Rous County Council (RCC) is responsible for our region’s future water security. Its lack of transparency, inability to communicate complex concepts with the community and its penchant for misusing/misrepresenting scientific and expert information make it unfit for that purpose.
Two very important milestones for our region’s future water security happened early this year; the NSW Dept of Planning and Environment (DPE) declared in July 2021 that RCC’s Future Water Plan 2060 had been completed (the Dunoon Dam was not included at that stage) and the CSIRO independent review of the Far North Coast Water Strategy was completed. Taken together, they exposed the sham that is the current RCC’s Future Water Plan 2060 (FWP 2060) following the resolution of Agenda Item 12 at its 16 February 2022 meeting that reinstated the Dunoon Dam option. RCC knew both were in the pipeline but waited for neither of them to report. They are examples of RCC’s unfitness.
Updating or dumping?
RCC called the resolution ‘updating’ the FWP 2060. I call it dumping the FWP 2060. Why the difference? Because the RCC’s call concealed that the 16 February resolution was a denial of three foundation principles of the Integrated Water Cycle Management (IWCM) that was formulated by means of the original FWP 2060.
The founding IWCM principles are the context essential for evaluating the FWP 2060, and each element in it, and they should be reproduced with any part of the FWP 2060. In the 16 February resolution these principles were dumped.
They are:
a) That water supply be multi-sourced with as little dependence on rain as possible in a time of climate change. Dams are rain dependent.
b) That existing ecology and cultural/heritage were to be respected. The existing studies had established mutual exclusivity between the dam and respecting significant cultural and ecological heritage.
In practice ‘updated’ meant ‘replaced’. RCC restored the dam to the table. The resolution demanded a ‘fresh’, new study of heritage and ecology on the spurious grounds that the traditional owners would miraculously agree to the destruction of their heritage if they were listened to. The traditional owners were in the audience at that meeting and subsequently vehemently protested that they had been listened to in the first instance.
c) That there be strong evidence for any proposed changes after the FWP 2060’s initial assessment as completed.
Two milestones
The two milestones below show that there was insufficient evidence. 1. The NSW Dept of Planning and Environment (DPE) which signs off on IWCM plans, declared that RCC’s Future Water Plan 2060 had been completed in July 2021 and that the DPE had concurred with it because it satisfied Best Management Practice. The General Manager was notified in March 2022. Nobody else found out before June when I told them.
The approved FWP 2060 did not include the dam.
2. The CSIRO desktop review (Independent Review of the Far North Coast Water Strategy), in response to demands by some Ballina Shire councillors, became public in June 2022. The councillors were seeking expert/scientific support for a push-poll petition that had pressed for the Dunoon Dam investigations to remain in the FWP 2060. The RCC General Manager had recommended that the dam remain because of the poll results.
The CSIRO review did not concur with reinstating the Dunoon Dam.
Events inconvenient for Rous
The conclusions of both milestone events were inconvenient for RCC because they showed that the Dunoon Dam was neither a necessary nor an urgent part of DPE’s concept of Integrated Water Cycle Management (IWCM) as six of the eight RCC councillors who voted for the dam had insisted. All six had made statements in support of their vote that were misleading and misinformed (DPE Water Concurrence p3.
The ‘update’ resolution has now disappeared from public view. Was that because the resolution designed it that way or had the GM interpreted it that way? Item 3 of the 16 February resolution required that the implementation of the dam investigations be deferred until after Stage 3 options, the last stage of the published FWP 2060, have been determined. When the Stage 3 options have been determined it means that they have satisfied the earlier investigations and therefore will have been assessed as together likely to be able to meet future demand until 2060. Signing off on Stage 3 means signing off on the FWP 2060. How then does Item 3 of the resolution make sense even supposing the dam could be shown to be needed? Look on the website and you won’t find mention of the Dunoon Dam in the FWP 2060. You can’t discuss something formally resolved to be in the FWP 2060 that doesn’t exist in the published FWP 2060 (now renamed the Future Water Project 2060).
Whatever the understanding of Item 3, the ‘disappeared’ resolution clearly represents a lack of transparency.
Lacked due process
The GM has overseen procedures that lacked, in my opinion, due process. The RCC Chair shares some of the responsibility. In this context ‘due’ means that every step of the decision-making process be transparent, fair, and ethical.
It seems to me that RCC has a choice. It can honestly review the ill-informed dam decision or it can own the ‘update’. Show on the website where the dam is to be included in the Future Water Project 2060, and how it is justified. Continuing to hide is not an option.
♦ Dr Lyn Walker is a retired academic, was president of the Ballina Environment Society and remains an executive member of the BES.
References:
Most points can be verifible at: rous.nsw.gov.au.
- For Councillor statements see Agendas and business papers, 16th Feb 2022 audio – last 25mins on the tape. Item 12. The reinstatement resolution can also be found there. For protests listen to Community forum.
- The CSIRO report: Independent Review of the Far North Coast Water Strategy July 2022.
3. The Rous Future Water project 2060. Resources – DPE Water Concurrence (p3). Probably added after the public exposure, certainly after the Reinstatement of the Dam.
- The dumped Cultural/heritage study (CHIA) 2013 is listed under Resources. The dumped ecological study is nowhere to be found on the Project (Plan) pages.
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
