Daniel Peterson replies to Col Baker on the Dunoon Dam. Read the original letter: Letter To The Editor: Col Baker on the Dunoon Dam in reply to Nan Nicholson

Simply claiming that Hugh Nicolson’s accusations are “untrue” based on what you “believe”, is not sufficient evidence with which to identify what you imply is either an “outright lie” or “distorting the truth”.

In fact, what you “believe” those accusations were, is exactly that; your beliefs.

You’ve described a petition in favour of your position, but failed to mention Rous’ community consultations requesting submissions and feedback on the Dunoon Dam option, moreover what the results of those community consultations have been.

Perhaps those results were less supportive of your argument?

You claim the Dunoon Dam (Dud) will “hold up to 4 years’ worth of water”, but you apparently fail to consider any corresponding rate of consumption.

You go on to acknowledge desalination as a rain independent option, yet apparently fail to carry this acknowledgment through to provide an answer to your very own question of where we might get water to refill our tanks during drought.

While we’re talking desal, apart from hyperbole, you’ve referred to “huge energy consumption” but failed to mention any renewable energy options.

I like your idea that “the dam will release environmental flows in times of drought”, but simply asserting an occurrence will not make it occur.

Likewise, I’m not sure what you are referring to by using (and repeating) the term “toilet water” moreover, how this (whatever it may be) will “reduce during a drought” – do we not use the toilet as much during a drought?

Perhaps next time you what to tell us what Nan believes, you might do better by telling us what Nan says she believes, or even possibly asking Nan what she believes; simply asking the reader if Nan believes something is a very old and lazy way of “attacking those who disagree with you”.

You also seem to assert that you have crystal-ball insight into what water rates will be in the future and exactly what projects “the Government” will subsidise.

After giving us a paragraph on how economically affordable the Dud would be, you then shoot yourself in the foot, by exclaiming the Dud is “the most cost-effective long term option” (by far) “even without gov grants”.

The reader must surely be wondering if you’re saying Government funding is actually required or not?

I must say, you’ve done well to mention at least once “the Widjabul Wia-Bal people” by implying this stakeholder group would not be ignored by the Dud, but unfortunately, you then proceed to never mention the group again.

You then imply Nan “should be ignored” but somehow found Nan worthy of a 1000+ words Letter To The Editor.

But never mind all that, because you’re more than capable of speaking for the land, right?

By implying the Dud footprint “has been cleared and farmed in the past” you’re parading naked your colonial mind-set before a 21st century readership, who will not accept what you admit as “environmental damage”.

I don’t know if your apparent faith in the “offsets” regime says more about you or more about the regime.

Have you asked anyone to show you the significance of the place which underpins their objection to the Dud?

The ”demonstrations” you’re correlating with “anarchy” are not mere threats, they’re happening already every time Rous meets to discuss the Dud you’ll notice (if you look) dozens of demonstrators on the street and hundreds off the street, all demonstrating to you how much this issue means to them.

If you want the Dud to be built, you’re going to have to fight for it. I think it might be called something like believing in one’s own convictions.

You also claim to be happy with the CSIRO’s proposed “independent” and “impartial” investigation, but at the same time imply that the Dud is the “best option by far”.

Seeing as you’ve been “reared on a farm” you’ll no doubt appreciate the phrase: putting the cart before the horse.

Despite having “no political aspirations” and pining your hopes on the CSIRO’s intended “non-political” investigation, you have however, “banded together” with the Our Future Northern Rivers group to “give the silent majority a voice” – a contradiction perhaps?

Scott Morison’s victory speech of May 2019 proclaimed a “miracle” and a victory for “the quiet Australians”.

You also say you want to “salvage our area from rapid decline”, and that water security is “holding our area back”.

So, you’ll need to try harder, a lot harder, if you want to convince me you’re not simply talking politics.

- Daniel Peterson