Wise Water Use Hawke’s Bay (WWU), an environmental lobby group opposed to reviving the previously failed Ruantaniwha Dam, presented a petition this week to the HB Regional Council regarding awarding public monies for the project.

Regional Councillors handled this ‘engagement’ poorly. I’ll come back to that.

The petition, signed at this writing by over 860, reads: “We, the undersigned, oppose the Ruataniwha dam promoters’ plan to use public money to pay for so called ‘environmental flows’. We ask Council to confirm publicly that they will not agree to pay for this water, nor commit any more ratepayer money or resources to this project.”

Says WWU spokesperson Dr Trevor Le Livre: “We don’t need a 100 Mm³ dam subsidised by ratepayers and taxpayers, we simply need to recognize the elephant in the room – here in Central Hawkes Bay we have an issue of water over allocation which can be addressed be clawing back excessive consents and reallocating them based on most environmentally sustainable and economically efficient use.”

Proponents of  Dam 2, the Tukituki Water Security Project (TWSP) led by CHB farmer and Scales Corp (owner of Mr Apple) Chairman Mike Petersen, have routinely insisted that no public funding would be involved in construction of Dam 2.

But this assertion is a bit misleading (CHBDC has already chipped in $85,000 and possibly more TBD), and has steadily shifted in meaning.

For starters, the revival project has already received some $21 million in Crown funding just to determine its very feasibility – $3 million in a matching grant and more recently an $18 million loan, both from the Regional Infrastructure Fund.

It has also received (as part of the funds required to trigger the matching grant) $300,000 from Centralines, which is publicly owned by its CHB power users.

[As an aside, back in its 2024 fundraising document, TWSP put the cost of “advancing the opportunity” at about $6-$8 million. That now seems to require $21 million. My, how consistently dam costs seem to inflate without fail, even before sod turned.]

But perhaps TWSP now means no more funding from councils – with CHBDC (TWSP in fact has a standing money request before CHBDC) and the Regional Council the obvious potential cheque writers (and even HDC and NCC should water be pumped from Central Hawke’s Bay to augment the Heretaunga aquifer, as TWSP proposes).

However even that requires refinement, because: first, it doesn’t rule out additional taxpayer funding for Dam 2, and second, it now seems just to refer to no further council money for construction of Dam 2.

And that leaves the final wrinkle.

TWSP has clearly raised the prospect of public funding as reimbursement for the water the Dam 2 scheme would release for ‘environmental’ purposes. Irrigators would pay only for the water they use directly, at a price lowered (subsidised) by funds paid by the public for ‘environmental flows’ (which, it is claimed, provide a public good … augmenting river flows now diminished by over-allocation to a very few dairy users). In other words, TWSP would build a dam to hold back water for commercial irrigation, then release some of it, for a price, as a favour to the public.

The Wise Water Use petition calls upon the Regional Council to say definitively: No way!

HBRC has already resolved that it will provide no additional ratepayer money (beyond the ‘feasibility’ funding already provided) for progressing construction of the rival Whanawhana dam under investigation for storage off the Ngaruroro River. 

Policy consistency would obligate them to say the same about CHB’s Dam 2.

However, it does come down to making the policy precise.

So far, HBRC has said ‘Yes ‘ to feasibility funding but ‘No’ to construction funding of any Whanawhana dam, but is yet to clarify its stance with respect to ‘Environmental’ funding if either dam eventuates.

That includes the response given by HBRC Chair Sophie Siers to Wise Water Use’s presentation. She commented that any such funding support would imply a new service activity and a change to the Council’s revenue and finance policy, which would require public consultation, to which she was committed as Chair.

Thus, a promise of transparency and consultation if the matter arises (so long as HBRC itself hasn’t been washed away), but no commitment on the substance.

The matter will arise … and soon. 

Both dam projects are expected to lay their cards on the table in August, which would include a pricing of water charged to users of stored water. Proponents of both dams will need to table their assumptions as to exactly who is expected to pay and how much.

During its fundraising, TWSP floated a price between 30c and 40c per m³ that assumed environmental flows would be financed by public funding – ratepayers and/or taxpayers. WWU contends this would raise Regional Council rates by 10%.

Without full disclosure, no judgement regarding the financial viability of either project can possibly be made. Irrigators in particular must know what cost per unit of water they would incur to fund either of the dams’ initial construction costs and their ongoing operating costs.

Stay tuned! 

As for the Regional Councillors …

The Wise Water Use presenters might as well have turned their chairs around and talked at the wall.

They were careful to use their allotted ‘Public Forum” time (5 minutes for the speaker out of 30 minutes allocated) to succinctly present their case, clearly expecting what they had to say would raise questions.

That’s not what happened. 

If someone (a former Regional Councillor no less) comes before you and warns that if you as a councillor endorse the preferred funding scheme for a commercial project, it will cost ratepayers a 10% increase in rates, wouldn’t you at least as a protector of the public purse ask to see the back-up numbers?! Or if you thought them nonsense, decry them as bull crap so the ‘gullible’ public wouldn’t be misled?!

Instead, our HBRC councillors sat there mute. Not a question. 

In fact, astonishingly, Chair Siers did not even invite questions. The standing orders don’t allow for debate during Public Forums, but clearly envision questions and clarification.

The Chair simply dismissed the group with a ‘not to worry’ send-off while thanking them for ‘engaging’. Five minutes and have a nice drive back to CHB. How insulting. If they planned to be so dismissive, HBRC would have been better off not granting the farcical Public Forum in the first place.

And these councillors wonder why they’re on the Government’s chopping block!