Dam Myths and Other Effects

07/11/2018

One side of the Waimea Dam argument claim that it is an environmental benefit for our region (hence the district-wide rate increase). The other side of the argument is not so convinced, in fact, Dr Joy speaking to a packed crowd at Mapua said the claim is “utter rubbish.”

In their report titled Damn the dams Kyleisha Foote and Mike Joy discuss some of reasons that large-scale dams cannot be a benefit to the environment. One of those reasons is that in order to pay for large infrastructure land owners’ resort to synthetic nitrogen to boost returns.

The problem with nitrogen, they say, is;

Consumption of water contaminated with nitrogen can lead to certain types of cancer and has been linked with blood disease in infants, known as the blue baby syndrome. (It is thought that the ingestion of too much nitrate leads to a decreased ability of the blood to carry oxygen; infants are more susceptible than adults.

In his article, Our deadly nitrogen addiction published in The New Zealand Land & Food Annual Dr Joy digs deeper into the nitrogen issues.

Synthetic nitrogen has allowed the human population to reach double the 3.5 billion that could have been sustained without it. Since the discovery, population growth and the increase in nitrogen fertiliser production have been in sync.

Now we are on track to reach a world population of more than nine billion by 2050, nearly three times what could have been supported without synthetic nitrogen.

As with a wonder drug that only later you discover has terrible side effects, the Haber-Bosch process opened up a Pandora’s Box of problems. By exploiting in a single century energy built up over millennia, we have radically altered the ecological balance of agricultural systems.

You might say that this sounds alarmist and ask if there is any real issue here. Fortunately, Dr Joy had you in mind as he continues:

The distortion triggered a proliferation of livestock so that the food system is now responsible for more than a quarter of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, is the dominant driver of deforestation and biodiversity loss, and is a major user and polluter of water resources.

Nitrogen is not the only fossil-derived part of the problem: oil is another culprit. On top of the nitrogen footprint, our industrial food production system now uses over 10 calories of oil energy to plough, plant, fertilise, harvest, transport, refine, package, store/refrigerate and deliver one calorie of food to be eaten by humans.

On the face of it, we seem to be going backwards with all our fast-forward methods. Future generations will look back our time of greed and see that we have consumed significant amounts of resources in a totally unsustainable fashion. It is not only resources that are being depleted at a great rate of knots.

A graphic example of the human food domination of the planet is that in the last 100 years the biomass of domestic animals on the planet quadrupled. By the beginning of this Century 98 per cent of the total biomass of mammals was humans and the animals that feed them, leaving only two per cent as wild animals.

It is not only a global cost, but the cost is also very real in New Zealand too according to Dr Joy’s research.

In New Zealand the ratio of nitrogen costs to gains is likely to be similar — put simply, they constitute a net loss for society. One facet of the environmental costs of nitrogen pollution of freshwaters can be quantified by what it costs to remove it from waterways such as lakes.

Trials in Lake Rotorua showed it cost a minimum of $250 to remove one kilogram of nitrogen from the lake, whereas to not use a kilogram of nitrogen fertiliser on farm would mean a loss of revenue for the farmer of around $6.

The Bay of Plenty Regional Council is currently paying farmers to de-intensify their farming in the lake catchment order to stop 100 tonnes of reactive nitrogen entering the lake (the estimated amount that must be reduced to stop the lake clarity declining). The regional council has a $40 million tax and ratepayer clean-up fund for the lake.

evidence against dams — Evidence of negative environmental effects from dams verses evidence of positive outcomes from dams

This conversation is very pertinent to the people of the Waimea Plains. We are being sold a dam that has great community benefit because it is an environmental magic bullet. The underground water on the plains is already under threat from Nitrogen “leakage.” With no current plan on Nitrogen management in the region there is a very real threat that short-term gains by a few irrigators could have significant environmental costs for the future as Dr Joy points out in other regions with dams:

Current irrigation dams have failed to resolve water-quality issues, contrary to what irrigation proponents have promised. For example, much environmental impact in the Opihi River from the Opuha Dam, completed in 1998, has been caused by increased intensification. Since development of the dam, nitrogen fertiliser application has increased by 132 per cent in the catchment, contributing to the increase in nitrogen concentrations seen in the Opihi River and its tributaries.

Researchers at Lincoln University have found that increased pollution and diminished flood flows, triggered by the dam, have increased the growth and proliferation of algae, particularly the mat-forming species that can turn toxic. They go on to list other adverse ecological effects in the catchment: reduced salmon spawning and trout numbers, decreased dissolved oxygen, increased temperatures, and a decline in the macroinvertebrate community index (MCI).

