|
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
This is an
account of an Indigenous
weather modification solution that was presented to Watercare
Services
Ltd during the 1994 Auckland drought and water supply crisis. Although
it was ignored as an alternative to the
Waikato
pipeline, it was the only option that delivered what was needed
-- rainfall. The entire operation was successfully completed
without
public funding, media support, protracted debate, or fast-track
legislation. Watercare
benefited by 57-58 billion litres of water... FREE of charge. Compare
this
with the cost of between $95-120 million (Watercare estimates) for
land or ocean tankers to supply Auckland's daily needs over a four
month
period... excluding water needed to fill the dams.
Contrary to
popular opinion, the
rain that fell during the second half of the year was not due to coincidence
or a religious | cultural ritual.
Neither
was it a random, unpredictable
accident of Nature. Instead, it was the result of a deliberate and
controlled process based on Indigenous
science | technology.
When the objective was achieved, the process
was terminated. Where's the proof? For a
start,
check the rainfall and dam levels before
July
and after October 1994. Check also the rainfall
for the 12 months from July 1993 to June 1994. Then review personal
contacts with Watercare in Sections 6 and 7 (above).
The reader
will notice that
- July
rainfall and dam levels
increased dramatically (when Watercare started the pipeline and I began
an informal WM trial to prevent its completion).
- August
rainfall dropped to below
average (90mm) after Watercare postponed pipe
construction
and opposition from Waitakere City Council and Tainui Trust created
further
delays. An attempt was made to initiate discussion with Watercare, but
when my proposal was rejected at the end of August there was no reason
for further delay. Consequently...
- September
(208mm) and October (133.8mm) rainfall
totals were the highest above-average monthly figures for the year,
ultimately forcing
Watercare to call
an end to the crisis and a halt to the pipeline project.
- November
water storage reached
90% (a margin last recorded in December 1992). Levels began to drop as
monthly rainfall returned to below average and by January 1995, the
drought reappeared.
Note:
Was it a coincidence that rainfall stopped when dam levels reached 90%?
Why not stop at 77% when Watercare declared the end of the crisis? The
simple answer was that the only way to ensure that Watercare was
totally
committed to its decision to abandon the pipeline was to make it very
obvious
that there was no longer a water crisis to contend with. Stopping at
the
lower level would have allowed for some uncertainty which Watercare
could
later exploit to continue with its original plan.
To sum up
- during the 4 months from July to the end of October, dam
levels
rose from 33% to 90%, an overall increase of 57% (equal to about
57
- 58 billion litres of water). For the same period, rainfall was
about
590 mm, amounting to 60% of the annual total. By any standard, the
results of the "trial" were impressive -- especially when weather
and water authorities were still predicting drought conditions
just before and after the pipeline was cancelled. (For example, NIWA
predicted
that October would be drier than usual yet
the actual rainfall total was almost double the monthly average)
This is
supported by NZ
Herald reports:
"NIWA
said yesterday that October could bring drier than usual weather...
from
Auckland to Gisborne... But it added that the number of depressions
which caused the high rainfall in Auckland in September and the
first
week of this month "complicates the October climate outlook." (08.10.94)
"Last month
was dry over much of NZ - but not north of the Bombay Hills. The end of
Auckland's water crisis on October 3 did not spell the end of a wet
winter
and spring... over the northern half of the North Island.... falls
in
the north were 20 to 60 per cent higher than average from Gisborne
to Auckland. A senior institute scientist,
Dr
Jim Salinger, said forecasts had been correct for October over most
of the country. The Auckland weather, he said, continued to
be
a challenge." (02.11.94)
|
Indigenous weather
modification was
first suggested to Watercare in May 1994 as a relatively inexpensive
and
effective method of dealing with the water supply crisis. It was
offered
as a short-term solution to a specific problem. Watercare
was given the opportunity to test it as part of its
programme
of assessing alternative sources of water while it continued with its
primary
interest, the Waikato pipeline. It would have taken no more than three
weeks to validate the process and, properly supported, could have ended
the supply problem by late July or early August, rather than October /
November as happened.
The fact that the
offer was declined
suggests that Watercare was pursuing an agenda that served its own
interests
rather than those of the community. The NZ Herald (02.11.94)
quotes
the Mayor of Waitakere, Mr Bob Harvey, as saying Watercare "wanted
to
push ahead with the pipeline" and that it "had obtained a significant
amount of equipment... during the crisis and wanted to protect its
investment."
It would explain why my efforts
to organize a meeting, discuss the WM proposal and conduct provisional
trials were either ignored or diverted. Instead, Watercare persisted
with the Waikato pipeline as Auckland's salvation. It was a typical
bureaucratic
solution, ie. inappropriate and an enormous waste of time, energy and
money
as was later revealed. Inevitably this decision like others displayed
serious
flaws when, inexplicably, the weather began to change.
By October,
from the pipeline
opponents' viewpoint, Watercare's decision to postpone all activity was
the epitome of irony and poetic justice. The NZ Herald (06.10.94)
called it a "Gilbertian pipeline drama". For another opinion of
Watercare
and the Waikato Pipeline - CLICK HERE.
