He said the dam would also benefit the environment.
"The whole reason the dam debate started was around the health of the Tukituki River. When conditions get like this we know it flows more slowly, down to just a trickle and even becomes stagnant so the health of the river declines.
"The dam ticks so many boxes, it makes so much sense to me."
Last week, Hawke's Bay Today reported on a Tikokino farming couple whose well had dried up for the first time in more than 30 years, and in the township of Ongaonga some residents grappled with annual water shortages, the only fix being to access deeper water.
Resident Bill Stephenson said he bit the bullet this year and spent $6000 on a submersible pump to a depth of 25 metres, after the existing pump could not lift water from the previous 7 metre depth.
Although the proposed dam would not include a pipeline feeding Ongaonga's town supply - if it were built those people who were connected to and taking that stored water would not be tapping into the river, which would allow the groundwater level to come up, he said.
"Ground extraction has got to stop unless we get the dam - it's such a simple theory, they need to build it immediately and start filling it up."
This week, the regional council agreed to continue the moratorium on the project until the end of May this year, and in the meantime a review of the scheme was under way looking at issues ranging from costs and consequences of withdrawing, to peer reviews of reports, contracted water uptakes, the efficacy of flushing flows, and an assessment of alternative dam sites off the river's main stems.
If you talk to agricultural economist, Peter Fraser, however, the simple fact of the matter was that as it stood the economics didn't stack up.
"It sounds like a no-brainer but it isn't. To make the scheme pay you need to use the water to intensify, and when you intensify you become less resilient and have increased risk.
"It's also not just a matter of irrigating and adding water from cheap water storage - the cost of the infrastructure makes it hard for farmers to invest - the only ones that could afford to do so would be dairy farmers. This scheme needs dairy as a cornerstone client but with the volatile commodity markets, and the costs of the on-farm infrastructure, dairy can't afford the water price."
He suggested an alternative would be to make better use of the existing water, and consider ways to increase the value of dry-land farming.
Hawke's Bay Regional Council chairman Rex Graham said the current review of the dam was looking at all the issues, and that any decisions would need to wait so they would be informed by the clearer understanding it would provide.
"We need water storage - few people would argue with that - what is not clear is whether this particular scheme is viable."
He said he had an open mind, but on two matters he was unmoving - he did not support using the Port of Napier as security to make loans to fund a deficit, and he did not support the ratepayers spending $36 million on an additional four million cubic metres of water in addition to the original dam proposition.
"We need water storage, and our region needs to look at creative, sensible and affordable ways of doing that."
The most immediate hurdle for the project, however, was the land swap proposal that was currently before the Supreme Court, due to be heard at the end of next month.