It is not just those using the water on their land causes major problems for the environment, the dams are also guilty of widespread devastation just by being there according to Dr Joy, Foote, and others in the scientific community.

Ecologists have singled out the damming of rivers as one of the most dramatic and widespread deliberate human impacts on the natural environment.

The ecological impact of a dam begins with the terrestrial ecosystems inundated above the dam, and reaches right down to estuaries, coastlines and river mouths. In between, there are many other negative ecological, hydrological and physical consequences, including modification of sediment and water flow restrictions to passage by fish, destruction of habitat, and diminished recharging of aquifers. The result has been irreversible loss of species and ecosystems.

Existing vegetation will be flooded if not cleared beforehand. Flooded vegetation and soil will release nutrients into the water, increasing the likelihood of algal blooms and the growth of nuisance plants. In turn, the increased photosynthetic activity (from the algae and nuisance plants) will alter dissolved oxygen levels, possibly killing fish and other life. Deoxygenated water then runs downstream or filters into groundwater.

Again, the Waimea Community Dam will be guilty of flooding large amounts of vegetation in the dam reservoir as a result of cost-cutting measures.

I am also told by the Council’s head of engineering that the wave action of this large reservoir will have no erosion effect on the catchment in which it is located as sediment flows above the dam will remain constant with or without the dam. However, sediment flows below the dam will obviously be reduced.

Large reservoirs commonly store more than 99 per cent of this sediment, and many trap upwards of 70 per cent. Sediments may store nutrients, contaminants and other elements; re-mobilisation of these components can trigger algal blooms or be taken up by organisms.

Additionally, over time, sediment build-up will reduce water storage capacity. Since construction of the Patea Dam, Lake Rotorangi has been infilling at a rate of 410,000 tonnes of sediment per year, equalling over 13 million tonnes in the 32 years of operation to 2016, or 56 truckloads per day. Upstream, the riverbed level has been raised by up to 16 metres.

As dams are not usually engineered to support the additional force of tonnes of sediment infilling may also cause dams to burst. Downstream, dams alter sedimentation regimes within rivers. As downstream sediment deposition is decreased, erosion may worsen.

The deepening of riverbeds, cutting of banks and narrowing of channels caused by erosion will lead to channel simplification and reduced geomorphological activity in the river bed (e.g. lack of bar formation and a reduction in river meandering), to the detriment of river ecosystems. Infrastructure, such as the basement of bridges, may also be affected. Without sediment to replenish lost stores, the formation of plains, deltas and beaches will be affected.

Dr Joy further expands this thought speaking to The News saying there is “nothing natural about a steady flow”.

There’s this imaginary idea that there’s this excess amount of water in a river that you can take away.

But in reality there’s not – there’s no such thing – because excessive flow is what shapes the river, it’s what washes away all the crud out of the river, it’s what shifts the sediment, it’s what opens the bar at the end and all that kind of stuff that’s crucial to the life of the river.

But what about the “flushing flows” that we will be releasing from the dam periodically? Surely, they are beneficial and help offset the environmental impact of the dam? Foote and Joy disagree:

Perhaps the most damaging and widespread impact a dam can have on a river ecosystem is caused by flow regulation In many cases, the management plan for flows from a dam only incorporates a minimum flow, despite freshwater scientists showing that the most important ecological condition in river ecosystems is the maintenance of a naturally variable flow regime. Ecological communities also require floods and other flow variations to maintain their integrity.

In New Zealand, it has been argued that flushing flows — the release of water from a dam in times of low flows — will ‘flush’ algae out to sea and provide some dilution of pollutants such as nutrients, thereby helping improve water quality. It is postulated that flushing flows mimic natural flood events that occur in unregulated rivers.

During these natural flood events, increases in water velocity strip off algae and wash it out to sea. The whole river system, including the tributaries, fills up with water, so there is a tremendous amount of power behind these flood events. Conversely, water released from a single point coming out of a dam does not have the same amount of power; energy is dissipated very quickly when it is not supported by all the tributary flows. Flushing flows are often not of adequate power to turn over gravels, scour the river bed or flush algae from the river system

True cost of the Waimea Dam — Dr Mike Joy’s counting the costs of dams

And just a couple more points in case they haven’t convinced you that there is no environmental benefit (which you are paying for in your rate bill);

Dams have negative effects on the water itself. In healthy rivers, oxygen concentrations and water temperature tend to be similar throughout. In contrast, reservoirs often have layered thermoclines — they are warm on the top and cold at the bottom — and corresponding layered oxygen concentrations; there is liveable oxygen only close to the surface.

