Ruataniwha Dam Version 2.0 

People think that when we have town water restrictions in summer it’s because we’ve run out of water – it’s NOT, we have plenty of water under current consents which we NEVER FULLY USE – it’s because there are limits to what we can pump and store during high demand periods. It’s an infrastructure, not a water supply, issue

Council recently started to build another large storage tank between Waipukurau and Waipawa for water resilience, but have stopped this work we understand because of cost reprioritisation following Cyclone Gabrielle  – wouldn’t council be better to put our money into completing the water storage tank and pipework instead of spending it on this Trust and promoting the dam?

Mayor Alex Walker has stated that she has no concerns about the Ruataniwha dam poisoning our waterways as there are environmental protections in place to stop further farming intensification and nitrate leaching.  There aren’t.

The National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) doesn’t restrict intensification – that falls under the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater (NES) which has a sunset clause that will see it expire in January 2025.

The NPS-FM does cover things like nitrogen reporting, intensive winter grazing, and wetland management; however, this coalition government – not renowned for its love of the environment – has announced it will repeal NPS-FM – what will replace it?

The Regional Council’s Tukituki Plan Change 6 (PC6) does supposedly have provisions that could limit intensification; however, these are not effective.  This is because the tool used by PC6 to control nitrogen is the Land Use Capability (LUC) model, which “gives considerable headroom (30-50%) for further nitrogen losses across the catchment and is not considered an effective means to manage nitrogen where the levels need to be significantly reduced” (source: Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme Review, 2017, p.68)

Why the rush to establish a Trust before ratepayers have had a chance to be fully informed? CEO Doug Tate told Councillors last week there is no deadline to form a trust. 

He also said it was optional for Council to be involved in establishing a trust and that it was possible for Tamatea Pōkai Whenua and Water Holdings Hawkes Bay to partner up and establish a Trust themselves.

Great idea!

The dam promoters never talk about the fact the dam reservoir will be built on an major earthquake fault-line (the Mohaka Fault) – yes, you read that right!

They say they can ‘engineer around’ this risk, but we say it’s just arrogance to think they can manage whatever force nature throws up.

​​Dams can also fail just due to faulty construction methods – check out what’s happening right now with the Paradise Dam in Queensland, Australia

Why are Central Hawke's Bay District Council so keen to get involved in this?

Why can't the community trust be set up by the consent holders without Council involved?

​The proposed trust is a ‘Community Trust’ in name only – the community weren’t even aware a trust was underway until Wise Water Use uncovered it a few weeks ago, and forced Council to ask for public feedback after showing up in numbers at the meeting of Thursday 17th October.

Otherwise, the Trust Deed – which has cost ratepayers $20,000 in legal fees (so far!) – would likely have been endorsed at that meeting and announced after the fact. Talk about secrecy!

Will intensive farming associated with an industrial-scale dam really help our region grow? 

Currently Siver Fern Farms meat processing plant in Takapau is the major employer in CHB.  With a shift to intensive dairy and specialist cropping our sheep farms will decline in number, potentially spelling the closure of the Takapau plant.

Consider this: in South Canterbury the Van Leeuwen Group milks 10,000 cows on 11 dairy farms to produce five million kilograms of milk solids annually.  It has moved to robotic milking systems, and is now underwritten by an Australian non-bank investor.  Not very ‘community’ focussed.

The water we do have would be plenty for our district if we weren't using the land in ways that go against nature.

The Ruataniwha plains are naturally meant for dry-land farming. We don't want to be irrigating stoney riverbed soils to grow grass for intensive dairy. Not only is this inefficient but it will cause more nitrate leaching into our waterways.

CHB already has the lowest economic return per capita for the highest water use in the district.

High nitrate levels have been proven to increase cancer risk. Our nitrate levels in many areas are already well above the WHO standards.

The dam promoters are greenwashing this project by saying they will release water to keep the river flowing but if we weren't squandering our water now we wouldn't have low flows - plys these environmental flows will have to be paid for, likely by HBRC which would increase your regional rates by 37% (by our calculations).

Whilst it is pleasing that CHBDC has now started a discussion on their web page about this issue, this does not constitute robust consultation. Full consultation means reaching out to ratepayers with all the information, as recently occurred with the Representation Review, and Streets for People consultations.

​Expecting ratepayers to find their way to council’s online chat forum is a passive means of engagement and will lock out many ratepayers, especially elderly, who aren’t familiar with this type of forum.

They say this is about climate resilience, but the amount of extra intensification of farming that would occur with a dam would mean more emissions.

​The dam itself will contribute to climate change because it has such a large footprint (the dam will be 7 km long and have a surface area of 370 ha.), and as the organic matter (i.e. trees and plant material) under the water break down this releases methane and carbon dioxide. Methane is a greenhouse gas that's 20 to 40 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

The Tukituki river supplies 43% of all sand and gravel that reaches the coast which is vital to keep coastal erosion in check and to protect private and public property.

No shingle will move past the dam wall and down the river, which will make already concerning coastal erosion even worse.

At the time of Ruataniwha v.1 there was discussion about trucking shingle out to the cost to make up the shortfall - wouldn’t it be better to let the shingle move down the river naturally as it does now?

​

Last time with Ruatanihwa v.1 our then-pro-dam Council signed up to take 5 Mm3 of water to be paid for with rate increases, which WE DIDN’T NEED!

This was because they wanted to prop up the dam which had stalled because not enough farmers would sign up to take water because it was too expensive.

