Some reviewers carried the position presented at the BOI and pushed it during the Review.
This arises because so much of the material presented was from models that use assumptions that are highly contested.
This applies to most subject areas including how fast the farmer uptake, financial returns, cubic metres of water used per hectare, and projected land use. While some on the CRG disputed some data, its role did not extend to altering the advice provided. A further concern was outsiders' lack of knowledge of Central Hawke's Bay climate, topography and environmental conditions.
The assumption that Canterbury data can be the basis for modelling effects of RWSS is not appropriate. As I observed, CHB rainfall, current irrigation and climate were not of great interest to some RWSS reviewers.
The Ruataniwha basin already has a significant level of intensification with its fair share of large volume irrigators. The RWSS will exacerbate the problems facing HBRC in managing the Tukituki catchment. HBRC will have two distinct groups to manage farming practices: those outside RWSS and those that are part of RWSS.
HBRC has to prove that a RWSS irrigated farm is the cause of nitrate leaching and one can imagine what court cases that will spawn with that financial HBRIC as an intermediary.
It is clear that the RWSS will not encourage innovation towards more environmentally sustainable farm management practices. Reviewers persisted with the flawed notion that more water and more farm consultants will deliver improve farm returns, GDP and - that vote catcher - more jobs.
Many of the 196 farmers that have contracted for water already irrigate using the aquifer and have signed up for minimum quantities as a security of supply measure and no doubt the increase in land value that accompanies irrigation schemes. One reviewer stated that based on previous schemes up to 60 per cent of current scheme footprint farmers will quit/sell up.
Hawke's Bay regional ratepayers will spend $80 million on the RWSS to directly benefit 200 Central Hawke's Bay farmers.
While there may be benefits to the local economy from additional farming activity, the review has highlighted the very high risks involved. This capital could be used to fund the Port, subsidise land use change in a number of at risk catchments and address the degradation of the region's environment with far less risk and far better long-term benefits.
Proponents of RWSS insist that the Dam is needed for the health of the Tukituki catchment. Maintaining minimum flows using dam water with some flushing flows as well to get rid of algae is needed.
As the Tank group is now very aware the aquifer and surface rivers are one integral system - albeit over a time scale depending on the catchment. Improved health of the Tukituki catchment river system does not require a massive dam with its inherent risks, but reduced extraction of groundwater.
RWSS wipes out 400 hectares of the natural environment (called low productivity land in reports) so more water can be extracted for activities that will increase the level of nitrates and phosphorus leaching into waterways. Rather than fostering land use that requires flushing flows of the river to deal with pollution, the activity that causes the pollution needs to be controlled.
Ponzi is a term used for taking money out of the bottom, replacing it with money at the top and hoping that more money comes in than is taken out of the bottom.
It is highly risky if not fundamentally flawed.
For me, the review does not dispel the sense that RWSS is a (water) Ponzi scheme. What about for you?
Vaughan Cooper is a Hawke's Bay ratepayer and past chair of Hastings/Havelock Forest & Bird Society. He is also a former Central Hawke's Bay farmer and a stakeholder member in RWSS meetings and Hawke's Bay Biodiversity Strategy. He is a current member of Tank.
