For Nan Nicholson to mention Terania Creek protest, Coal Seam gas protest, the bushfires, the flood and the proposed Dunoon dam in the same article is absolutely farcical.

Both the logging of Terania Creek and Coal Seam gas were profit driven and not necessarily in the best interest of Community (The behaviour of protestors at Terrania was absolutely despicable, including defecating on machinery, putting sugar in diesel tanks and driving metal spikes in felled timber. Does Nan support this behaviour as it’s all for the “Cause”).

The fires and the flood were community helping community in times of need.

The Dunoon Dam is ALL ABOUT PROVIDING A SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY!!! It is not about money and I’m appalled by the call to arms by Nan.

The proposed Dam is to guarantee our region’s water supply for the long term. Yes there will be some environmental damage during construction and filling BUT THE GOOD FAR OUTWEIGHS THE BAD AND WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES?

Tapping into aquifers ( currently underway) Desal plant or plants? ( not long term solutions) Are these without environmental impact NO!

Storing water in tanks etc Where does the material come from for tanks , guttering, downpipes, Pumps etc ALL HAVE AN ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT 

I too support water saving measures tanks etc but its not the answer to our long term needs.

Nan makes many sweeping statements in her diatribe about the dam.

“disastrous, uneconomic project which cannot protect us against droughts or floods and which would cause the destruction of Widjabul Wia-bal heritage, a rainforest Endangered Ecological Community and critical koala and platypus habitat. It would inflict further damage on a river system that is already at risk and which cannot afford further degradation.”

How is it disastrous? This is simply a statement thrown out with absolutely no backing.

Uneconomic? Again no foundation, I would imagine Rous Water has a better idea of the economy of the Dam than Nan. if so uneconomic surely it wouldn’t still be on the table

Can’t protect us against drought or flood. No it can’t stop a drought BUT IT CAN CONTINUE TO SUPPLY WATER TO OUR COMMUNITY IN TIMES OF DROUGHT. (People against the dam will quite happily fill up their tanks from the dam in times of drought) It can also supply environmental flows, so instead of downstream creeks, in severe drought, turning into black, odorous, dead pools of deoxygenated water the dam will release water to maintain all that depend on water for life!

It cant stop floods either and this is not its principle role but if it can prevent even a little water rushing downstream then it is a benefit in flooding. 

The authenticity of the alleged Aboriginal burial sites on previously cleared and cultivated land is yet to be determined but according to Nan it’s a fait accompli because it suits her view. If they prove to be significant I have faith that our local Aborigines and Rous will arrive at an equitable solution for the good of all.

Endangered ecological community. A small part of this community will be inundated but the remainder will not, and will be offset by extensive plantings BEFORE construction begins!! So the area will be far larger AFTER the dam is operating than it is now. Nan fails to mention all the Camphor, Privet, Devils fig, Lantana etc that abounds on the proposed site now that will ALL be removed.

Same with the koala habitat, extensive plantings of koala trees BEFORE construction begins and encouraging koalas to move to this new growth. So again koalas will have far more trees than now and a corridor to other koala trees nearby.

Platypus habitat. Far as I know platypus live in water??? Won’t the larger water areas mean there will be more platypus?? And before someone says they need creeks to live in I suggest the visit nearly any dam in the area at daylight or dusk and see the resident platypus.

How will it inflict further damage on the creek. Again just a broad sweeping statement with no facts to support it.

If as Nan claims dams are so bad why aren’t we actively removing them?? If a second dam on Rocky creek is damaging then the original should be removed, wonder how we’d go for water then.

The upstream area of Rocky Creek dam is pristine mainly due to the management of Rous Water. They have for many years removed introduced pests and carried out extensive plantings of native trees, This is exactly what they will do with the area surrounding the new dam.

So instead of it being a haven for introduced species and pests like it is now it too will become pristine native bushland. AGAIN HOW IS THIS HARMFUL 

Nan mentions the local protest at Rous with a number of protestors between 50 and 100 ( I’m being generous) however she fails to mention the over 10,000 signatures on a petition in favour of the dam. Wonder why, surely she is looking at this objectively or should be.

She also states “self-destructive fantasy of growth without limit” 

This is her main problem with the dam it may well create GROWTH in the region.

In a discussion I had with Hugh Nicholson ( Nans partner) he told me their aim was neutral population growth or preferably negative growth and the best way to achieve this is TO LIMIT THE WATER SUPPLY.

So it was okay for Nan and Hugh to move here many years ago but its not okay for anyone else! (NIMBY indeed)

Hypocrisy? Ill leave it up to you.