[ Return ]
[ Other news articles ]
Opinions vary on the Waimea dam issue
October 15th, 2014
Construction of the Waimea Community Dam (commonly known as the Lee Valley Dam) will be Tasman District Council's most expensive infrastructure project ever, and likely its most contentious.
The project, now more than 10 years in the making, is already raising strong arguments on several sides about the likely effects of costs on ratepayers, agricultural users, environmentalists and urban users, as well as the consequences of a no-dam option. These arguments will likely continue through the upcoming consultation and long term planning stages.
To help readers better understand the project and the arguments for and against its implementation, Motueka Online is offering these two articles from district leaders, prior to the first consultation process beginning next week. They're both lengthy but worth reading.
Dennis Bush-King, Manager Environment and Planning, Tasman District Council
The drought of 2001 in the Waimea revealed two things; the area does not have enough water at critical times of the year and the river is not capable of meeting the demand on it unless users are severely restricted or there is some form of water augmentation.
The Waimea River, and the aquifers it supports, is the central water resource for the Waimea Plains. Industrial, commercial and urban users, including the residential areas of Richmond, Brightwater, Mapua, and parts of Nelson City and the Redwoods Rural Water Supply scheme, and irrigators, all rely on the health and flow of the river for water.
It's not just horticulture that benefits from the plains; viticulture, forestry and pastoral farming are also significant contributors to the economy as are the many down-stream and linked ventures these sectors support. Effectively the area has got through until now with careful management, restrictions when needed and, in some years, luck. However the current management regime is only marking time until decisions about more direct action are made.
The action has come on two fronts and provides the residents, commercial interests and irrigators with some stark choices.
The Waimea Water Augmentation Project has been in operation for nearly 11 years with the sole focus of identifying a sustainable means of augmenting the Waimea River. This project was initiated when the droughts of 2001 highlighted the problems of water shortage and the severe impact of the drought on the Waimea River.
As a result of the augmentation study, the Council has now developed a water management plan for the area that provides a better understanding of how water is to be managed. This plan was recently adopted after consultation with two scenarios, i.e. life with a dam or without.
By choosing not to build a dam the 'no-dam' provisions come into force. The 'no dam' provisions provide for a reduction of existing water permit allocations to actual and reasonable levels of use, set new minimum flow levels, place stringent limits on future urban demands, and enforce a more severe rationing regime in times of shortages.
The way in which we manage the river, the over allocation and current and future use of water on the plains has been the subject of many discussions since 2001. In light of the over-allocation and the need to ensure the river and the aquifers it supports are in the best health, the current allocation levels, rationing triggers, and minimum flows were reviewed.
In March of this year the Council's new water management plan for the Waimea Plains became operational and include the two water management scenarios; - with dam or without dam. The common link is that under either scenario water permits come up for review in 2016/2017.
If there is a dam, a flow of 1100l/sec can be maintained in the Waimea River using water released from the dam. This flow will protect the quality and quantity of water for the range of instream values of the river including native fisheries, ecosystem health and swimming. Rationing of water users will not be required except if a drought exceeds a 60 year probability.
If there is no dam, the new minimum flow will be 800l/sec. This flow will not protect all the instream values fully and water quality declines at this flow because of higher temperature and algal growth. Maintaining a flow of 800l/sec will require rationing to begin earlier than previously required.
If a decision has been made to proceed with the proposed dam, but the dam is not operational at that time, the status quo will be retained until water starts flowing from the dam. If however, it is decided not to build a dam, all water permits for irrigation and urban and industrial water supply will be reviewed under the 'no dam' provisions in the plan. This will see a significant reduction in the availability of water for productive use and urban water supply. If there is no dam no new water permits can be issued.
The basis of any review of all existing water permits, rural, urban and commercial is explained below.
Productive Land
In the case of productive land with a water permit, the current crops being produced and the soil type will be taken into account in calculating the amount of water to be re-allocated.
The crop and soil allocation rates are specified in the Tasman Resource Management Plan. The assessment will also examine the water meter records for the ten years between April 2003 and April 2013. The maximum that will be re-allocated will be the lesser of the maximum weekly amount during that time or the actual amount being used for irrigation based on soil and crop type.
For example if a property on Waimea soils (30mm max) is growing grapes (14mm max), but the maximum historical useage was 10mm, then 10mm would be the maximum future allocation. The rationing triggers apply to the new amount allocated to that permit holder and cutbacks will be imposed every year.