Finally, one of the most obvious impacts of dams is to impede the passage of fish to habitats above the dams. New Zealand fish communities are dominated by diadromous species — those requiring passage between fresh water and the sea to complete their life-cycle. Consequently, they are particularly vulnerable to migration barriers.

Ecologists have found that fish communities in New Zealand differ significantly in composition above and below dams. Above dams, there is a lower percentage of diadromous species and a higher percentage of exotic species than below dams.

We are causing irreparable environmental harm to benefit the economy so at least there will be plenty of food in the future … right?

Again, Joy would dispute this claim because;

“Irrigation is locking us into a system that is doomed to fail.”

Large-scale dams make farms less resilient. In order to fund dam construction and ongoing maintenance – neither of which is cheap – a high price gets put on water for irrigation. To pay this added cost, farmers intensify.

This means greater dependency on water. If water becomes scarce, farmers are more at-risk, because they have more animals and more crops. Inevitably they become less resilient.

This sentiment is supported by the fact that one of the submitters who spoke in support of the dam commented how one year of drought impacted two years of his fruit production on the Waimea Plains. I asked him, given that the Waimea Dam only provided water security for a one in sixty-year drought, what were his backup plans in a significant drought? I was met with a blank stare suggesting that there was none.

This is important because two significant droughts within a three- or four-year period would also see other unprepared horticulturists in the same position with a severely affected return for four years. Given that they will be maximising their capital investment to make the most of the dam could that be the trigger that causes WIL to capitulate and leaves Council owning 100% of a dam?

“If you spread the money they were going to spend on a big dam out amongst small projects around the community you’ll get much more resilience and value for your dollar” Says Dr Joy to TVNZabout the Waimea Community Dam.

Are we better off, as Dr Joy says “Implementing ecological farming methods can help farmers cope with lower rainfall, improve biodiversity and build healthy soil — all essential elements for drought-resistant farming.” And should we be making that change before it is too late? Joy questions if too late might be a line we crossed some time ago:

Analysis has been done by the Stockholm Institute into ‘planetary boundaries’ to find the tipping points that must not be exceeded for humankind to continue to exist.

Its analysis showed that of the10 boundaries identified, three have already been drastically surpassed: biodiversity, the nitrogen cycle and climate change. The nitrogen cycle is more than three times the safe limit; biodiversity loss is more than 10 times the limit; and with CO at 400 parts per million in the atmosphere climate change is well past the 350 parts per million boundary.

Are there other options? Some people think so.

Restoring Australian land back to a healthy soil and happy environment

About Dr Mike Joy. [Bio ex Wikipedia]
He was a Senior Lecturer in Ecology and Environmental Science at Massey University in Palmerston North until May 2018. He is currently employed at the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies at Victoria University of Wellington

In 2009, Joy received the Ecology in Action award from the New Zealand Ecological Society. In 2011, he was awarded Forest & Bird’s Old Blue award for his research into freshwater ecology and his work bringing freshwater conservation issues to public attention.

Joy received the Royal Society of New Zealand’s Charles Flemming award for Environmental Achievement in 2013, for his contribution to the sustainable management and protection of New Zealand’s freshwater ecosystems.

Dr Mike Joy was presented with the inaugural Critic and Conscience of Society $50,000 Award Sept 2017 for his work in drawing attention to the issue of water quality in New Zealand’s rivers, lakes and drinking water.

He has authored a book, Polluted Inheritance on freshwater and the impacts of irrigation and intensive farming.

NZ Rivers Of Death

03/11/2018

Dr Mike Joy spoke, by Green Party invitation, to a crowded Mapua Community Centre (standing room only). His main area of expertise is in river health – or in our case river sickness. It was quite eye-opening to learn that clean green New Zealand has some of the most chemically polluted and pathogen contaminated rivers in the developed world. Hear him speak to Radio NZ on the topic here.

Dr Joy rose to international renown after being quoted in the New York Times on the eve of the release of The Hobbit saying:

“There are almost two worlds in New Zealand,” said Mike Joy, a senior lecturer in environmental science at Massey University in Palmerston North. “There is the picture-postcard world, and then there is the reality.”

