Faith in council over Waimea dam management ‘has waned’
‘‘Proposed charges have now almost doubled, the dam is still not completed . . . The extra costs will be a noose around my neck.’’
Andrea Russ
Waimea Irrigators Ltd shareholder
Faith in the Tasman District Council’s ability to manage the Waimea dam project has faded, says a Motueka community leader.
‘‘Talk around a lot of the town is: Where does this end and what ultimate costs are there; and so the faith of our community has waned a lot,’’ Motueka Community Board chairman Brent Maru told councillors at the Long Term Plan submissions hearing this week.
Maru was far from alone in speaking about the dam during the four-day hearing. It was – as expected – the dominant topic following news the controversial project faces another budget blowout – of $29 million. The latest forecast cost to complete the dam is between $148m and $164m, up from $104.5m at the time of financial close.
The council sought feedback on four options – A to D – outlined in its Long Term Plan consultation document to meet the irrigators’ estimated $25.2m share of another $54.5m needed for what it is now budgeted to be a $159m project.
The council’s preferred option is A – to collect $14.6m via a targeted rate on those landowners with Waimea Irrigators Ltd-affiliated water permits, with the other $10.6m coming from general ratepayers.
Waimea Irrigators Ltd (WIL) is the council’s joint-venture partner in the dam project.
Maru told councillors he had personally been supportive of the concept of the dam. ‘‘Water security and water storage, in my mind, is essential,’’ he said. ‘‘It is just where this has started and where it has ended up is a concern to both the board and the community.’’
The community board’s written submission said the council had ‘‘let the Motueka community down’’.
There was no consultation on changing the original funding model or looking at alternative ways of paying for the urban water users’ and public good shares.
That meant ‘‘without any form of consultation, the original districtwide rate of $17 per property will increase to $26 [and] to a maximum of $56 in 2023-24 – without the proposed irrigators’ share of the additional costs’’.
‘‘The reality is that due to projected costs to date, this has already resulted in a $30-per-property increase to Motueka ratepayers,’’ the submission said.
Maru told councillors he found ‘‘some humour’’ in a proposal for the Motueka firefighting rate to jump from $17.88 to $70.62 by 2023-24.
‘‘I have had some information from staff for how that relates and what those costs are but it seems an extraordinary ... increase [on top of] paying about a $30 increase in terms of our Waimea Community Dam contribution,’’ Maru said.
‘‘For those who just see water, our community is being faced with potentially $70 extra in our rates for years to come relating to water.’’
The community board preferred option C for funding the irrigators’ share of the over-run costs, which is a targeted rate on all properties in the ‘‘zone of affiliation’’ – a proposed new zone that includes all properties that would be able to access water from the dam.
‘‘Option C, as you will be aware, removes some of the liability from Motueka ratepayers,’’ Maru told councillors, adding some members
were supportive of option D – a new targeted rate for WIL-affiliated irrigators to fund the entire $25.2m.
In its consultation document, the council says option D ‘‘may be unaffordable for some irrigators’’.
WIL argued a targeted rate on irrigators was not supposed to be used to cover over-run costs as proposed, accusing the council of going ‘‘through the back door’’.
Many other submitters during the hearing, which was spread between sessions at Ta¯ kaka, Motueka and Richmond, supported option D. They argued WIL shareholders had been alerted to the possibility of a targeted rate in the company’s product disclosure statement
and council documentation.
Councillors also heard from some small shareholders in WIL such as Andrea Russ, who said she was earning ‘‘near minimum wage’’, almost half of which would go to the council and WIL through rates and water charges.
Russ said she felt she had no choice but to vote for the dam after a council representative laid out the possibility of severe water rationing under a no-dam scenario.
In her written submission, Russ said that at the time of signing with WIL, the proposed yearly charges seemed high ‘‘but somewhat affordable just’’. ‘‘Proposed charges have now almost doubled, the dam
is still not completed,’’ Russ said.
For small landowners it had been a struggle and the proposed extra rate ‘‘will be the nail in our coffins’’.
‘‘The extra costs will be a noose around my neck,’’ Russ said.
‘‘I can only think that maybe one day I will be forced to sell my inherited block of family land; I am fifth generation.’’
Some other submitters proposed other ways of funding the irrigators’ share that were associated with the number of shares held rather than the land value of those landowners with affiliated water permits.
Four days of council deliberations have been scheduled from May 17 to 21.