I have always believed that differences of opinion and open debate are a good thing for society. I also believe when you stoop to distorting the truth or telling outright lies, and to attack those who disagree with you, you have lost the debate. 

In response to Hugh Nicolson letter 4^th Nov in the NR Tmes. He accuses Rous employees and particularly the manager of withholding vital information from the Councillors regarding the indigenous cultural study. (I am acquainted with the present manager and believe he is completely impartial to the dam and is following all required government protocols regarding the indigenous study and every other issue in his role as manager) What Hugh has accused him of is, I believe, absolutely untrue. 

In response to Nans letter same date.

1.         The petition with over 11,300 signatures ( from over 10,000 households across the region) called for the Dam option to be back on the table, not excluded out of hand as was done by Rous This is 86% of all signatures/submissions received by Rous. Aquifers are dependent on rainfall and so is recycling as it is not a closed system. The dam, together with existing resources, will hold to up 4 years’ worth of water and if a drought lasts that long all other sources, except desal, will have long-run dry When our tanks run dry where do we get the water to refill them whilst waiting for rain? The fact that a dam will release environmental flows in times of drought aiding in fish and plant life and general river health downstream is a huge bonus.

2.       The dam is one of the options but will be the major source, we will need little extra water from other sources, if any, once the dam is finished. How many other options will be ready to produce by 2030? If Alstonville is ready it will, according to Rous, give us 20 years of water security at $150m compared to 100 years of water security for $120m from the Dam after Government Grants have been applied. Extensive studies on aquifers are in their infancy (they may well not be a viable option, particularly Tyagarah) desal is a long process ( if it's allowed into the Byron Bay Marine Park and what of its huge energy consumption) and recycling ? Somewhere in the enormously long list of issues facing recycled water in the wettest region of NSW is that the amount of available "toilet water" will be reduced during a drought.

3.       Does Nan believe that all construction on a Dam will be by outside tradies? Even if this was the case they would need to stay here, buy fuel, groceries, have maintenance done on their machinery bringing a huge amount of money to our area. What of the permanent jobs that will be created by this infrastructure? Why would only the dam attract outside workers? Who would build a desal plant, filtration plants for aquifers and lay the extra kilometres of pipe this option would require, and plumbers required for recycling would have to come from somewhere.

4.       Water rates would not escalate dramatically. This is simply a scare tactic not backed up by facts. This dam will be funded in part by the Government, the others will not. The dam is by far, even without gov grants, the most cost-effective long term option. It also has very minimal continuing costs once built. Not so for desal (huge cost to maintain and far more when operating) aquifers and their associated filtration plants and toilet to tap which has huge filtration costs continuously.

5.       Why would the Widjabul Wia-Bal people be ignored? We have said all along and we want meaningful engagement a complete study done but a vocal minority of anti damers is inflaming the situation through misinformation. Has Nan done a survey of all aboriginals in the region to ask if they want their future water supply to come from aquifers, desalination or “toilet to tap” recycled water? If not, then she is sprouting only one side of the story and should be ignored.

6.       This land for the proposed dam has been cleared and farmed in the past for dairying and bananas and some is still pastureland/ nut trees. Whilst there is some regrowth from natural species it is, according to SMEC eco report 45% covered in exotic species, Camphor, Privet and Lantana. Yes, there will be some environmental damage but this project will have biodiversity offsets that will far exceed anything seen in our region and although the Dam will inevitably be impacting existing patches of forest it will go a long way to resolving regeneration and riparian issues in the surrounding area". 

7.       Threatening demonstrations etc if the decisions go against them is close to anarchy. So Nan is saying no matter what experts are employed if they find against her she will not admit she was wrong. Do we need to do what’s best for Nan or best for the community as a whole?

Nan also refers to us as dog whistlers, I can indeed whistle a dog as I was reared on a farm ( can’t see the relevance or why name-calling is appropriate) I have no political aspirations at all and neither have the members of Our Future Northern Rivers. It is a group of like-minded people who banded together to give the silent majority a voice on the issue and to try and salvage our area from a rapid decline. The dam Water Security issue is only one of the things holding our area back. For too long the silent majority has sat back and let a few very vocal activists control the decisions that affect us all. 

We welcome the INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION BY CSIRO announced last week. We want what is best for the region and that is our only goal!!

If that investigation reveals that there are better alternatives we will accept the decision and move on. Nan and her ilk won’t, by her own admission they will protest and disrupt if the decision goes against them.

One wonders if they have an ulterior motive or is it just self-aggrandisement, The anti damers have always been against including the dam as an option, I believe that they realise it’s the best option by far that’s why they want it removed entirely. 

I look forward to the results of the CSIRO impartial and non-political investigation