How rationing will work
When the flow in the Waimea River reaches 3000 litres a second (l/s) consultation with water users will begin alerting them to the likelihood of rationing in the near future.
When the water flow at the Wairoa Gorge reaches 2750 l/s stage one rationing will be implemented. Users will be rationed by 20 percent of their new allocation. (ie the person who was previously only using 20 percent of their permitted water would now be rationed from that base figure by another 20 percent.) Previously stage one rationing did not start until the flow reached 2500 l/s and no minimum flow had previously been specified.
Stage three rationing would be implemented when the flow reached 2300 l/s and would reduce all water takes to 50 percent of the new allocation (ie, the grape grower above would be reduced to 5mm and the pastoral farmer would be cut to 13.5mm). Based on historical flow data, we know that the Wairoa River flow falls to 2300l/sec practically every year.
Alongside this, when the flow reaches 800 l/s at Appleby all users will be cut by 70 percent of their new allocation.
Beyond this point the Council may be required to use Section 329 of the Resource Management Act to enforce further reductions or a Cease Take for a range of users but continue to provide for essential drinking and animal welfare water.
This new regime affects all users in different ways. Grape growers who have traditionally only used a small portion of their allocated water may lose a large portion of their current base supply. A farmer who has historically used all of their water allocation may retain that same allocation, but will be greatly affected by the new rationing regime. One of the obvious disadvantages is that someone who has traditionally grown grapes, or been a dry land farmer will lose the ability to diversify their operation to crops requiring more water.
Urban and Commercial users
The new restrictive regime in the 'no dam' water management plan will also have a marked effect on commercial, industrial and residential users. The Council, as a water supply provider, will also be subject to the same the rationing steps, except that for the Council supply, it will not be required to go beyond step 3 rationing.
Additional restrictions mean the Council's ability to increase the number of water users in new development is severely restricted. The 'without dam' option means that development of any kind will have to occur within existing allocations and only in those zones currently supplied or signalled for future urban development. The Council may also have to introduce measures which are common in other water-short places like Australia.
Within the commercial environment, any new venture would be limited to 15cubic metres daily supply. Effectively, new high water use development is limited or curtailed.
Essentially the changes to the water plan apply now and they will be implemented in either of the two scenarios - with or without a dam. The Council is soon to embark on another round of consultation seeking community feedback on this most difficult of choices.
Martine Bouillir, Tasman District Councillor, Golden Bay Ward
Of course the big issue consuming most of our time at the moment is the dam. Here is the link to the Statement of Proposal for the governance and funding of the dam (there are two options), and the Summary of Information www.waimeacommunitydam.co.nz.
For those who don't have the time to wade through it, the upshot for Golden Bay/Murchison/Motueka doesn't really change in either funding option - the minimum anyone will pay is $97- $127 per property as an across the district UAGC rate - which will probably increase somewhat each year. If you are also part of an urban water club this figure will be higher. This rate is considered the environmental/public good portion of 30% of the total cost funded by ratepayers.
Here's a Mail article on the meeting http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/10606141/Ratepayers-have-say-on-Waimea-dam Like most newspaper articles where one is not fully quoted, my comments about Golden Bay and Murchison give the impression I have only parochial concerns which couldn't be further from the truth.
I argued for more like 10% towards the environmental/public good aspect - although it's difficult to argue for something as a precursor to a concept one is not convinced of. I couldn't hand-on-heart commit those in areas of no direct benefit from the dam to this amount. In fact I don't think any of the district's ratepayers should pay more than 10% for this UAGC rate and it's unfortunate I didn't say it in that way - I was trying to impress that there will be a much stronger reaction from areas who see no connection whatsoever to this scheme.
Even Motueka it could be argued, may see some benefit indirectly if the dam goes ahead, by not having their currently free water siphoned off for the coastal pipeline (which still sits way out in the Long Term Plan) - you can see how complex the issues are.
I believe those who use the most water should pay proportionately. I disagree with all landholders in the area of direct benefit having to pay high yearly per hectare rates simply for the allocation of 'potential' - those who are prudent with water or who don't need it should be rewarded not punished.
Yes having an allocation may increase the value of the property - but it will also push out smaller growers and farmers, encourage intensification and greater water use, more monocultures, increased nitrates etc... something we know is not good for our environment and I cannot support. We are in this position now because we have a duty to clean up the Waimea River, due to years of water over-allocation.
