Ruataniwha consent holders could have hundreds of thousands in fees deferred. Photo / Warren Buckland
Ruataniwha consent holders could have hundreds of thousands in fees deferred. Photo / Warren Buckland
Hawke's Bay Regional Council is set to decide if it should allow a company trying to revive large-scale water storage in Central Hawke's Bay to defer the $260,000 in fees it owes.
Water Holdings Hawke's Bay now holds the consents for the $330 million Ruataniwha water storage scheme, which wascanned in 2018, despite the $20m of planning and consenting costs racked up by Hawke's Bay Regional Council.
The company got the consents for $100,000 but is required to pay Section 36 freshwater science charges on them annually.
It hasn't done so for the past two years, and now owes the council $259,805, with another charge of more than $150,000 due by March 2023.
Water Holdings Hawke's Bay has requested a deferral of its charges until such time as the consents can be exercised, which will be considered at a council meeting on Wednesday.
The farmers behind the company say the costs will be paid back to the council eventually, and community will reap the added benefits of having the best option for water security in the region, if their water storage plans are successful.
A Hawke's Bay Regional Council spokeswoman said there would be no extra cost for ratepayers no matter what option is chosen at Wednesday's meeting.
However, if the consents lapse, some or all the funds owed cannot be recovered or remission of future charges is proposed, then other consent holders across the region could expect up to 17 per cent increases to their fees in the future as the council spreads the large cost of science charges.
Hugh Ritchie, one of the directors for Water Holdings Hawke's Bay, said no better alternative strategies for providing workable environmental flow to the river and meeting current and future needs for water on the scale required have been brought to the table.
Ritchie said the annual science charges were $48,000 when the consents were first purchased and the group could not have known they would more than triple in only a few years.
The way the charges were calculated by the council changed in June 2021 and the new methodology has led to significantly higher costs for Water Holdings Hawke's Bay's consents.
"We haven't said we won't pay for them, but we are saying if this thing gets across the line we'll capitalise those fees and actually pay them out of the development of the dam."
He said was frustrated that critics of Water Holdings Hawke's Bay and their Makaroro storage scheme portrayed those behind it as "water barons" seeking profit.
"There wasn't any intent in any conversation or paper to make this a money-making scheme for us, it is purely to get a secure and sustainable water resource for Central Hawke's Bay and the wider Hawke's Bay."
Tim Gilbertson, Water Holdings Hawke's Bay's largest shareholder, said the council and the community has to make a decision to support a viable future for Hawke's Bay. Photo / NZME
Tim Gilbertson, Water Holdings Hawke's Bay's largest shareholder, said he and the others would have walked away by now if the venture was for-profit.
He said the region would be past the point of no return if no moves towards greater water security were made soon.
"It would be an absolute tragedy if we don't make some great strides towards water security in the next two to three years," Gilbertson said.
Neil Kirton, a Hawke's Bay regional councillor seeking re-election, said deferring the fees would severely compromise the integrity of HBRC's fees and charges policies.
"The implications are that other consent holders could equally claim that they are not in a position to exercise their consents and also should have these remitted," Kirton said.
He said Water Holdings Hawke's Bay had options available to exercise their consents.
"They could opt for a lower profile dam that does not involve the DoC land to be flooded. The consents could be exercised with a variation."
Ritchie and Gilbertson both said that any variation on a smaller scale would not provide the same environmental benefits or meet the region's water needs and therefore not serve the intended purpose of the project.
If an application to extend the consents to 2030 is granted next month, then the annual fee could continue to accrue for the next eight years, up to $1.48 million.