Response to comments made by Morgan Williams in the article Water storage supporters fight opponents spin.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/CU1808/S00228/water-storage-supporters-fight-opponents-spin.htm

Scoop, thank you for your prompt reply to my query on behalf of WIN, an incorporated society that aims to promote the facts about water security for the Tasman region in the absence of this from the Tasman District Council. We have website and Facebook sites we encourage the public to check.

It was formed as a grassroots response to the concerted campaign supporting a dam funding option that is deeply injurious to ratepayers and taxpayers; one which has echoes of the High Country tenure review/land reform in the mid-1990s where a small group of organised vested interests appeared to do very well out of the public purse.

It is with some satisfaction WIN notes the launch of this campaign, as it indicates our arguments are gaining strong traction with TDC councillors who will be asked on August 28 to vote again for continued spending on the proposed dam. Our shoestring budget, made up largely from personal donations is unlikely to match the rumoured $40k budget of this front group, who are made up of vested interests looking for their turn at the dam trough, so we feel we are getting value for money.

The timing of the Council vote was delayed from the full Council meeting on the 9th, when an (unprecedented for Tasman) 300+ residents turned out on a midweek winter day to voice their displeasure at the continuation of this project, and the use by the Mayor of two personal votes to quash Councillor demands for a referendum given the jump in estimated cost of some $26m. Twice.

We dismiss Morgan’s notion that we are a small fringe group as laughable.

Comment is made about “risks and benefits and underpinning science and economics.” This project transfers project risk exclusively to TDC (and hence ratepayers), with benefits flowing to large commercial irrigators in terms of surety of supply for approximately 6 weeks of the year in mid-summer. The concept of aquifer augmentation from river flows is nice, but it is likely to be inadequate and limited to the areas bordering riverbed. It can also be achieved through the use of weirs. Economics of the dam given the large jump in current estimated cost are poor, with central government being asked to contribute further by some $18m through the RDF mechanism. There is no firm end number in sight and the construction costs are not fully reflective of the work that our engineer members inform us will be required. So far they have been “on the money”, unlike TDC and consulting engineers.

Our and many other options have not been properly costed by TDC despite our numbers not being contested, due to a blinkered “silver bullet” mindset. Morgan neglects to mention our concern for the critically endangered shovel mint, ¼ of the wild habitat sits in the dam footprint. Horticulture practises are contributing to very high nitrate levels in several bores across the plains. These levels increased significantly between 2005 and the latest bore survey (2017), with several sites exceeding world health warning levels for nitrate levels safe for human consumption. TDC in the meantime has continued to ignore its obligation under the Fresh Water Act not to promote activities that will further degrade water quality. A dam will intensify land use and may raise nitrate levels by 25%.

Thank you for your interest and we look forward to seeing Councillors voting to stop spending on the dam option on 28 August.

© Scoop Media