Calls to shelve dam plan after cost blows out

Tasman District Council is being urged to step back from the controversial Waimea dam project.

Amid news of a 35 per cent escalation in costs, adding an expected $26 million to the bottom line, there have been multiple calls for the council to stop spending money on the project.

‘‘I think it’s buggered,’’ economist Peter Fraser said. ‘‘How bad does it have to get before [the council] takes the off ramp?’’

Forest & Bird top of the south regional manager Debs Martin said the council should put the dam and an associated local bill on the back burner.

Water Information Network Inc member Lew Solomon called for the council to ‘‘stop wasting money’’ on the project, while Waimea Irrigators and Water Users Society consultant Brian Halstead said it was time to consider other options to augment the area’s water supply.

There is also a call from the inside to apply the brakes.

Councillor Anne Turley said she did not believe the council should continue spending money on the project ‘‘until we know if we’re going to go ahead with the dam’’, which is earmarked for the Lee Valley, near Nelson.

As the revised price was not capped, Turley said she believed further increases were likely.

‘‘There will be cost overruns. I don’t believe the ratepayers can afford it,’’ she said.

‘‘I’m looking at working with [other councillors] to bring a resolution to the August 9 [council] meeting. It’s not just me.’’

Tasman mayor Richard Kempthorne on Thursday announced that the final price for the construction of the dam had come in at just over $68m – about $18m higher than the build estimate of almost $50m. However, other work streams were still to be finalised.

‘‘So the total cost could be $26m more than the estimate in 2015,’’ he said.

A council partner in the project,

‘‘It’s time for [Tasman District Council] to stop wasting money on this.’’

Lew Solomon, Water Information Network Inc

Waimea Irrigators Ltd (WIL), has already raised some equity for its share of the project costs. WIL strategic adviser John Palmer was at the announcement, where he said he was ‘‘completely blindsided’’ by the updated figures.

‘‘There has been no indication during the work of the project office, until the prices were released, that a number of this order should be expected,’’ he said.

Palmer said inflation adjustment was included in the revised number, but it was not a capped price.

‘‘If we had been seeking a fixed capped price, the number would have been higher again.’’

Both Palmer and Kempthorne said the focus now would be on attempting to secure the additional funds. Kempthorne said work on a local bill would continue in the meantime.

The council is pursuing a local bill to gain an inundation easement over 9.6ha of conservation land in Mt Richmond Forest Park, near Nelson. The easement is needed for the creation of the reservoir for the proposed dam. The bill would also secure a right to construct the dam on Crown riverbed.

However, Martin wanted the bill put on ice.

‘‘Given the significant cost blowout, this bill should be put on the back burner until council decide if they can find the extra $26m they need,’’ she said.

A local bill ‘‘undermined the integrity of national legislation by trying to make its own rules for otherwise illegal activities, ie the compulsory acquisition of public conservation land to build this controversial dam’’, she said.

‘‘The bill and the dam should go on the back burner.’’

Solomon said the view of Water Information Network Inc was that ‘‘as far as ratepayers putting their hands in their pockets, enough is enough’’.

‘‘It’s time for [the council] to stop wasting money on this.’’

He said the incorporated society was organising a protest at the council office in Richmond on August 9. The demonstration, already planned before Thursday’s announcement, would coincide with a scheduled council meeting. People who want to participate are asked to gather about 9am outside the council office on Queen St.

Halstead said it was time to consider other options to augment the water supply.

‘‘The honourable thing would be for the mayor to say it’s [the dam] a no-go and get on with plan B,’’ he said.

Martin also said other options existed for a ‘‘more sustainable community source, including better and more localised water harvesting for the urban and semi-rural environment, and wiser land uses requiring less freshwater inputs’’.

Kempthorne said there were other options but they were ‘‘considerably more expensive’’.

‘‘We have a responsibility to provide a secure supply for urban customers,’’ he said. ‘‘With the dam, it is the cheapest option to do that by far. If we have to use plan B, whatever that is, it’s likely to be much more expensive.’’