My vote against was frowned on around the table but while I acknowledge that we need to have a starting point to have the discussion on the charges, I feel we are on a runaway train that will be hard to turn back from. As I said in the meeting and what wasn't quoted in the article was that we have only been given the option of dam or no dam - with the message that if we don't have a dam we are doomed. Some choice!
I, along with many other ratepayers, want to see more options explored - I remain open-minded about the dam but I will resent being forced into a position because we have refused to thoroughly assess all avenues. My constant plea in council to look at rainwater tanks, retention ponds and dams on private land (whatever happened to water towers for town supplies?) doesn't get taken seriously.
There is also a lot of debate out there around other under-utilised water sources that could be used. I am not in a position to confirm any of these facts when the experts can't agree but suffice to say there is dissent about what, if anything, is actually needed for that short time of the year when drought is a reality.
Many years of 'wrongs' on the plains - whether through ignorance, habit, procrastination or willingness to trade off environment for business interests - should not be fixed with another 'wrong'. But we have been sold the environmental benefits of having the dam - this is not easy to argue with given the current sad state of the plains and rivers.
It all sounds very nice and reasonable ..... but I am no fan of dams and over-irrigation - I have noted too many disastrous long-term effects in countries where this has happened. The businesses may well be thriving but at what cost to local communities and the environment? I am all for successful and profitable business but it needs to be sustainable (and I'm talking more than sustaining less-than-desirable existing thresholds) - we need to be encouraging businesses that restore and redress our current shortfalls - this is possible if we make it a priority instead of a nice-to-have.
My preference would be to clean up the current mess even if it takes a while - if we started today to bring in measures to restore balance to an unbalanced system there is much we could do. But that would be the difficult way - much easier to build a costly piece of engineered infrastructure than to start living within our means.
It's not just businesses - households need to take responsibility for what they use - do we really need to wash cars and boats every week? Should we be flushing expensive treated piped water down our toilets when greywater could be used. If council started insisting we all made more effort people would automatically retrofit rainwater tanks because it makes sense.
I know many will not agree with me and will see this all as too hard, as does council - and indeed the task does seem huge - but I look for leadership that is not afraid of the task and I guarantee this is how the future will look as councils becomes less and less able to afford and maintain the big engineered solutions.
We have got too used to having water to be wasteful with and no-one has loudly enough said 'stop! we need to change our ways before we lose this privilege'. Water is a privilege not a right for some to use at the expense of others.
I am giving voice to some of the 52% in the Nelson Mail opinion column who are opposed to this dam - noting that only 40% are in favour. For most I imagine the resistance is around the financials alone and while that is a big factor, it is more than just that for others. It is the whole principle. This is one that has the support of plenty around the table for those who strongly disagree with me so I am comfortable with making it a conscience stance for those who will not be represented. Don't let that be a reason not to speak up - you must get involved with this one if you have an opinion on it.
My concern is that the current proposals on funding and governance muddy the waters around the decision on whether the dam goes ahead or not. Basically any submissions can only be heard on the issues being addressed (funding and governance) - so don't think that by stating your support for or opposition to the dam at this point you have done your job - those opinions will not be considered until you submit again on the Long Term Plan next year.
It's hard enough to get people to submit at the best of times let alone submitting twice. While the staff have done the best job they can of clearly writing the proposals up, it's complex even for councillors let alone your average Joe Bloggs wading through the reading material and trying to put together all of the contributing factors and possible ramifications.
Meeting dates:
Open for submissions from 13th October 2014 until 14th November 2014 on Funding and Governance of the dam. The Council will be holding a number of information days (drop in) and public meetings around the district during the consultation period to explain the proposed Dam and to answer your questions. The one at Motueka Memorial Hall is on Wednesday 29th October:
3.00 pm - 5.00 pm: Information
7.00 pm - 9.00 pm: Public meeting
Comment by Trish Palmer:
[Posted 17 October 2014]
The sky is falling! So say TDC staff. But we are being hoodwinked. How many folk read the Resource Consent application for the Dam? It is quite contradictory, and doesn't make sense.
Firstly, in a severe drought, the dam will be shut off, once levels get to a certain point. So Users will actually be worse off. So, the Dam is NOT a permanent solution.