The clean and green image has long been promoted by the isolated country in its striving to compete in world markets. But an international study in the journal PLoS One measuring countries’ loss of native vegetation, native habitat, number of endangered species and water quality showed that per capita, New Zealand was 18th worst out of 189 nations when it came to preserving its natural surroundings.

This was in something of a contrast to the 100% pure NZ campaign that the National Government of the day was rolling out. Frank Macskasy points out some of the hypocrisy around that campaign and also highlights the joys resulting from critiquing Government (intentional pun).

Joy is not unaccustomed to criticism of his approach of letting the science speak even if it doesn’t agree with big business interests.

The Environmental Protection Authority CEO’s complaint to Massey University about the freshwater ecologist sparked a disciplinary process, yet the agency seems strangely disinclined to speak out on climate change denial, writes Shaun Hendy.

As a member of the Science and technical advisory group, Dr Joy is a party to the review of the National Policy Statement on Fresh Water. The Government is moving toward reducing intensity in agriculture and horticulture to protect the environment and achieve our goals of healthy rivers. This is in contrast to Dr Nick Smith’s National Policy Statement that just moved the bar of what we call healthy to label our polluted rivers clean and green.

The previous Government’s action described in the report by Professor Sir Peter Gluckman (the inaugural Chief Science Advisor to the New Zealand Prime Minister) as:

In the proposed amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (NPS-FM), contained in the 2017 Clean Water package, there is a move to require councils to identify where the quality of lakes and rivers will be improved so they are suitable for swimming more often, and an associated target to make 90% of rivers swimmable by 2040. To enable enactment of these amendments, and to overcome the deficiencies in the current NPS-FM, the Clean Water package proposes the more nuanced grading system described above.

“Nuanced” being the term used to explain a grading system that has labelled our rivers healthy when on the scale of the developed world’s worst polluters we rank in the top 20. In fact, when we first assessed the threat status of our native freshwater fish in the early 1990s we discovered that 22% were either threatened or at risk. Fast forward to 2018 and now 74% have been forced to the brink of extinction. Noting that 92% of our 50 genetically distinct native fish species are found nowhere else in the world so once they are gone they are gone.

Not a bad achievement for one generation. But as Dr Joy explains it is worse than that:

This makes us by far the worst of the developed nations for fish species health. As bad as that is in itself, the central truth of ecology is that things never exist in isolation. He tu tePahu, He tu te Tai (If the dolphin is well, our coasts are well). Same with fish: They’re either top of the aquatic food webs in our rivers, or close to it, so they’re ideal indicators of the health of freshwater ecosystems.

What that tells us in 2018 is that New Zealand’s freshwater systems are in awful shape and getting worse fast. Our grandchildren won’t be swimming in our rivers, and there won’t be native fish in them either, unless we make changes.

That is just our above ground aquatic life, Gluckman also points out that “even our groundwater resources contain life –over 100 invertebrate species live in aquifers, and are believed to play an important cleansing role for the water in those aquifers.”

Fortunately, our Government has the matter in hand. We have a Freshwater Fisheries Act that protects our fish. Well, it protects one fish species – the grayling. If you haven’t heard of the grayling it could be because it was extinct for five decades before it made the list. On that basis, 74% of the rest of our native fish should soon qualify to make the list.

The same law does protect introduced fish such as trout and salmon. Which Dr Joy likens to protecting goats and deer instead of kiwi and kereru. Our other fish are only protected if we do not eat them which looks like:

“Freshwater crayfish: threatened. We eat them. Freshwater mussels: threatened. We eat them. We harvest five species for fun and profit under the name “whitebait” – the īnanga, the kōaro, the banded kōkopu, the giant kōkopu and the short jaw kōkopu. Of these, only the banded kōkopu is not threatened.”

Land, Air, Water Aotearoa (LAWA), is a group set up by the regional councils of NZ to monitor our nation’s waterways. It has since expanded to include the Cawthron Institute, Ministry for the Environment and Massey University with support from the private Tindall Foundation.

However, some believe that they are asleep at the wheel such as Council of Outdoor Recreation Association’s research officer Ken Sims. Ken believes that although they were set up with good intention and began as a credible source of information their report on improved rivers has undermined their credibility to the point “The whole thing has now become a source of misinformation,” he said. “It looks like LAWA is in La-la Land.”

Backed up
by Dr Mike Joy who said LAWA was arguably irresponsibly moving into dangerous
territory.

“Because the worst thing for freshwaters in New Zealand is a false impression that net improvements are being made before the necessary changes are actually made,” he explained.

