PO Box 8223
Havelock North
14th October
Comments on the Tuki Tuki Choices from Bruno Chambers pp Horseshoe Farm
As a long standing farmer, orchardist, and irrigator living beside the lower Tuki Tuki I wish to make the following comments.
I have been a water consent holder and irrigator for over 25 years so I certainly appreciate the importance of a secure water supply for farming, particularly in the drought years. However as a close observer of the Tuki Tuki for the last 50 plus years, I also understand the need to address issues of water quality and the ecological river systems resulting from over allocation of water rights and excessive nutrient runoff etc.
My primary concern is the health of the river and I remain unconvinced that the ecological downsides of the intensification of farming on the Ruataniwha Basin have been sufficiently investigated. I do not believe that the mitigation measures proposed will deal with the huge increase in nutrient runoff or seepage, from the significant intensification of dairying in the basin. It is very clear that dairying and dairy support units will make up the majority of land use, and I suspect the Council estimates are on the low side. One only has to drive through the irrigated Canterbury Plains to realise that sheep and conventional beef have all but disappeared from that area, and there is no reason for that to be different here.
While the mitigation measures proposed, e.g. fencing of the riparian margins may stop some of the runoff, much of the Ruataniwha Plains are very free draining and essentially a sieve over the aquifer. Hence, there are no measures that will prevent the side effects of intensive dairy farming in these areas affecting the river. The only possible control would be for Council to soil map the Basin and exclude dairying from all the free draining soils and put very clear nutrient restrictions on the farmers throughout the catchment. This would further limit the uptake and decrease the viability of the scheme. The likely increase of dairy support farms is also a major concern, as the resulting nutrient run off with higher stocking numbers and feed being brought in from off farm dramatically increases. Has this been accounted for?
The Manawatu One Plan will also have huge implications for the viability/ uptake of the proposal by farmers, and a prudent approach would be to benchmark some of the likely requirements of this Plan to the Ruataniwha project. Has this been done?
One also has to look at the impact the dam would have on the community. There are glowing reports of the economic upsides with the assumption that young efficient farmers will step up to the mark, and run the farms. The Council’s estimate of 50-70% of farms changing hands is probably conservative, and their value will put them well out of reach of the young farmer. Instead there will a change to large corporate farms with significant amounts of foreign ownership likely. Very few locals will be able to afford to buy these farms or pay for the water rights. The community blossoming, with jobs a plenty is an unlikely scenario.
I am unconvinced that the 4 annual flushes of the river will have much effect on the lower reaches of the Tuki Tuki.
In reading the Council reports and material on the dam I find the “lily is being gilded” at every turn and there are many attempts to mislead Joe Average. I can understand the Councils desire to get this dam over the start line, however this is a massive investment for the region with huge implications for the area and its community. The whole proposal needs to be peer reviewed in the most rigorous manner possible, to identify the true merits or otherwise of this scheme.
A couple of examples of what I mean are found in the Macfarlane Report- Review of Farm Profit.
-The consultants assume the cost of borrowing to be at the historically low value of 6%. This is unrealistic for future years.
-They take a somewhat optimistic price of $6-50 milk price based on what they think it will be in the future, however assume farm costs will remain where they are today with no inflation factored into their estimates. So, will farmers be paying the same price for fertiliser in 5-10 years time? It is a finite product like oil, and with increasing demand is likely to cost a lot more. It is also one of the biggest costs on the farm, so it is a serious shortcoming of the report.
-On pg 44 they present the average return on assets, pre storage =4.2% versus post storage=6.6%. However the post storage figure is based on the return of the 20% top farmers. Without showing us what the top 20% of farmers are returning now, this comparison is very misleading.
I am a layman glancing through this data, and yet am able to identify some very obvious faults.This report and much of the HBRC presentation is biased and one sided.
There needs to be truly independent scrutiny of the proposed dam and its associated economic benefits and ecological impacts.
I have difficulty with the four choices as I feel the HBRC is putting the cart before the horse. Given the lack of certainty that mitigation measures will control the nutrient runoff, I would have to vote for A or B, though these do not reflect my preferred choice either.I think the proposal to do a number of smaller dams needs to be investigated further. It is far cheaper to modify or scrap an unsuitable plan at the start than to end up down the line and find you have got it wrong.