No Tillegra Dam Group

I would like to address the issues raised by Mr Kevin Young in the Newcastle Herald (‘Tillegra Dams top 10 tall tales now tabled’ 10/12/2008). I agree water security is our number one national issue. However, before this issue comes truth and honesty. I put it that way as at least honesty should cover the situation when the truth is unknown. And there are many unknowns in this story. Let’s look at each of his so-called top-10 tall tales about the decision to dam the Williams River at Tillegra. I live in the Williams River valley and I don’t think his arguments debunk any of the concerns expressed in the issues below.

#10 ‘We don’t need Tillegra because we just went through the worst drought on record and yet the Lower Hunter was unscathed’. This is not an argument that I agree with. Mr Young’s argument in response, that another drought like that of the late 1970’s – obviously not the worst drought on record, whatever that means (longest lasting, greatest area of the region/state/nation affected, severity of water restrictions…?) – would severely affect the Hunter’s water supplies is really just stating that our climate, not taking into account climate change, is very unpredictable and erratic. So relying on the climate to supply a dam, that according to Mr Young during a dry summer will lose as much water as is supplied to customers, seems to be a wasteful, inefficient and costly way of trying to secure water. Mr Young claims that ‘our storages are relatively small compared to the population’ yet the truth is that Australia is amongst the highest for drinking water storage per capita in the world. Also this dam would be in the same area as Chichester Dam – there is no diversity of rainwater catchment – it is the same rainfall events that would fill or miss both dams.

#9 ‘The dam will be built on a fault line that will collapse’. I do not know if this is true or not. The dam is proposed to be built in an area with many fault lines that act as points of water infiltration to the underlying rock strata which can be weakened by water. No one is suggesting that Hunter Water would deliberately build an unsafe dam. But new science, technology, and experience reveals many large dams to be at risk – why would the US be decommissioning so many dams? – mistakes happen.

#8 ‘Cost will blow out to $1 billion’. I don’t know whether this is true or not. I know that originally the proposal was $300 million. Now it is $406 million. That is either a serious miscalculation or the truth is that Hunter Water really does not know the final cost. I know that some experts have estimated that costs could blow out to $1 billion with contingencies to make the dam safe. Hunter Water’s costs are blowing out, and their timelines are blowing out.

#7 ‘Climate change will mean we won’t need the dam’. Climate change means that the climate will change – it will be hotter (on average) and rainfall is likely to be less predictable than it is now and in Australia it has always generally been unpredictable. Drought is not the exception, it is part of the way things are here. So yes we need to be prepared for the future, but not at great expense, including the cost of the loss of viable farming land and the cost to the riverine environment, when sustainable alternatives exist. A cheaper and more sustainable alternative involves all of the following: stormwater harvesting, demand management, improved recycling and efficiency measures, offsite storage (rainwater tanks, underground aquifers etc), reduced leakages combined with planning for contingencies (desalination plants, new storages).

#6 ‘The dam is really for the Central Coast but Hunter customers will pay for it’. There are two points claimed here – one, that the Hunter has a critical need. This has yet to be demonstrated. And two, despite Mr Young’s assertions that if the CC benefit from a future Tillegra Dam they will pay at commercial rates. The CC council have said that they don’t need it and will not pay for Tillegra Dam. In two documents by Hunter Water, ‘Why Tillegra Now’ and their Preliminary Environmental Assessment to the Department of Planning Hunter Water have included the CC as a beneficiary of TD. Let’s be clear, according to Hunter Water and its request for price hikes, it is the Hunter users of Hunter Water services that will pay for the construction of Tillegra Dam.

#5 ‘Rainwater tanks are a cheaper and better option’. I don’t know if this is true or not. I disagree with Mr Young’s claim that rainwater tanks work best under average conditions. I do not get my water from Hunter Water. My family of 6 coped quite well during the last drought on tank water, whilst our dams shrivelled to virtual mud puddles. It did rain during the drought – only a few millimetres at a time – but this was efficiently captured and stored in our tank. We have only one 22,500L tank for household consumption. None of these small rain events added anything to our dams which continued to evaporate. It is the old saying, every drop counts, but only if it falls on the right place – your roof. Rainwater tanks along with recycling, demand management, efficiency measures and other contingency measures are part of the solution to a sustainable future. In a study in the early 2000’s funded by Newcastle City Council and the New South Wales Government Stormwater Trust water management expert from Newcastle University, Dr Peter Coombes concluded that water sensitive urban design (i.e. all the alternatives mentioned above) including rainwater tanks provided the greatest benefit to the community.

#4 ‘Dams are old-fashioned and desalination, recycling and other water efficiencies are the way of the future’. Yet, in 2003 Hunter Water’s Integrated Water Resource Plan stated: “building a new dam at Tillegra would be far less cost effective than many demand management and water conservation initiatives.” Large water storages are inefficient with high evaporation rates and serious environmental consequences. I am not in favour of desalination as it has very high energy usage and very serious environmental consequences. But there are many water experts who have done the modelling to show that the alternatives are cost efficient sustainable solutions. How can a city the size of London with less annual rainfall than Sydney and far less water storage provide its water to its citizens? Recycling! Why does Hunter Water ignore the world wide trend? Could it be that its monopolistic money raising ability is threatened by some of the alternatives?

#3 ‘Tillegra will not bring economic benefits to our region’. Despite the claim of no secure water supply-no growth and other motherhood statements about tourist opportunities the region will prosper if it is sustainable and healthy. The region already has ample sources of water, and if industry needs cheaper water then recycled water is just that. The region already has ample opportunities for tourism activities based around water (dams, lakes, rivers, beaches) and unless you are on the coast tourist operators do it tough, just ask any of them.

#2 ‘Population predictions have been inflated to justify the dam’. I do not think that this is likely to be true. I do think that if you are in the business of building or managing ‘big things’ that are population dependent then you had better err on the high side than be seen to get it wrong if your ‘big thing’ is too small. The actual numbers are a guess, a prediction based on trends. The thing about using the alternatives is that the supply from them grows with the population. What if the big dam isn’t big enough?

#1 ‘The dam is an expensive political diversion’. The fact that Hunter Water has been looking at Tillegra (and other options) as far back as 1952 is a good thing. But that does not mean it is the best option or that it can even be built at that site or that all other options have been considered and compared fairly. The announcement of this proposal by then NSW Premier Iemma just a matter of days after the charging of his Minister Orkopoulis with child sex and drug offences was contrary to Hunter Water own planning documents – their water plan… So it is the timing and the way it was announced and the effect that this has had on the local community that so many find offensive and simply ‘political’ as opposed to carefully throughout, discussed and planned. It does seem to have put Hunter Water on the back foot. It took another 9 months for Hunter Water to put out a rationale for the dam (‘Why Tillegra Now?’), each of their recent major justifications have required resubmission (IPART price increase-they got the numbers wrong, and original submission to EPBC showed lack of due diligence by presenting no scientific data).