Sir Peter Gluckman, who is more politically correct, does not lambast our past river health monitoring efforts as much as some, however, his report does contain some statements that send strong messages.

Some water bodies are in a good state but others have been significantly compromised by agricultural intensification, urban expansion and industrial pollution, hydroelectric development, or the effects of drought. Our wetlands have been greatly reduced and many river catchments are significantly affected by dam systems.

For both rivers and lakes, nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) concentrations, and the levels of microbial contamination, increase with increasing proportions of high-intensity agricultural and urban land cover in their catchments.

The fundamental ecosystem health issue is whether these nutrients trigger excessive phytoplankton growth, which varies considerably between catchments but is clearly related to human activities on land.

The science is clear -New Zealand’s fresh waters are under stress because of what we do in andaround them

Despite an enormous effort there is a lack of systematic monitoring of river and lake fish, wetland ecology and water quality, and groundwater macro-fauna, and no overall nationally integrated water quality monitoring programme that deals with the need for representativeness and other design criteria. Thus there is a risk of bias in reporting, and the gaps place some limits on the conclusions that can be drawn about freshwater state and trends.

Considerable work is now being directed by research agencies, academics, industry organizations and regional and central government to address the freshwater issues facing New Zealand. In addition, there is increased stakeholder and community participation in freshwater planning, limit setting and in restoration activities. There is no universal set of solutions –in many cases the solutions will need to be catchment-specific, and some, because of the nature of the catchment, may take decades to have maximal effect.

New ways of utilizing our land for economic gain that also have lower environmental footprints need to be found and adopted if we are to meet the vision New Zealanders have for their fresh waters. In turn this may create a further set of societal discussions that will continue to challenge us as a nation

Dr Mike Joy explained to the crowd at Mapua how land use intensification has only been profitable because the environment has been subsidising the activities. If we were to include the uncounted for cost to the environment all the extra production would be at best zero gain but in real terms we are going backwards.

We are selling our “clean green” brand down the toilet for a short-term gain.

He has authored a book, Polluted Inheritance on freshwater and the impacts of irrigation and intensive farming.

13 Reasons Why-The Waimea Dam

15/10/2018

Waimea Irrigators Ltd (WIL) have announced a new funding
model for their share of the dam. The institutional investor that rode in on a white
horse the day after the Council voted the Waimea Dam funding and governance
model down has been side-lined.

[redacted] the institutional investor, whom we know not the identity of,wanted to de-risk his investment by shifting the risk of his shares onto theirrigators. The same irrigators who have shifted large portions of their riskonto the general rate-payer and urban water user. When the irrigators saw thatrisk was being shifted to them in similar fashion they started to squeal like a stuck pig and said it wasn’t fair.

Instead of this unfair arrangement they said they would like to fund the extra shares themselves, so [redacted] passed the hat around, and within a few days they had come up with an extra $11 million dollars from 13irrigators (and possibly one non-irrigating shareholder).

These are the same irrigators, who when we were talking
about an $83 million-dollar dam said they were “at their limit” of payment and wanted
Council (the urban water ratepayer) to buy more shares then the amount of
shares we already had signed up for to more than satisfy our 100-year demand.

These are the same irrigators who were “at their limit” on
the $83 million-dollar dam and could not possibly be tied to any dam overrun
expenses, thus shifting 100% of dam overrun risk on to the general ratepayer
and urban water user.

These are the same irrigators who were “at their limit” when
the environmental flow components of the dam were being divvied out [these
figures are a fabrication designed to shift cost from irrigators that should
fall on the users for using the river as a conduit to run their water from the
dam to their pumps like with all the plan B options]. The end result being that
the general rate-payer had to pick up these costs (now a total of 52% of running
costs) because “we all have to get there together or we don’t get there at all.”

These are the same irrigators who were “at their limit” on an
$83 million-dollar project who managed to find “their share” of the increase in
the dam budget when the project became a $102 million-dollar project – within a
matter of days.

And now we see that within a matter of days 13 irrigators (plus possibly one other) are able to put their hand in their pocket to find another $11 million dollars. This would be in line with the comments by WIL chairman Murray King who said if the dam doesn’t go ahead they would spend more than four times their dam contribution to put in their own water supplies.

The 13 reasons why this dam is being built have been revealed, and they will, once the dam is built, control the water on the Waimea Plains as they have a monopoly on water right allocations. They will set the price of any water shares sold and they will determine if the applicant is a worthy recipient of said shares.

[I am told this statement is factually incorrect. Council controls water right allocations through the TRMP, what the investment vehicle will partly control is the ability to affiliate and therefore get a more secure water supply.]

