Regional councillor Debbie Hewitt's arrogant dismissal of a recent alternative dam proposal as being "written over a glass of chardonnay" (CHB Mail, 25/11/14) is typical of those promoting the current scheme as being an economic panacea for all that ails Hawkes Bay. It is not apparent if councillor Hewitt even read the plan generated by her four colleagues, all accomplished individuals worthy of far more personal and professional respect.
Unlikely, if her recent response to a request about whether the McFarlane Report, which underpins the current dam's economic credentials, has been formally peer reviewed is any indicator. Councillor Hewitt's response was to promptly pass that hot potato to chief executive Andrew Newman, whose subsequent reply expended many words yet provided no definitive answer.
Had councillor Hewitt read the alternative dam proposal she would have been in a position to make informed comment about its detail and merit. The proposal advocates channelling water via existing waterways, with substantial cost savings from dispensing with distribution infrastructure, currently half of the taxpayer-subsidised dam's $300 million price tag. Other ideas include support for on-farm dams, improved irrigation technology and enhanced soil management approaches. In addition, the advantage of stored water would benefit currently excluded farmers in the lower Tuki Tuki catchment, the cost of water would be as much as half, and environmental benefits would be realised from significantly increased river flows. The proposal concludes by highlighting the obvious folly of making any decision "in a vacuum with only one option presented thus far".
Unfortunately for the public and the many farmers who might potentially benefit from aspects of the proposal, it will not receive Regional Council feasibility funding as this was voted down by the now-standard and tiresome margin of 5-4. While it can be argued that this is democracy at work, it cannot be similarly argued that this is transparency in play.
This point is reinforced when details of Plan Change 6, the council's policy establishing the environmental conditions under which the dam would operate, is considered. The general public remain poorly informed about its detail, however. Councillor Hewitt who runs a regular column in the CHB Mail explains it under the disingenuous headline of "Tuki Tuki Plan Change Clarified". Reassuring statements such as "stringent nitrogen limits have been set based on the capability of the land" transport the reader into a world where lions lie with lambs and the regional council are environmental benevolence manifest. However, omitted from this piece are certain inconvenient truths. In its submission to the Board of Inquiry, which is required to sign-off on the Plan, the council argued that "a reduction of in-river nitrogen concentrates ... is incompatible with the [dam] proceeding; in short, that pollution should not be allowed to obstruct profit.
