News 
 Local News 
 News 
 General 
 Report rejects grounds for Tillegra Dam 

Report rejects grounds for Tillegra Dam

03 Aug, 2009 05:00 AM
FUTURE Hunter populations are highly unlikely to need the capacity of the proposed 450-megalitre Tillegra Dam, an independent study of the project has said.

The Wilderness Society-commissioned study produced by the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney, will be issued in Newcastle today.

Study author and sustainability expert Stuart White found the region's present water supply had been shown to already have high levels of drought security.

"Hunter Water estimates that there is only a one in a million chance of supplies falling to critical levels in any given year," Professor White said.

"This means that if the Tillegra Dam is being built for drought security, it is being built for an event that is predicted to occur only once in a million years."

The finding is at odds with Hunter Water, which has argued the dam is needed to droughtproof the region from the effects of climate change over coming decades.

The study said Hunter residents should have been asked whether they wanted the dam.

Hunter Water managing director Kevin Young said the one in a million figure had been taken out of context of board papers.

Mr Young said the community was given the opportunity to comment on the independent pricing regulator's review of water prices and the H250 plan but only 20 submission were received on the latter.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
At last something which is independent of Govt spin and Hunter Water propoganda. I look forward to the detail which hopefully will show up the very short comings of Hunter Water's biased views. How can one expect a Govt run authority to do anything other than roll out Govt spin to justify political decisions. As for the IPART enquiry , that was a set up form the beginning. Table 2 of the IPART Fact Sheet puts Tillegra Dam as the second highest expenditure at 20% of the "approved" increase over sewer transport and treatment plant upgrade at 33%, just ahead of a large bucket of meaningless words called "other system augumentation and capital expenditure", whatever that means!!! at 19%. So Hunter Water, if you are going to harp on about numbers, how about producing some of the real numbers on Tillegra rather than hide behind spin.
Posted by Silvertail, 3/08/2009 8:49:17 AM, on The Herald
Hunter Water? What can one say? Experts have known this dam was not needed, but it seems to me Hunter Water will say anything the government wants. Truth is always the first casualty in a dictatorial regime. Kevin Young states Hunter Water only received 20 submissions for the infamous H25O document. Well everyone with an ounce of brain knew it was a waste of time writing a submission. Just like it was a waste of time writing to IPART. Just like "Why Tillegra Now?" was a waste of money. Newcastle and the Hunter need a Water Authority that has the guts to actually do what is in the best interests of the Hunter Region, not one that I think is riddled with nepotism and self interest. Gloucester and Mid Coast Water watch out! Your people will rue the day you end up with the lot that sneered at its own rate payers for years.
Posted by harold, 3/08/2009 8:49:32 AM, on The Herald
How much more evidence do we need that this was a political vote grabbing exercise, with Mr Young wrangled into the plot! Give it up before we cause another Environmental White Elephant that causes more problems than it solves.
Posted by Anti-Rees, 3/08/2009 9:05:19 AM, on The Herald
IPART is now setting bulk water charges. I wonder if they will set a price for Tillegra water to the Central Coast and Sydney?
Posted by Bigfeller, 3/08/2009 9:44:10 AM, on The Herald
Stop wasting our money justifying nonsense Hunter Water. We all know what its for - industry - like Bayswater Gas power station, Huntlee and so on.
Posted by dorothy, 3/08/2009 10:37:13 AM, on The Herald
This is an almighty stuff-up. If they had a case for this dam, it should have been canvassed before. Now we just feel we are being conned in the worst way.
Posted by Clare, 3/08/2009 11:28:04 AM, on The Herald
when will we learn?? you do not forever ruin a healthy river system and destroy prime agricultural land by building a damn and flooding the valley. the dam is environmentally financially and morally wrong. Lets vote out this government before they stuff anything else up.
Posted by Joey, 3/08/2009 1:18:34 PM, on The Herald
like i have been saying from the start this dam is for sydneys sake, thats where the most votes are. if anything ever justied anarch this dam is it.
Posted by just a thought, 3/08/2009 2:25:51 PM, on The Herald
This dam was announced just after the Labor Orkopoulos scandal.
Posted by Jaqui, 3/08/2009 3:11:34 PM, on The Herald
I firmly believe, and others who have examined the facts know, that the Tillegra Dam was a rabbit pullled out of a hat, to take the Orkopoulos case off the front page of Newspapers. Labor was in damage control, Iemma needed a diversion, an announcement, something big enough that would grab media attention, and they got it. That is why it should be called "The Orkopoulos Dam".
Posted by Gillian Sneddon, 3/08/2009 5:55:25 PM, on The Herald
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.

Most popular articles


 
Balance Health Club-Wests Tower
 
Landcom Sanctuary


Newcastle Herald







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...