Renewed interest in Ruataniwha Dam reckless.

Lead advocate for Wise Water Use, Gren Christie

In response to a recent report (pay-walled) in the HB Today newspaper titled "Christopher Luxon wants new dams built across the country: Absolutely Critical", Gren Christie penned the letter to the editor below. Scroll down for the unabridged version of the letter.

Letter to Editor published in HB Today, 27th February 2024

Unabridged letter below:

"Newly minted PM Luxon and Tukituki MP Catherine Wedd should be cautious in their enthusiasm for the building of the Ruataniwha Dam.

The dam has been a political graveyard for those politicians who backed it in the past.

The reason is that when put under the microscope it doesn’t stack up financially or environmentally.

It would be a good idea if they talked to some local farmers who have done their research rather than have their ears filled with spin from those who stand to gather gold if it all goes ahead.

The three local businessmen who hold the Ruataniwha consents just got a quarter of a million dollar relief on outstanding water charges from the HBRC.  If the government pushes this dam through, ratepayers should prepare for further costs, just ask the Nelson ratepayers about the Waimea Dam cost blow out.

What knowledgeable farmers are saying is the only way they could make money from buying Dam water is by converting to intensive dairy. That would mean taking on massive debt in an uncertain financial world.

It would also mean contributing to making Tulituki toxic and killing fish species (as a leaked DOC report on the environmental effects of the Ruataniwha Dam stated, drafted under the last National led Government).

This led to one CHBD councillor at the time stating that “the Tukituki was not worth saving if stood in the way of progress.”

Farmers who sign for Dam water will have to pay for it whether or not it is used, so in wet summers such as we have had there is no benefit, only cost.

The other interesting thing these local farmers are saying is that irrigating pasture such as intensive dairy does uses 3 times the amount of water than most other common uses of irrigation.

The simple logic is that if there was no or limited pasture irrigation there would be no need for a large dam. Intensive dairy covers about 7,000ha. If there was land use change, water for pasture irrigation could be reallocated for other uses.  Potentially 21,000ha. could be irrigated with the bonus of water pollution being greatly reduced.

Given that some of that land is already under irrigation it is clear that with good water management there would be a surplus to ensure minimum flows in our rivers.

The choice is a financially risky and environmentally damaging dam and maintaining undesirable status quo, or land use change and water allocation reform.

Me, I say Wise Water Use First."

Gren Christie

Lead Advocate for Wise Water Use