[redacted] This despite the fact that the general rate-payer and urban water user will be subsidising irrigators on the Waimea Plains for at least the next 100 years anyway.

On top of that we have still ended up with a scenario where the Council does not have a buffer zone between when irrigators are required to experience water restrictions and when the Council reticulation is required to experience water restrictions. I have heard all the explanations from staff how with the dam this won’t be an issue for 100 years. I have also heard how the Government could change what we currently consider to be an acceptable minimum flow in the river at the drop of a hat. I am also waiting to see that the dam works as described as we head into changing climate conditions. [redacted]

Dam Decisions

08/09/2018

Congratulations to the Waimea Irrigators who have secured a
subsidized water supply for the next 100 years (assuming the dam can be built,
functions as intended, and lasts for 100 years). I hope the smaller
shareholders in WIL are informed as to what risks they carry. Given that 2000
shares have been sold to investors only 3000 shares are target rateable in the
event council comes knocking for a share of any overruns. I suspect that some
of the 3000 shares are held by people with an exit strategy also, although
councillors have no idea who the shareholders (or the investors) are.

Businesses on the reticulated supply will also be
celebrating. However, I hope they read the fine print of this dam that they
wanted so badly. I also thought a dam was a good solution, but not THIS dam. If
the costs start to overrun then water on the reticulated supply is going to be
eye wateringly expensive given that we are starting from a position of the most
expensive urban supply in the country. One can imagine in this scenario that
Nelson residents being supplied from Tasman will insist that Nelson City
Council supplies them water, and in that scenario, there will be another
million dollars a year (current prices) that will fall back on Tasman residents
and businesses.

Looking ahead (given that I have been accused of near
sightedness among other things) we are destined for a similar problem that
exists with the current over-allocation model. Urban supply should always have
been protected as allocations were made on the plains. This did not happen and
the council has repeated exactly the same mistake with the new dam supply
model.

Given that the urban water user and businesses are paying
for gold-plated shares in the dam (because it is not an irrigator subsidy) we
should have a gold-plated supply guarantee. This would look something like a
protected portion of the reservoir that can only be released to cover the urban
supply. The deal that we have got is a deal where everyone is on the same
restrictions.

During the summer the irrigators will be pumping full
allocations and the tap on the dam will be opened to meet the demand. When the
dam gets down to 20% capacity water restrictions will kick in across the board
(irrigators, urban, and commercial). Everyone will end up on cease take at the
same time just as occurs now. This will not affect the bulk of irrigators as
they need the supply early in the summer before their fruit and crops are
harvested. The most likely irrigators to be affected by late summer
restrictions are market gardeners and dairy farmers extending their season.

However, the industrial users such as fruit processors, and
the meat works will be hitting peak season as restrictions apply. Other
industries also spoke about how they cannot afford any restrictions, such as
the glue plant, cool stores, and the mall etc. Given the exceedingly high price
our industries are paying for their “water security” I hope they are happy with
the deal this dam offers for the next 100 years.

Since I am so nearsighted, my objection that there is no mention in the Terms Sheets of who pays for the decommissioning of the dam is obviously redundant also. But what do we care, we won’t be around in 100 years, right? Let’s hope this dam doesn’t need decommissioning before then.

In the short term I only have to worry about the degraded
state of the river, a responsibility in our consents and under The National
Policy Statement For Fresh Water (that doesn’t state we have to build dams
contrary to what dam supporters keep telling me). The corners being cut in dam
construction by flooding a huge quantity of mulched wood and stumps left in
situ will be challenging to mitigate the effects of. It is highly likely that
the running costs will blow out accordingly as we try and mitigate these effects
– further adding to the burden on water users.

Of course, my concerns are only based on a few vocal
nay-sayers and I should only be taking the advice of staff and their experts.

No doubt time will tell who are the heroes and who was the voice of reason. Whether dam advocates will be labelled as saviours of the district or whether the nay-sayers will be able to say “I told you so.” But one thing is for sure, if this dam doesn’t deliver as promised, it won’t be the wealthy that will be left homeless.

Tasman District Council Remains Economical – With The Truth

28/08/2018

This Council is always looking for ways to save. We have found that we can stockpile the truth by only using it sparingly.

