In August 2006 a re-branded department, now the Department of Natural Resources and Water, issued its Water for Queensland, a long term solution and gave Beattie the concept of the ‘water grid’ as the way forward. The analogy with the electricity grid amused some commentators, even though electricity is rather easier to manufacture than potable water and comes with a vast distribution network already in place. Imagine the Government’s embarrassment when, at the budget estimates committee, it was forced to admit that its own Tarong Energy Power Station had been secretly ‘siphoning’ potable water from Wivenhoe despite an edict from Energy Minister John Mickel that it should take water from Boondooma Weir. The press leaped on the revelation, so an ‘agreed separation’ was promptly organised for Tarong CEO Andrew Pickford. Power station operators prefer potable water for their cooling towers because it is less salty than other water sources. But this revelation came at a time when all of Southeast Queensland was being asked to show restraint while government-owned instrumentalities obviously went their merry way (Gold Coast Bulletin, 15 July 2006; Courier Mail, 20 July 2006; The Australian, 20 July 2006).

The tone of Water for Queensland was grim: ‘If Queenslanders are to maintain the lifestyle they currently take for granted, it is essential that demand for water is reduced and supplies are increased, so that economic growth and wealth creation can continue.’ This document may well constitute the emergence of the ALP as a ‘lifestyle’ political party. The document boldly acknowledged the defeat of the Toowoomba referendum but stated that ‘recycling within residential and non-residential developments will need to be introduced’. It gave Beattie the ‘water grid’ terminology, the catchphrase to solve everything, and announced the following infrastructure for ‘the short term to 2016’: Gold Coast desalination facility (45 000 ML/a); Western Corridor recycling scheme (30,000 MLa); Traveston dam stage I (70 000 ML/a); and a raft of smaller projects.

The Government paid lip service to some of the environmental impacts, especially of the desal plant, where the contemplation of alternatives got short shrift, while the Traveston dam proposal attracted a voluminous report with dozens of mitigation measures. The report pointed out that only 6–7 per cent of treated effluent in SEQ was currently recycled, mainly for golf courses and sports ovals. It also pointed out that the Western Corridor recycling scheme would make water available to the Tarong, Tarong North and Swanbank power stations. It had much less to say about how much electricity would be required to move all this water around SEQ, including the fact that the pipes will need continuous water flow to remain operational (Water for Queensland 2006: 1, 31).

Beattie’s ‘water grid’, and an extensive advertising campaign for water-wise initiatives and tank subsidies, got him off the water hook for the September 2006 election and the ALP won a fourth term with little loss of seats. The National Party had failed dismally to command attention on the water issue, shooting itself in the foot when one of its senior politicians, Lawrence Springborg, suggested that evidence that male Danish fish developed female characteristics when swimming in recycled water could have implications for ‘feminisation’ in Queensland. The junior party in the coalition, a rag-tag of Liberal members, simply couldn’t get their minds around either the scale or the severity of the water issue (The Australian, 1 August 2006; Courier Mail, 21 November 2006).

Despite the disarray of the opposition, pressure on the government continued to mount, not least because the dam levels kept falling, unlike the rain. In late October, less than two months after the election, Beattie announced that he would hold a referendum on recycling in the coming year. The Southeast Council of Mayors — nervous after the Toowoomba result — said they would not take sides in the referendum, though Brisbane Lord Mayor Campbell Newman came out in favour of recycling. Beattie abandoned the referendum idea in late January, explaining that the situation was so dire that purified recycled water ‘is no longer an option, we have no choice’. He also explained that the Queensland Water Commission had given him ‘compelling advice’ to cancel the 17 March plebiscite. For once, Beattie got a favourable editorial in the Courier Mail: ‘With Brisbane’s Wivenhoe Dam at just above 20 per cent capacity, Premier Peter Beattie has made the right decision to press ahead with recycled drinking water for southeast Queensland and scrap what would have been a farcical $10 million plebiscite over the issue.’ Four days later the Courier Mail informed its readers that some of them were already drinking recycled water (Beattie press release, 28 January 2007; Courier Mail, 28 October 2006, 28 December 2006, 29 January 2007, 3 February 2007).

A handful of well-informed journalists continued to point to the failure of the state government’s water policy initiatives much more effectively than the divided and demoralised opposition. In April 2007, Craig Johnstone told his readers: