WATER Northern Rivers thanks Mr Phil Rudd for his clarifications (27 December, 2023) regarding the Dunoon Dam and looks forward to further clarifications as requested below.
1. ‘A comprehensive cultural heritage and biodiversity study is scheduled’. The two Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments in 2011 and 2013 established that the site of the proposed dam was highly significant to the Widjabul Wia-bal people. The revealed gravesites are still there and so is the oft-repeated and unified opposition of the Widjabul Wia-bal people. ‘Consultation’ with the Traditional Owners is clearly not intended to actually accede to their stated wishes – otherwise Rous would have already done so. Rous’ attitude can be summed up by this Utopia clip on How to Do Community Consultation.
Q.1 What evidence is there that the Widjabul Wia-bal should trust Rous to act on their stated interests, not just ‘consult’ about them?
A new biodiversity study cannot make the threatened plant and animal species, or the Endangered Ecological Communities, go away. In fact, all of them, particularly the koala, are even more threatened than they were 11 years ago when the Terrestrial Ecology Impact Assessment was done. Re-doing this study can mean only that Rous intends to ‘offset’ the problem away.
Q.2 What new information is Rous seeking by repeating the biodiversity study?
2. ‘It is important to investigate all source options’. When the Dunoon Dam was set aside as an option in 2014, Rous announced that three main strategies would be pursued: (a) water efficiency, (b) groundwater, and (c) water re-use.
Q.3 Why has water efficiency been discarded as the principal strategy?
In 2021, six of the incoming Rous councillors re-instated the Dunoon Dam in the first few minutes of the first meeting, based solely on 10,000 petition signatures in favour of the dam. The same six councillors, in distributing that petition, also explicitly rejected the options of purified recycled water, desalination and groundwater that Mr Rudd claims are being investigated by Rous.
Q.4 How can the community trust that Rous will investigate seriously any options other than a new dam on Rocky Creek when (a) six of the councillors are opposed to all non-dam options, and (b) Rous ignored due process in re-instating the Dunoon Dam with such extraordinary haste?
3. ‘Feasibility studies comparing the various long-term supply options are at a preliminary stage’. In 2013 Rous put the Dunoon Dam on hold and stated: ‘When considered against other options in the Future Water Strategy, Dunoon Dam was considered to have significant cultural heritage, ecological and cost constraints’ (Northern Star 18/12/2013). Rous has had ten years to investigate alternatives that are less destructive than a new dam but according to Mr Rudd it is still only at the beginning of the process.
Q.5 Why are feasibility studies only at a preliminary stage? Is Rous able to carry out its responsibilities as a local water utility when it is apparently so handicapped?
4. ‘Funding sources are a mix of current and future water users, developer contributions, state and federal grants’. Given that the Department of Planning and Environment estimates that a new dam would cost $841 million, Rous must presumably be able to calculate all the variables involved in how that money would be raised. Water users are entitled to know how the construction of the dam would affect them.
Q.6 Could Mr Rudd please provide an approximate estimate of the rise in water charges in the four LGAs if government funding for the dam were not forthcoming.
5. Far North Coast Regional Water Strategy does not explicitly rule out new surface water storages for the Northern Rivers.’ However, the Strategy does state that the dam has no benefits over costs. This is presumably why the state government has not rushed to support this project.
Q. 7 Why would Rous spend further money on an option that is already considered uneconomic?
Q. 8 Has Rous explored what could be done with $840 million, or even $500 million, if it were spent on alternatives such as serious water efficiencies, waste minimisation, contingency plans, household refits and the many other options?
It is clear that the six pro-dam councillors run the Rous show and have decided to fast-track the Dunoon Dam regardless of public sentiment, economics, water security, cultural sensitivities or ecological damage. Rous’ acquiescence casts doubt on its ability, or willingness, to act in the best interests of the region.