Secondly, They promise to look after the endangered species etc, but not for the 3 - 4 years of construction, by which time most lifecycles will have been broken anyway.
Thirdly, they didn't look at any other proposals other than dams, according to the RC application.
Fourthly, the application indicates minimal earthquake risk... in the Shaky Isles, and this close to Wgtn! .. and human nature being what it is, we always want a bit more, so don't trust their projections of water usage increase.
Rural poeple have known for centuries how to live within their natural resources, and how to react when those resources are threatened, yet TDC seems to think that Waimea Plains folk should have the luxury of no restrictions on their activities, and the rest of us should have to pay for their luxury! We currently help pay for the urban folk to pump their rainwater straight out to sea! Isn't that farcical?
The way TDC is doing the steps is quite cynical. By restricting discussion to one area of the proposal, ie funding and governance, they are trying to prevent any negative movement from getting traction or having time to get the concerns and alternatives out there.
Council has failed to meet the obligations of the last LTP, which had in it the requirement to explore other ways of dealing with water issues. Certainly we have not been informed of those options, their costs, etc. The "choice" we are being given is Dam or no Dam.... Hobson's choice.
Comment by Jim Butler:
[Posted 20 October 2014]
As Councillor Bouillir indicates above, if the Lee valley Dam scheme does not proceed, it could be replaced by the Coastal Pipeline taking water from a bore at the end of Parker St in Motueka to Mapua and Ruby Bay. This because Council has allowed a big increase of housing in these areas without making provision for an increased water supply. Council already has approval to build this pipeline but only as far as Mapua and Ruby Bay and the amount of water it can draw off to to supply these settlements has also been limited.
In the dry summer months those Motueka households within the Parker St bore draw-off zone which covers Atkin St, Wilkie St and the western ends of Poole St and Parker St, who get their water from shallow bores, may find their pumps are pumping air rather than water during dry spells. So they may have to bear the cost of connecting to the reticulated water supply and paying for the amount of water they use.
But if the costing for this project remain as originally proposed, then Motueka ratepayers will be expected to meet half the cost of this Coastal Pipeline project. Why? We were told for security of the Motueka's reticulated water supply. This because the Coastal pipeline project includes a reservoir on a hill near Tasman. So if the pumps fail, there will still be water available in Motueka's reticulated supply.
We have been told if the Lee Valley Dam goes ahead, it will add at least $100 a year to our rates, probably more. Now Motueka ratepayers need to find out if the cost of the Coastal Pipeline will be more or less than the Lee Valley Dam? My guess, the dam will be cheaper.
It will certainly be much more costly for many Motueka ratepayers if Council goes for approval to extend the Coastal Pipeline to Richmond. For then the draw off zone will cover a much larger part of Motueka. Householders with shallow bores will have the additional cost of connecting into the town's reticulated water supply and paying for the water they use.
It is my opinion that Council has put Motueka ratepayers between a rock and a hard place.
Comment by Gary Watson:
[Posted 24 October 2014]
With cost predictions for the Lee Valley / Waimea dam continuing to escalate, I believe it would be a good time to sort out the entire regions water supply once and for all by thinking outside the square and consider the following long term solution.
Lake Rotoroa being approximately 22 km's long by over 1 km wide would provide the ultimate natural reservoir for Nelson and Tasman for the foreseeable future. This means almost no major environmental damage, no risk to life of a dam breaking and a simple solution.
There is a railway reserve corridor that is the perfect path for an above ground low cost pipeline so almost no land purchase is required. An above ground large pipe, is low cost to maintain and repair if required and it would provide about a 500 metre head at Brightwater where the surplus water could be discharged into the Appleby river and thus generate about $9 million in electricity every year and maintain the aquifers.
Auckland pipes its water from the Waikato with pumps and in our case its gravity feed so no pump running costs.
I am not suggesting this is the solution but it should be considered.
Comment by Mike Tooker:
[Posted 30 October 2014]
Jim Butler's comments are "spot on". This is realpolitik!
>> , to be added to the page. [If this link doesn't work, use this form instead]
[ Return ]
[ Other news articles ]
We wish to thank these local community-minded businesses who generously sponsor our site. They recognise the value of supporting this community asset, and in return Motueka Online is pleased to use and recommend their services whenever appropriate.
Ray White Motueka, Nelson Building Society, House of Travel,
, Steph Wills Dental Surgery, Elevation Cafe, Restaurant & Bar
