Martin Williams: I support the dam in principle

Martin Williams

The election sure is shaping up as somewhat of a referendum on the Ruataniwha dam. There being no real chance for Hawke's Bay Regional Council candidates to publicly debate the issue, I set out my thinking here to help you make your own mind up.

I support the dam in principle, but not without an acute awareness that people are concerned about the sheer scale of the proposal, its potential risks, and whether they or the broader region will benefit. I have spoken to many (possibly hundreds) of people about the dam in my campaign travels over the past few weeks, and fear a major decision could be made by voters based on fundamental misunderstandings perpetuated consistently over several years now.
To explain where I stand on the issue, I first need to bust a few myths:

"The dam will put the port at risk".

Forget this one. The only reason the dam company (HBRIC) would need to borrow would be to guarantee the Council its 6 per cent "self-imposed" return requirement on the $80 million cash investment it proposes to make. If elected I would advocate accepting a lesser return until water sales were at a level that can sustain the 6 per cent return without borrowing against the port. All other debt incurred for the scheme is either private (farmers) or ring-fenced (obligations of the limited partnership to investors, secured against the assets of the scheme) and not in any way attached to the port.

"The dam will turn the river toxic".

Makes a good billboard slogan, but far from the truth. From the outset, the Council proposed a nitrogen limit well below anything which could poison even the most sensitive fish or insect species present in the Tukituki. Farms supplied with irrigation water from the dam will have to operate within "on farm" nitrogen-leaching rate limits, and ultimately within an overriding "in river" limit on nitrogen set by the Board of Inquiry. Rather than turning the river toxic, ecological health will be safeguarded, within a river with more water flowing over the critical summer period.

The unavoidable fact is that the new minimum flow rules under Change 6 which are crucial to protecting the aquatic habitats of the Tukituki River cannot be achieved without the dam, or very frequent irrigation bans of the kind that generated the "tractor protests" last election. Dam opponents need to be honest about this fact.

"It's all about dairy farming".

Nearly half the water has been sold from the scheme, with just one dairy conversion. There is only 100ha more dairy at this point, not the 6000 or 9000ha referred to in economic modelling which Cr Rex Graham and Candidate Paul Bailey have latched onto in their recent Talking Point contributions.

While there may well be more dairy over time, the greater marginal returns are in sheep, beef and cropping, which can benefit from irrigation at a lower upfront capital cost, not requiring (for example) a new rotary dairy shed or feed pad to get up and running. These activities also leach less nitrogen, and water sales for these environmentally and economically better performing activities are higher than previously modelled.

While on that point, even if the economic predictions are over 100 per cent out, the dam would generate all of the 1000 jobs hoped for under the Regional Economic Development Strategy (REDS) in one hit (with 2-3000 jobs actually projected).

As others have said, the dam is a "game changer" for the region. In many ways we have it all here in Hawke's Bay but we don't have a university, the centre of commerce, Government, or proximity to our largest commercial centre.

The dam could provide an "engine room", creating critical mass for Hawke's Bay to become a national leader in primary-sector innovation, with local government, iwi and EIT partnering (as planned) to train the next generation in the skill sets required. All within a region that is then not so vulnerable to the projected increase in severity and frequency of drought, or so reliant on tourism when times get tough.

Governments used to "do" things. Our renewable energy sector relies on dams, and the vision our past leaders had to make courageous decisions. This irrigation supply dam is of similar scale, but surely would be a decision better informed as to risks and opportunities than any of its kind or scale in New Zealand's history. All this said, I am sure the new Council will want to "take stock" and ensure the investment decision is the right one for Hawke's Bay before proceeding. I know I would if elected, but based on fact not fiction.

■Martin Williams is a Napier-based lawyer specialising in environmental law who is standing for the Hawke's Bay Regional Council in this year's local body elections in October.