The HBRC should be totally impartial in what they do, as they represent all ratepayers - it is their moral and professional duty to do so, as protectors of the environment, a role they have seemingly abrogated.
It is only the "detractors" who, by the way, have nothing to gain, financially or otherwise, from the campaign against the RWSS that have consistently and factually represented and published the whole picture, without which most ratepayers would be none the wiser.
They do not have the bottomless pit of money the proponents appear to have, and most have put in numerous hours of their own time and effort, for no or little reward.
It is primarily our passion for conserving and protecting what remains of our natural heritage that drives us, precisely for the sake of our descendants.
There are many other ways to gain the economic benefits Mr Krebs speaks of. Why does he, the HBRC and HBRIC conveniently omit to mention these, either to inform ratepayers, or as an option for farmers? Facts, Mr Krebs.
He also asserts that "Maori have been extensively and appropriately consulted". I'd suggest he speak to Ngahiwi Tomoana of Ngati Kahungunu, who is on record as vociferously disagreeing with his assertion.
And being a barrister, Mr Krebs, of all people, will know and agree that the law of the land is there to protect its citizens - he has used it many times in the high-profile cases he has been involved with. In the same way we are using the law, as we are perfectly entitled to do, to do our utmost to prevent what would in our view be an environmental tragedy from occurring.
We are also dedicated to the legal process, and will continue until all legal avenues have been exhausted - that is our right. And if it occupies more court resources and time in the process, so be it, hopefully until the next local government elections, when the ratepayers will have their opportunity to show what they think about the scheme and its proponents.
Hopefully, and sensibly, they will then vote in councillors with a greater sense of environmental responsibility.
Mr Krebs further falls into the trap in thinking that exchanging 22ha of DoC land for 145ha of Smedley land is a great deal, as would many others. He appears to have not thought this through.
In fact, if the dam is built, more than 400ha of river bed and bush, of which only the 22ha is DoC land, plus some farmland, will be lost, forever - and no land "swap" will ever be able to replace that - fact, Mr Krebs.
In conclusion, Mr Krebs is welcome to contact me through Hawke's Bay Today, we'll be more than happy to take him on a walk down the Makaroro river at the dam site, introduce him to some of the "detractors" and show him the facts first hand.
We'd welcome an open, honest and rational discussion. Perhaps then he will apply the same criteria to defending the environment as he does in his excellent work in defending people accused in the courts of this land.
-Dan Elderkamp is chairman of CHB Forest & Bird.
-Business and civic leaders, organisers, experts in their field and interest groups can contribute opinions. The views expressed here are the writer's personal opinion. and not the newspaper's. Email: editor@hbtoday.co.nz.
