Why building more big dams could be a costly gamble for future water security and the environment

Climate change and biodiversity loss are increasing threats to Australia’s water security. That’s why we often hear calls like: more dams. But is this the answer?

Ours latest research It reveals that large dam projects are a costly gamble with public money. They often fail to deliver what they promise economic benefits. These also have significant environmental, financial and social impacts.

Some members of the Lower Lachlan River in New South Wales the community was worried About expansion plans Wyangala Dam. They first asked us to investigate the full costs and benefits in 2020, and the findings were presented at a local workshop in 2022.

WaterNSW’s initial estimate of capital and operating costs was: $620 million In a few years in 2018 About $2.1 billion. The project will start in 2023 scrapped Because it was not economically viable.

Similar concerns apply to other projects overseas and in Australia. Hell’s Gate Dam in Queensland and Dungowan Dam and Snowy Hydro 2.0 in NSW.

We need a smarter approach to major water projects to avoid repeating costly mistakes and mismanagement of taxpayers’ money. This includes independent evaluations and more transparencybusiness cases are made public and decision-making processes are open to scrutiny. And planning for climate change must become a priority.

Lessons from past mistakes

Insufficient economic evaluations of large dam projects are a global problem. Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam and India’s Subansiri Lower Hydropower Project made big promises but came with soaring price tags and devastating impacts on ecosystems.

Major dam cost overruns in Australia and around the world up to 825%. The average exceedance is 120%. This raises serious doubts about the financial and social sustainability of such projects. Public costs to private profits are a major concern.

Our work He reviewed the original business case for the expansion of Wyangala Dam. The original study concluded that there would be clear social benefits and gave the project the green light.

Our review found that the business case was seriously flawed. He overestimated the benefits, greatly underestimated the physical capital, and environmental costs.

Estimated building costs increased by 239%. Had the project continued, costs would undoubtedly have increased.

Moreover, assessments of impacts on rivers and wetlands were weak and superficial. They greatly underestimated the environmental impacts of expanding the dam, especially on downstream wetlands.

On the other side of the equation, the benefits are overrated, especially for water security and agriculture.

Local voices believed that many of their concerns were ignored. There were deep concerns that flood-dependent farmers downstream could lose some of their livelihoods. Indigenous communities were concerned about the destruction of their cultural sites.

Our analysis provided a more rigorous assessment of the benefits and costs of the Wyangala Dam expansion.

We found that total project costs were underestimated by at least 116%. Benefits were increased by 56 percent. This meant that the true impacts on the environment, agriculture and local communities were misrepresented.

Rethinking Australia’s water future

Our analysis offers a useful lesson about why we need to rethink water security. Instead of pouring billions into dams, we need to find smart and sustainable ways to manage our water.

The obsession with building and expanding dams means that innovative alternatives are often overlooked. These other options include recycling water, managing demand, and carefully recharging aquifers (using aquifers as underground dams).

National Water Grid Fund It exemplifies the misguided “build more dams” mentality. The total capital cost estimate for its portfolio of 61 major water projects is up to $10 billion.

Despite this huge investment, only 23 of these projects have publicly available business cases. What remains is more than $1.7 billion in committed funds to be shrouded in secrecy.

This lack of transparency is concerning, given the history of cost overruns and inadequate assessment of environmental damage. It indicates that we urgently need to re-evaluate our approach to water security. The public has a right to know that their government is spending wisely.

We need a smarter approach to prevent costly mistakes from being repeated and mismanagement of taxpayers’ money. Independent business cases should be made mandatory for all major businesses. water projects.

We also need a strong public sector that can make transparent evaluations. New promise made National Environmental Standards as part of the reforms environmental protection laws will likely require close scrutiny. We must embrace transparency by opening decision-making to public scrutiny and diverse perspectives, including local voices and Indigenous stakeholders, from the very beginning.

Finally, infrastructure planning should take into account long-term climate impacts on water availability. Planning climate change is of vital importance.

As projects such as the proposed Wyangala Dam expansion show, Australia can no longer afford to gamble its water future with outdated, costly and environmentally damaging solutions. It’s time to end waste.

Instead, we need to channel our efforts towards truly effective, sustainable and transparent water management. Strategies should be prioritized community needsFirst Nations water rights, environmental protection and long-term climate resilience.

This article is republished from: Speech It is under Creative Commons license. Read original article.