Make an online EAR submission
The Tillegra Dam proposal Environmental Assessment Report is currently on public exhibition and opportunity for public submissions is available till 13 November 2009.
You can email a submission directly to the Department of Planning from here now…
Please add your own comments (they will go just above Yours sincerely), and fill in all the fields required in the form below.
The message will contain the following, as well as your own comments:
Subject: Submission Tillegra Dam Project MP07_0156
Dear Sir/Madam
I don’t support the proposed Tillegra Dam because:
1. The EAR fails to justify the need for the dam.
While the Director General’s Requirements oblige Hunter Water to justify the project and explain the need for the additional water supply, the EAR does not provide a satisfactory explanation for the need for an additional 0.5 billion litre water storage. Nor does it provide a robust inventory of alternatives for sustainable water supply for the Lower Hunter.
2. Uncertainty in timing and identity of repayment of dam costs
Due to Hunter Water’s inability to justify a need for the dam for the current population an IPART ruling deferred payment of 60% of the cost of building Tillegra. The socio-economic analysis fails to recognise who will meet this future cost, nor does it account for the likely steep rise in water bills for existing rate payers that would result from a lower than expected population growth.
3. Unacceptable impacts on the Williams River and its environment
The dam will isolate the upstream and downstream riverine environments, with substantial and irreversible impacts on aquatic fauna and riparian vegetation, including threatened species and EECs. It will also remove or reduce the intensity of downstream high flow flushing and scouring events that are needed to maintain the health of the river.
4. Fails to identify and secure volumes of water to flood the Hunter Wetlands
The EAR fails to adequately address the potential impacts and identify and secure the water volumes from the Williams River needed to ensure the long-term health of the wetlands. Much of the information in the report on the wetlands is not site-specific, due to “budget and time constraints”. This allows for much uncertainty in the conclusions drawn in this report. The supplementary Director General’s Requirements have not been adequately addressed.
5. Proposed offsets to mitigate terrestrial environmental damage inadequate
The EAR proposes 1.5 million trees and 1800 hectares of biodiversity corridors to compensate for the land inundated by the dam. This is inadequate to ensure the survival of many species and communities. The report allows that threatened species will lose roosting and breeding habitat but does not adequately address mitigations for this loss. Funding for community vegetation rehabilitation projects is grossly inadequate.
6. Fails to account for the methane emissions
The EAR ignores the greenhouse impacts of the methane emissions from rotting vegetation. It therefore underestimates the climate impacts of the dam by up to 1.3 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent each year, the equivalent of another 27,000 vehicles on the road. Claims of carbon neutrality have no credibility.
Yours sincerely,
Your name as you entered below will automatically be put here in the email.