2. BACKGROUND
Auckland
occupies a narrow isthmus which is bordered in the west by the
Tasman
Sea and the Pacific Ocean in the east. It is well endowed with beaches,
parks, and apparently limitless water resources. Most parts are within
a 20 kilometre radius of one coastline or other. It is also the largest
city in New Zealand with a population of over 1 million. Its water
needs are
served by dams in nearby Waitakere and Hunua ranges which, prior to the
creation of Watercare, were operated by the Water Services Division of
the Auckland Regional Council.
Watercare Services
Ltd was incorporated
on 1 August 1991 and began independent operations when it took over the
Water Services Division between 12 - 23 October 1992. Ownership of
Watercare
was transferred from the Auckland Regional Council to Auckland Regional
Services Trust on 1 July 1993.
As at 1992-3, the
asset value of
Watercare was $401 million. Fixed asset value of $390 million was made
up of 10 water storage dams, 6 treatment facilities, wastewater
treatment plant and bulk water distribution and wastewater collection
facilities. Maximum
storage capacity was over 100 million cubic metres or 100 billion
litres.
The Watercare
board of directors
at that time comprised BS Cole (Chair) RF Meyer (Dep Chair) RG
Law
(CEO) SG Hall (Sec) and JN Duder, PB Wheeler, LJ Harre, PR Hadlee, PR
Cook.
Watercare's main
clients were the
six Territorial Local Authorities of Auckland City, Manukau City, North
Shore City, Papakura district, Waitakere City and Rodney district. The
respective Mayors were; Les Mills, Sir Barry Curtis, Paul Titchener,
David
Hawkins, Bob Harvey, and Doug Armstrong.
3. DROUGHT
1994
According to news
reports, since
the beginning of 1993 to May 1994, Auckland had experienced less than
normal
rainfall and dam levels were less than a third full when they should
have
been three quarters full.
"Watercare
maintains that the first
hint of this drought came in July 1993. Instead of an expected 230 mm
of
rain the region received 35 mm.... Watercare staff began to run
different
periods through their statistical model and concluded that the
drought
actually began in May 1991. For two years there was little impact
on
lake storage. By March this year [1994] Watercare's model calculated
that
the drought was a one-in-40-year event.... [Mark] Bourne: ' We had
a
drought and people didn't even know. Nothing was done about it,no
hosing
bans, no water restrictions, because the water supply was designed to
cope
with a one-in-50-year drought.'
April this year was
the turning
point, the month when the drought, according to Watercare, declared
itself. Metservice
forecasts predicted a wetter-than-average April. The big dry was
expected
to end in June and July with the decline in the El Nino pattern. None
of
that happened. The rain did not come. The El NIno pattern held
steady.
It was from April that the drought slipped into an event that Watercare
says the dam system was not built to cater for.
From November 1992 to
June 1994
- the bulk of the period over which Watercare says the drought made
itself
felt - Auckland received 2586.3mm or 71 % of the 20-month average
rainfall. Taking
the last 12 months, the lack of rain
becomes
even more pronounced. The average July-to-June rainfall is 2242.5
mm.
The actual rainfall for the 12 months from July 1993 is 1477mm, or 66%
of the average... In the last 12 months the run-off into the dams has
been
53% of average."
(NZ Herald
30.7.94)
4. WATER
CRISIS
The first public
warning of a water
supply problem came on January 12 with Watercare's advertising campaign
to promote water conservation, but that had little effect. Intimations
of a crisis surfaced on February 26 with the announcement that water
restrictions
would begin. Regular news releases of falling dam levels began - 43% by
March 29, 41% by April 6, 40% by April 8, and so on. Water shortages
were
also announced for other parts of New Zealand such as Wanganui and the
Kapiti coast. On April 13 in Auckland a total ban was imposed on the
use
of water sprinklers. By May 22 dam levels had fallen to 32.7%. Pictures
of dried up lake beds appeared in newspapers and on television.
On May 25, the NZ
Herald ran a scenario
of what city life could be without water - queues of people waiting at
stand-pipes in streets, malfunctioning sewage system, epidemic
diseases,
severe water rationing and the use of the Waikato river as an
alternative
major source of water. Finally, came the report that water supplies
could
run out by September or October if consumption was not drastically
reduced.
On May 31, the NZ
Herald announced
that "the storage lakes would need more than 50 days of good rainfall
until
the beginning of October. Based on past weather records and on long
term
forecasts there is only a remote possibility of this happening." To
Watercare's embarrassment, what was expected to be "a remote
possibility"
became an obvious reality between
July
and October. [See ' Watercare Forecast
' for
more detail.]
5. WATERCARE
AND PUBLIC REACTION
Note:
This part of
the crisis is well documented by The
NZ Herald and only a brief outline of the major events is given
below.
Water restrictions
and savings
targets - search for alternative water sources and solutions - Auckland
Mayoral forum - local body in-fighting - NIWA and Watercare rainfall
predictions
- promotion of Waikato pipeline - Tainui consent - Government
involvement
- and of course, "The Big Question"... was it or wasn't it a drought |
water crisis??
|
