Stop the
Meadowbank
sewage outlet.

Personalise the address and add what the river means to you. Send it yourself; this page does not collect personal information.

Subject: Please oppose and relocate Sydney Water’s Meadowbank outlet proposal

Dear [MP’s name],

Re: Greater Parramatta and Olympic Peninsula Water Cycle Management Project

I am writing as a constituent residing at [your street address and suburb] to oppose Sydney Water’s proposal to discharge up to 70 million litres of advanced-treated wastewater each day into the Parramatta River near Meadowbank Park and John Whitton Bridge.

[Add a sentence about how you or your family use the river and parks]

I recognise that new wastewater capacity is needed to support population and housing growth. But that does not establish that continuous discharge into this recovering tidal river is the best available solution.

My requested outcome is clear: do not approve or construct the proposed Meadowbank river outlet. Redesign the project so advanced-treated water is beneficially reused to the maximum practical extent, and relocate any residual discharge to a demonstrably less harmful location. Any alternative must also be independently assessed for its effects on communities and ecology.

My concerns are:
• Wildlife and habitat: the proposed outlet sits in a river corridor connected to mangroves, wetlands and habitat used by migratory birds and aquatic life. If habitat is disturbed, recovery is not something a project can simply promise.
• Recreation and public access: families use these parks and paths for afternoons outdoors, waterfront walks and children learning to sail. Construction compounds and trenching may temporarily remove or disrupt access where works occur, while an operational failure could affect river recreation.
• Failure risk: Sydney Water has a documented history of untreated-sewage releases caused by equipment and maintenance failures, including millions of litres entering the Parramatta River system.
• Incomplete safeguards: Sydney Water told the ABC that diversion for a water-quality issue requires a manual override by operators. The final EPA licence limits have not yet been set.
• Better use of recovered water: Sydney Water should publish a transparent comparison of river discharge against industrial reuse, dual-reticulation and other circular-water options.

The largely tunnelled alternative alignment may reduce some construction impacts, but it retains park compounds, open-trench work near Memorial Park and the same permanent Meadowbank outlet. It does not resolve the central objection.

I ask you to:
1. Publicly state that you oppose the Meadowbank outlet and do not support its approval or construction.
2. Write to the Minister for Water and the Minister for Planning seeking refusal of the current proposal, or an amendment that removes the Meadowbank river outlet.
3. Support an independently assessed redesign that maximises practical beneficial reuse and evaluates residual-discharge locations for effects on communities and ecology.
4. Request written confirmation of your position and the actions you will take.

Any evidence and safeguard requests should support that outcome, not be treated as permission to proceed with Meadowbank. Please seek publication of the complete outlet-site assessment—including depth, mixing, environmental, community and cost comparisons—and require automatic fail-closed diversion, independent continuous monitoring, live public reporting and enforceable limits for any future redesign. This should explain why Bedlam Point and Pulpit Point—reported by the ABC as up to four times deeper—were rejected.

Yours sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your phone number]
[Your email address]