HBRIC chairman Andy Pearce said he did not believe it was appropriate for the company to share the information with an outside lawyer.
"We have our own legal advice. You would be asking the directors of the company to subject themselves to some other party's scrutiny," he said. "I'm not entirely sure what the point of this would be."
Mr Beaven said: "I'm looking for some assurance that there are not any misrepresentations being made that might come back to impact on us."
"You appoint directors to this company and I think you expect us to behave within the law and to behave properly," Dr Pearce said. "Any suggestion that you might need to have further oversight ... might be taken as offensive."
"Then fine, be offended," Mr Beaven said, "but there are some slight differences in the interpretation, as I understand it, of some of the things we've discussed today and I'm just looking, as a responsible councillor, for some assurances that we're not exposing ourselves to any future liability through the actions of our subsidiary."
HBRIC chief executive Andrew Newman said the company would undertake a legal review of the commentary it made on regulatory issues related to the Ruataniwha scheme "in every circumstance".
"We are following a proper process there."
Mr Beaven said he was "happy to take an assurance from HBRIC that they're getting ongoing advice on this".
Fish & Game said yesterday Mr Conway's advice to the council showed farmers who joined the Ruataniwha scheme would have to reduce the intensity of their farming to meet the dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) limits.
But Dr Pearce said under a "worse case" scenario farmers would need to cut nitrogen use by 1 per cent a year, which would not necessarily lead to a reduction in the stock numbers they could farm.