For instance, in the agenda for Tuesday 28^th August 2018 the council staff inform me:

Funding and Finance – Waimea Community Dam
The Nature of Public Investments

18.10 Concerns have been raised in the past about the Council’s investment in the proposed Waimea Dam being a subsidy to irrigators. What is proposed is not that but is an increased Council contribution to get a project over the line. The Council should be motivated to do that (within limits) because the do nothing and alternative augmentation options cost the community more and/or deliver less value.

18.11 Public capital investment in government-owned assets creates the opportunity for private investment and productivity – that is why councils and central governments do it. The effect of public capital investment on economic growth is hotly debated. While analysts debate the magnitude, the evidence is that there is a statistically significant positive relationship between infrastructure investment and economic performance.

18.12 In the case of this project the investment opportunities are for the irrigators and others to take. Some may argue that there is an element of exclusivity here in that ‘affiliation’ and a water supply agreement is required to gain access to the benefits. In other words, access is available for a fee.

18.13 Other public investments in assets such as roads, airports, ports, transit systems, and even community facilities create investment opportunities for and ‘subsidise’ someone. Our consenting and regulatory work enables developers and others to profit also. While some may be genuine public good and access is ‘free’ there are many other examples where a fee is needed to particulate.

It is such a relief to know that this dam funding model is not a subsidy to irrigators – I was obviously mistaken when I highlighted the ways that this project has gone from an extractor/user pays model to a huge subsidy of irrigators.

It turns out that the urban water user and general ratepayer (staff use the term “Council”) is making an increased contribution to get the project over the line. This increased contribution reduces the amount that the irrigators are paying for their shares, and increases the cost of our shares as the percentage of water allocation remains the same. Which is obviously a different model to the irrigators getting a subsidy.

Here was I thinking that a subsidy is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of simple maths. Either you are paying the same rate as everyone else for your shares, or you are getting discounted shares at someone else’s expense (a subsidy by any other name).

It is interesting to note also that other public investments in assets “subsidise” someone. It appears if you use “air quotes” when talking about something, like a subsidy for instance, it is somehow not an actual subsidy but instead it is a “subsidy.” This clarification is important because once upon a time I would have said staff are lying but now I understand that they are just “lying” (which is not telling real lies, just the other kind of lies).

“Lying” appears to be a common trait amongst those ardent supporters of the dam. We have seen that irrigators are often found to be “lying,” such as Juliane Raine who also claimed there was not a subsidy of irrigators, and Murray King was picked up by Newsroom reporters as using truth in an economical fashion

King bristles at suggestions the extra irrigation might pollute the very waterways it’s trying to save. “This area is already heavily irrigated. And when people say that it’s going to lead to more nitrates and things it’s just not true.” (However, he adds the disingenuous line that “farmers are not in the business of wasting resources”, which, if true, would mean councils wouldn’t have to impose rules to fence off waterways or limit farm runoff.)

And again:

Another points-scoring argument comes from Waimea Irrigators’ King: “The more you delay the project, the more it costs.” But then he adds that delaying have often been “instigated by the naysayers”, when it appears the project’s biggest hurdle has been funding.

However, it is not just irrigators that stoop to using “lies” to get their point across with more conviction. Independent CWS Advisory Group (who are independently ardent advocates of the dam) representative Morgan Williams has offered to sell his reputation down the toilet for free (likely a candidate for a Tui advert I suspect). I am sure most Tasman residents heard the radio adverts and received a glossy flier in their letterbox paid for by …. (good point, who is funding Mr independent Williams and friends?).

He claims that without a dam there will be serious water cuts, and the Waimea River will get sicker. Well, which is it Morgan? Is the river going to dry up or are we going to have water cuts?

The dam is the only option, using natural gravel “pipes” to feed the land and fill our urban water supply. Note the use of air quotes around “pipes” because they are not real pipes – in fact they are not pipes at all. The truth is that we are using the river, and urban water user and general ratepayer is “subsidising” (staff tell me it is not real) the irrigators use of the river “pipes” under some fictitious concept called environmental flow costs.

The “Who Pays? Donut chart would have you believe that the ratepayer is picking up hardly any of the bill. In running costs alone you are paying 51% (which is conservatively around $81,100,000, over 100 years) never mind actual contributions, and underwrites of irrigator loans etc.

There are many more economies of truth in the flier such as alternatives that won’t work, the dam is the most affordable option, the project has region wide benefit, etc etc. But I will highlight just one more.

Morgan Williams, ardent supporter of all things truthful would have us believe that the Waimea Community Dam has had 18 years of YES votes at “every stage” of the Community Dam. Very conveniently, he entirely overlooks the 11^th December 2014 vote that was a NOT YES, back when the Council consulted on a Council owned and funded dam.

