Do you support further hydro dams on the Clutha River?

In reply to 'Punchy' let's get a few things straightened out.
1/ 'Think big' wind farms are not much better than 'think big' dams. However, wind-to-battery, located in developed areas close to end use is a good option. The most promising new energy is actually marine, which runs 24/7.
2/ Cromwell never needed the Clyde dam to make it a successful tourist and viticulture centre. In fact, its tourism development was stifled for over a decade during Clyde dam construction upheaval and uncertainty, at a time when Queenstown was booming. Cromwell actually had everything going for it; the historic main street, the 1868 bridge (ideal for bungy-jumping) overlooking the Cromwell Gap and the Cromwell Junction (the famous 'meeting of the waters'), and Cromwell also had Sargood's rapid (rated no. 1 in the world for whitewater sports). Cromwell was destined to be a thriving heritage and adventure tourism centre, surrounded by orchards and vineyards. All this was in an amazingly spectacular setting that would have made it increasingly famous. But the Clyde dam submerged all those unique assets.
3/ The development at Pisa Moorings would have occurred around Lowburn, on both sides of the bridge, with vineyards and orchards spreading over that excellent farmland (now submerged). Lowburn would have grown into a very attractive 'town', bordering the 'hundred islands' section of the Clutha River. But it was destroyed. 4/ The so-called 'Lake' Dunstan is actually a reservoir and not permanent. The Clyde dam was built to last @80 years (concrete has a structural life). What will happen in about 60 years when the dam is decommissioned? There will be no incentive to rebuild it since by then there will be even more alternative energy options. The prime land beneath the water will be more valuable. They will drain it, restore the river, and re-develop. Pisa Moorings will then have to change its name.

Although irrigation was promised as part of the Clyde Dam project there wasn't much done by way of keeping the promise. So the expanse of grape growing is not down to that. It is due to the realisation that the area is naturally suited to vineyards. As for the expanse of permanent and tourist accommodation one of the drivers of that is that Queenstown is so expensive that ordinary workers with families are priced out of living there.
Workers commute to Queenstown. When a town reaches a certain critical mass it acquires more attractive facilities and this encourages more people to live there. Better recreational and cultural facilities for instance, some people like living out in the countryside far away from the crowds but most people like to be where they can join clubs, go to cafes and entertainment and use sports facilities. Yes, the lake provides some of these, but even regarding water activities, coming straight down from the snow it is too cold for enjoyable swimming.
The only contribution the dam made to the growth of Cromwell was that by having a supply of cheap houses after construction finished, it provided a quick start to that population mass from which other attractions grew.

Power generation needs to be strategically placed near the cities that need it, not in the back yards of us in rural Otago. A large proportion of energy is lost during transmission across the vast distances that it currently travels.
Wind farms in the ocean around the southern/eastern coasts would be better placed to cover this problem, as happens in Denmark. Take a look at http://www.mightyclutha.blogspot.com then decide whether any industries have been destroyed that would have grown, whether a tourism industry linked to a historic gold mining town, white water rafting and kayaking on the gorge, or the expansion of the stone fruit industry that was destroyed.
Business in Cromwell may have developed anyway, as Cromwell was, and still is the hub of the Upper Clutha. There was rail access, there would be far less transportation costs to central, had this line remained in place. See also http://www.hydrodevelopments.co.nz/ to view ways to develop hydro energy without the need destroy a river. Also energy from municipal waste is an option these days: www.recoveredenergy.com/

Yeah right. Destroy the landscape of the Maniototo with hundreds of great big fans but leave my backyard alone. I bet if it wasn't for the Clyde dam you wouldn't have a tourism busines to run. Take Cromwell for instance, it would be a ghost town with decaying infrastructure, not a hub of tourism and viticulture which it is now because of a dam being built at Clyde. Not to mention all new houses and buiding going up around the lake. The only reason they are being built there is because of the dam.

What made the tourism and horticultural industry in Cromwell and districts? It was the dam at Clyde and if more was built which was supposed to happen years ago and planned, all would benefit. As for the only truly sustainable and renewable energy that is nuclear power,

Large hydroelectric dams represent an outdated development model avoided by Western countries. Why? Because large dams are more destructive and less sustainable than alternative energy technologies. Why would we even consider large hydro when Neptune Energy can produce 12GW (all of NZ uses 7GW) from the Cook Strait with marine turbines that run continuously? None of Contact Energy's proposed 'run of the river' dams, with their minimal storage, can even add to NZ's energy security in dry years. Why would Contact even bother building dams that have no significant energy input into the national grid? What is the point in further destroying a river that is on the brink of a major tourism industry development? Let alone the known problems with the existing dams...what will be discovered in the excavations of another dam, more seismic issues that can be 'patched' up as already has occurred?
Screw your heads on Contact, its time to move into truly sustainable and renewable energy production.