Expect a similar move this time around, except the water will be way more expensive meaning even higher rate increases.

Alex Walker has shown herself to be a mostly competent Mayor, and works well with Doug Tate (Chief Executive). However Mayor Walker clearly has a blind spot for the Ruataniwha Dam.

Why is this?  And, why are CHBDC pursuing this Community Trust to promote the dam when the legacy of Ruataniwha v.1 is one of community division?

This time around is no different - this proposal has already divided our community at a time when we need to be working together.

Shouldn't Mayor Walker take heed of her own catch-phrase, "together we thrive!"?

We don't have a "water crisis" in CHB we have an issue with the way we use our water.

Just 6 users take 42% of our consented water at the moment. Instead of building a massive, expensive, environmentally destructive dam, we need land use change and a fairer way to distribute our water.

Wise Water Use first!

Why the need for a community trust? They say "we need to keep these consents in the community." The consents are already in the community - they are held by 3 local farmers who have lived here for generations.

Do Council have information that the consents are about to be sold outside of the community? If so, this information needs sharing.

Ratepayers will pay for all the road maintenance surrounding the dam build, with trucks carting shingle and equipment on and off site.

Already the bulk of our rates go to roading. We haven't even fixed all the roads damaged by Gabrielle.

When the Regional Council wanted to build Ruataniwha v.1 there was discussion about dredging the dam and trucking shingle away from the site.

Who will pay for the dredging, trucking and road repair costs? We know who – ratepayers!

In 2023 a large dam in Libya broke after heavy rain from Storm Daniel, releasing 30 Mm3 of water (Ruataniwha will hold 100 Mm3) destroying parts of the city of Derna and killing an estimated 24,000 people. The over-topping of dams following heavy rainfall is the single biggest reason for dams breaking. What would have happened during Cyclone Gabrielle?

Ratepayers living in Waipawa should be very worried.

Large dams only last for around 80 years because of sediment buildup behind the dam wall and then they have to be decommissioned, paid for by taxpayers.

The cost to decommission a Dam can be 40% of the construction cost – is this a cost you want your grandchildren to pay?

They say this is about jobs but think about it: initally this project would bring more people into the district, which would spike rents and cost of living, but when all those people leave again, local residents will be stuck paying those high costs.

The kind of people that are employed to build a dam are specialist tradespeople and engineers.

What sort of long-term jobs are being projected?  The dam promoters never say.  Presently mostly low-wage immigrant labour is used to work on the intensive dairy farms on the region. 

As part of their green-washing campaign the dam promoters are saying there will be a hydro generation plant on the dam.

THERE WON’T – there is NO business case to show this would be financially viable – it’s just spin. We have done the sums and the cost of dragging power 20 km to the Onga Onga substation means hydro generation could never be viable.

Who will pay for the dam build, or be able to afford the water? Already $27M of ratepayer and taxpayers' money has been spent on this project without a sod of earth being turned. 

At  the time Ruataniwha v.1 was canned in 2018  the build cost for the dam and distribution network (water was priced for delivery to the farm-gate) was $900 million.  With inflation that cost would now be at least $1.3 billion.

Where are the investment dollars coming from?  Will ratepayers have to subsidise a dam, as has occurred with the Waimea dam in Tasman District?  Perhaps the dam promoters have an overseas investor lined up - do we want our precious water resource sold to the highest overseas bidder?

Oh, and who will pay the science charges levied annually by the Regional Council against the consents (in 2023 these were $180,000)? 

Why are we going to make the same mistake as Waimea Dam?

Their project cost has blown out 150% and their ratepayers are picking up the difference. All large dam projects so far have had budget blowouts.

Why would we risk damaging the homes of the pekapeka (long-tailed bats), Fernbirds, New Zealand Falcon and native fish?

Not to mention the native tree species, all lost for eternity.

Check out some pics of the natural habitat of the upper-Makaroro River - all of which will be flooded if the Ruataniwha dam were to progress.

It's not about long term jobs, it's not about climate resilience, this is about a few local landowners wanting to cash in on the capital gains a dam would bring.

Short term thinking, driven by a quest for money.

The decision to endorse a Community Water Trust deed was always going to be viewed with suspicion by ratepayers, which was why it was so disappointing that Council did not allow a speaking slot for Wise Water Use at the meeting on Thursday 17th. By silencing Wise Water Use in this matter (seriously, what harm would there have been in allowing them 5 minutes to speak?)

Council demonstrated that they were afraid to engage publicly with dissenting voices.

Now, because over 50 people showed at the meeting of 17th October demanding consultation, Council to their credit has opened up their 'Lets Talk CHB' site - let's make the most of this opportunity! 

​

The cost bandied about  for water under Ruataniwha v.1 was 27 cents per m3. 

That figure was low because it was to be heavily subsidised by HB Regional Council ratepayers. The HBRC financial advisors [BNZ] stated at the time a commercial return on investment (RoI) would require a price of between 45 and 50 cents per m3.

Will ratepayers be subsidising dam water again, and will farmers be able to afford to buy it under take-or-pay contracts (i.e. you pay the same amount every year regardless of whether you use the water or not)?

Farmers, and ratepayers need to ask themselves are they willing to pay what could be almost double now, given inflated construction costs and the bad habit of Dams to completely blow their budgets, as with the Waimea Dam in Tasman district (150% over budget)?

Seriously Council, we need to see the business case BEFORE contemplating establishing a Trust to hold the consents!