With all the above considered, if you throw in the wide card of climate change, you have one hot, expensive mess.

It is a mess that can no longer be shied away from.

We have one shot at returning Maylands lakes to the diverse, fauna-rich and healthy aquatic environment it once was. 

If incorrect remedial action is implemented it will become either a toxic sludge pit, a money pit or in a worst-case scenario, both. 

A very grim prospect indeed.

To finish on a positive note, it wasn’t all doom and gloom, the catering was excellent!  CoB and the caterers are to be commended.