We in Otago need to consider carefully what is good for Otago and the Otago economy.
Otago has already done a lot for the national good in terms of sacrificing its major rivers for hydro electricity generation. We now have many artificial hydro lakes which have some attractions. In my view there is little to be gained for Otago in having more dams and more hydro lakes which we already have in abundance.
We would get a brief economic flush with construction and then nothing. On the other hand with more dams we lose the rest of one of the major rivers that defines the character of Otago as a big river province bordered by the Waitaki and the Clutha.
Unfortunately the Waitaki is largely gone, with Meridian securing rights to most of the remaining lower river for the North Bank Tunnel project. The Upper Clutha is still a very big free flowing river immediately adjacent to our major inland tourist regions of Queenstown and Wanaka. This is the main area of population growth in the province.
The river is of major importance in maintaining the character of this area, and is of great economic importance to the province. To sacrifice this major Otago asset would be short sighted in the extreme.

Have the planners overlooked the fact it is 2009, and not 1909? We can see all around us what kind of damage the "water"-power generators have done to the world. There is the Sun, bursting at the seams to heat us. Ever heard of electro-voltaic mirrors? Ever heard of wind mills? Ever heard of the wax and wane of the moon who causes our coastlines to deal with ebb- and high-tide of the seas, causing a constant movement of the waters? Wake up denizens of the mighty Clutha, not for nothing the Mãori people call it Mata Au. Look it up, it is in the dictionaries... Your friend, a smiling warrior.

Crazy crazy world of corporate energy-generators blithely proposing more draconian old dams on our precious Clutha river. In a time when even the youngest kindy-kids are taught the principles of conservation, respect for the environment and care for each other...it'll just have to be back to school then for those naughty corporates who have not learned their lessons.
Contact Energy's latest suggestion of four, or was it five more dams to be situated somewhere between Queensgate, Luggate, Beaumont and Tuapeka is like a scatter-attack...maybe one will stick they hope. Isn't it crazy though to think we actually pay our power-providers to entertain this out-dated form of generation?
We have already said no more dams on the Clutha and we know we have viable alternatives now as technology has changed. We still believe in 'green' and we will simply not be treated or dismissed as fools.
This magnificent Clutha deserves protection from the madness of 'Think Big'. It's a vital flow of water that sustains the many echelons of tiny insect-life and plants we just don't know enough about yet. Let's support the steady efforts of those who quietly work on rail, and gold/historic trails, that aim to link us better with our natural assets. Let's add value to our lives and keep our rivers as the life-blood flowing strong for all to benefit forever.

Just how short sighted can everyone be in even contemplating damming our beautiful Clutha River again as once this has been done it has gone for ever. What a terrible legacy to leave our children and grandchildren. Sure everyone needs and wants more power but let's look at every alternative such as solar, wind power and wave power that are truely sustainable. Sure the dam would create temporary jobs but if we foster the proposed walkway down the length of the river we will be creating far more jobs that will go on forever and help our smaller rural communities.
You only have to look at what the Rail Trail has done for the Maniototo to realise the untaped potential that is right on our doorstep. To the people that want another lake for boating, surely it isn't hard to drive another 15 minutes as you already have your boat hooked on anyway, and leave our beautful natural river alone. I feel for the people on the Waitaki as I don't believe any dam is a good dam but at least there are other braided rivers in the South Island but the Clutha River is unique and should be left well alone.

I do not support any more dams. Besides being a short term solution, they destroy unique scenic and wilderness values - the very things that are iconic in New Zealand, [and as such a draw card for tourism]. They also contribute much to the well being of people especially when the banks are host to walking tracks and fishing is possible. http://www.likeminds.co.nz/blog/2009/05/clutha-river-dams-threaten-river-park.html We need to cherish our rivers on these grounds and also ensure we maintain and improve water quality. Historically I see little evidence that the owners of current dams on the Clutha or Waitaki honour such concepts. Donald Lousley

My reasons for opposing the dams are as follows;
1. This is a proposal from the 1970s and early 1980s - it is not new or efficient or environmentally efficient policy. It is old, big scale, inefficient, valley flooding, technology.
2. It may benefit the region briefly for 5 years while it is being built but once built dams are run virtually by remote control. The effects on tourism and tourist jobs in the region will be long term.
3. The upper Clutha is a tourist region and the river has a recreational and tourist value which will be destroyed by the two dams proposed for this region.
4. The value of this region is in its stunning and relatively unspoilt landscape. That is why tourists flock here, why people purchase land and houses here and why jobs are created here.
5. It is a myth that NZ is desperate for energy. Yes we need to be energy proactive and efficient. But the windfarm that has just been given the resource consent go-ahead in the Maniototo will, when completed, produce enough power for 100,000 homes, the new consent that Contact has for the Hawea river will produce power for 7,000 homes, there are new consents in the North Island for geothermal power plants that are significant and there are plans for the much needed upgrading of our energy grid to make power transfer and supply more efficient. This is a private company proposing these dams - it is not a national need but a desire to expand company interests and assets.
I could go on, but unfortunately I have to run my busy tourism business.