No dam, no apples: orchardist

Orchardist David Easton warns apple growing may go from the Waimea Plains, near Nelson, if a proposed $82.5 million dam doesn’t get the nod.

‘‘Without the dam proceeding, we do not have a viable option other than to cease apple growing,’’ Easton said on Friday during a hearing at Motueka. ‘‘What are the consequences of that to all our ratepayers in the Tasman district?’’

Easton spoke during the fourth and final day of a Tasman District Council hearing over the controversial Waimea dam project, earmarked for the Lee Valley.

The council and Waimea Irrigators Ltd (WIL) are proposed joint-venture partners in the proposal, which is tipped to be funded by a mix of ratepayer, irrigator and Crown funding, and provide water augmentation for 100 years.

The hearing follows the council’s call for submissions on ownership and funding options for the scheme including a proposed $29m council underwrite of a likely loan from Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd for WIL. The proposals drew 1512 submissions – 1384 by deadline and another 128 that were late. All have been accepted by the hearing panel.

Speaking in support of the proposal, Easton said security of water supply was key. If apples were not watered in the lead up to harvest, the crop couldn’t be picked. The trees also needed water after the harvest when they put their energy into new growth.

‘‘One year of restricted water affects the following year’s production,’’ he said.

Easton Apples Ltd had up to 80 people on orchards at peak times. It was also a major shareholder in the Heartland Group that stored, packed and marketed about 20 per cent of the Nelson apple crop, 90 per cent was sourced from the Waimea Plains.

At the seasonal peak, Heartland employed up to 200 people, Easton said. Orchard wages were about $1.4m while the wage bill at Heartland was more than $5m. ‘‘That’s the direct wages.’’ Under a no-dam scenario with its associated tighter restrictions, Easton said in conditions as dry as the region had experienced this week, he believed he would face a 50 per cent cut in water.

‘‘We’d be making decisions that we couldn’t take a block to harvest,’’ he said. ‘‘If we don’t have water, we don’t have a business.’’

Other submitters shared differ- ent views on the project with some, including Peter Besier, saying the proposed funding model represented a ‘‘massive’’ subsidy to irrigators.

‘‘Ratepayers are always at the bottom of the cliff,’’ he said.

Georgina Upson said the council had no responsibility to ensure the profitability of individual businesses.

Neither the council nor the ratepayer was a bank, she said.

Motueka Community Board member and former councillor Barry Dowler, speaking as a ratepayer, said the proposed $29 district-wide cost was not expensive.

Dowler said he supported augmentation.

‘‘If the dam is the cheapest option, then please carry on.’’

Retired fruitgrower Ray Hellyer said he would prefer that any dam was a private enterprise development from which the council could buy water.

The council had a ‘‘poor record’’ of completing projects on budget, he said.

For and against

As many submitters pointed out over the four days, the question of whether or not there should be a dam was not on the council submission form. Therefore, it is hard to be definitive about how many submitters were in favour, or against, the proposal.

However, an analysis by the council of the responses to the five questions on its form from 777 submitters, whose submissions were received by deadline, provides some insight. For four of the five questions ‘‘none of the above’’ was provided as an option and in each case, it was the most popular choice.

For two questions, ‘‘none of the above’’ received twice as many nods as the next highest preference. In response to a question asking which option submitters supported for funding the council’s share of the urban water supply, 426 submissions had ‘‘none of the above’’ ticked – 216 more than the next highest choice.

In response to the question on which option for credit support was backed, 479 submissions had ‘‘none of the above’’ marked compared with 223 for full support by the council.

A Water Information Network (WIN) analysis of 607 submissions provided on a form distributed by WIN shows a majority of 518 answered ‘‘No’’ to the question: ‘‘Is the dam the best option’’.

The panel is due to deliberate in early February.