Tasman District Council Minutes of Full Council – 11 December 2014 Minutes

That the Full Council

receives the Proposed Waimea Community Dam – Funding and Governance Options report RCN14-12-01; and
agrees not to include either option 1 or option 2 of the funding proposals from the Funding and Governance Statement of Proposal consulted on in October/November 2014 in the Long Term Plan 2015-2025; and
Funding and Governance Statement of Proposal consulted on in October/November 2014 in the Long Term Plan 2015-2025; and
requests that staff include $25 million in the Long Term Plan 2015-2025 Consultation Document for a water augmentation scheme being Council’s share of the environmental flows and provision for the current and future urban water needs for the Waimea basin; and
notes that a commitment to funding a water augmentation scheme in the Long Term Plan 2015-2025 will be conditional on project scope (including an independent review of alternative options for urban supply encompassing ecologically sustainable water management practices, as agreed by Council) and external funding being agreed; and
establishes a Council Controlled Organisation for the objectives set out in s59 of the Local Government Act 2002 and for the purpose of enabling external funding to be obtained, enabling the statutory purposes exercisable on behalf of the Council to be accessed, and delivering cost effective local infrastructure; and
notes that further consultation and engagement with the public on a water augmentation scheme will be undertaken, including on a new proposal in the Long Term Plan 2015-2025 Consultation Document; and
notes that the decision to proceed or not proceed with the Waimea Community Dam cannot be made until further information is available; and requests that staff report back on the work programme to implement these resolutions; and
instructs staff to write back to all submitters with information on the Council’s decisions contained within this report and informing them on the next consultation steps; and
requests that staff report back to Council on the proposed constitution and board make up of the Council Controlled Organisation; and
requests that staff report back to Council on the opportunities available for the promotion of water conservation; and
promotion of water conservation; and requests that staff report back to Council on options to attribute the $25M funding for urban water needs and environmental flows and to model these funding options on a number of sample properties; and
advocates, in seeking any external funding for direct beneficiaries, a proportional user-pays model whereby contributions are relative to consumption or future consumption; and
ensures that the Long Term Plan 2015-2025 Consultation Document contains information on alternative options to the proposed Waimea Community Dam.

Note that at this juncture we were to advocate a proportional user-pays model. Which is more or less what was presented to me when I was first asked to vote on proceeding with the dam. Then we had to NOT “subsidise” the irrigators into the current funding model to get the version we have now. A model that some describe as a wealth transfer of significant magnitude.

The TDC staff pie chart is slightly more reflective of the current funding model, although, it also neglects to shade the $35million ratepayer underwrite of the CIIL loan in at the very least a hatched colour.

Let us return for a moment to the “lies” told by dam advocates such as Mayor Kempthorne and senior council staff. This old, often repeated, chestnut is one of my favourite:

Environment and planning manager Dennis Bush-King said “In the worst-case scenario, when there are cease-take directions, Tasman will face its own ‘Cape Town’ situation and people will collect water from tankers.“

Surely this is a fact? Well, it is certainly a possible outcome … if the Council elects NOT to build the dam … AND there is a serious drought … Ohh and a change of council policy (something they neglect to mention – economical with the truth). The current agenda mentions on at least two occasions that council policy is:

4.16 For many years, Council has accepted that ‘doing nothing’ is not an option when it comes to addressing the water allocation and water quality issues in the Waimea River catchment.

4.35 As noted above, “doing nothing” is not an option when it comes to addressing water allocation and water quality issues in the Waimea River catchment or for securing the urban water supply against droughts and demands from growth.

And yet we proceed to make media statements that the worst-case scenario if the dam doesn’t go ahead is a do nothing option.

There are many other economical uses of the truth in the agenda, however, it is late and tomorrow will likely be a big day as we vote on the dam. As we are told that a $26 million change in the dam funding model is not worth consulting the ratepayers on (even if it means pushing out $20m worth of budgeted projects) I will just leave you with the question I have asked before:

If this dam is so good why are we constantly “lying” to sell it?

DEAN MCNAMARA – YOUR VOICE IN COUNCIL

Dam Myths and Other Effects

NZ Rivers Of Death

13 Reasons Why-The Waimea Dam

Dam Decisions

Tasman District Council Remains Economical – With The Truth

Councillor McNamara: As Reported In The News

Archives

Share the joy

Why Vote McNamara?

Councillor McNamara: As Reported In The News

Archives

Share the joy

Why Vote McNamara?

Tags