The water users were told that doubling the low flow in the Tukituki (from two cumecs per second to nearly five cumecs, reducing ground water extraction on the Ruataniwha plains, and spending $10.47 million (Source: RWSS Public Update to HBRC, July 8, 2016) from the dam revenues on catchment and biodiversity enhancement would be a huge win for the environment.
Plan Change 6 would cement those gains by strictly enforcing reductions in intensive livestock farming and controlling fertiliser use. Over time, the scheme would lead to major improvements in the water quality and quantity.
We were further informed that investing $80m of ratepayers money for an annual return of 6.5 per cent made sense. Made even more attractive because at the end of 70 years the community would get ownership of a $350m asset.
It seemed a wise investment since irrigating 25,000 hectare would create 2500 jobs, increase GDP by 1.5 per cent per annum and reduce global warming by helping sequester massive amounts of carbon through better soil management and moisture retention. The scheme would provide financial benefits to the council as well as economic and environmental benefits to the whole region for generations to come. Similar projects have done as much in Canterbury and Otago over many years.
We were informed that on-farm storage was more expensive and less reliable than the big dam because it rains a lot in the Makaroro catchment but it doesn't rain much at Hatuma and Otane.
Building one big dam is cheaper than building lots of small ones. Rather like having one big reservoir for Hastings and Havelock is cheaper than every house having its own water supply.
The experts said the dam would be built near a fault line but was designed to stand up to a force 9 quake. This seemed reasonable.
We were told that the 42 million cubic metres of contracted water which we have signed up for is sufficient to make the scheme viable.
This was confirmed by Deloittes in its RWSS Business Case Peer Review Update (Presented to HBRC: July 8, 2016). Indications were that all the water would be fully allocated within 15/20 years as has happened elsewhere. Evidence from the Opuha dam where shares have risen in value from $1 to $13 in 20 years supports this forecast.
Opponents of the dam said this was all wrong. We are being duped by selective and misleading information and outright lies. The dam will destroy rivers, the business case is shonky, intensive livestock farming is inevitable, the port will be mortgaged and sold, the rivers will run with nitrates from cow manure and the farmers and investors will all go broke. And so on.
Both sides can't be right. The new council now has the opportunity and the responsibility to lay out all the facts hitherto concealed from us and explain why the dam should not go ahead.
They need to clarify and refute all the so-called spin and misinformation that has led us to sign up to the dam in good faith. Many of us have started making plans and we need a decision soon. This rebuttal must be factual, based on good science, and peer reviewed by reputable experts.
Their decision will have enormous repercussions for generations to come and needs very careful consideration. If they are right, I will be one of the first to cancel my contract with the dam builders. If they are unable to prove their case, a lot of people will be very annoyed.
The new council is duty bound to act quickly and responsibly. In the words of the great philosopher Mick Jagger: "You've talked a lot. Now let's have a look at you."
• Tim Gilbertson is a former mayor of Central Hawke's Bay and former Hawke's Bay regional councillor. He was unsuccessful in his bid to be re-elected to the regional council in the recent local government elections.
