No Tillegra Dam Group

It is interesting to compare the process of proposal evaluation for the Tillegra Dam with that for the upgrade to Keepit Dam. This upgrade, which has been approved by the Department of Planning in concept only (no option chosen yet, no costings etc), is to improve dam and downstream residents’ safety in the event of extreme flooding or earthquake. Obviously the risk of the current dam failing is considered too high in the light of new data.

In the case of Keepit Dam Upgrade, the development and assessment of options was achieved over an extended time period in a series of well defined and staged steps. This was done in order to provide a clear decision trail while taking into account the wide range of values and opinions represented by the members of the Community Representative Panel. Many options were considered and a reconciliation process used to create trade-offs and balance the opposing views. This was an open and transparent process involving the community in the assessment criteria. Agreement was reached by the community representatives on their preferred option and State Water was duly advised.

Compare that with a bombshell announcement by the Government that Hunter Water will dam the Williams River at Tillegra. No community consultation, no discussion of options or alternatives. No mention of the need for this dam in any previous planning documents. Hunter Water has had to come up with an ad hoc explanation for the need now for this dam in a flawed and insufficient document (Why Tillegra Now?), which was published some 8 months after the Government’s announcement. Further, the Tillegra Dam Community Reference Group, which as it is not a community representative group is not interested in canvassing community views – it is a conduit for Hunter Water propaganda. Where was the open and transparent discussion about options? And again, there has been no opportunity provided to the community to discuss or have input into the Preliminary Environmental Assessment now lodged with the Department of Planning.

So why the different process? Call me cynical, but could it have something to do with the fact that just prior to the last NSW election, a few days after a Government Minister was charged with drug and child sex offences, a very hasty Government announcement about a new dam (Tillegra), which would appease voters in critical seats, was made? Or could it be to do with the financial windfall that Hunter Water stands to gain through the sale of water from this public natural resource?

There is no doubt that the whole of Australia is in a water crisis. But to have a solution proposed for political or financial gain with no real transparent democratic process for making informed decisions and no respect given to the local community reeling from this announcement is just a bit too hard to swallow.