Martin Williams: Reboot talks to build better system

Martin Williams

Before you switch off, this is not another rave about "the Dam", but the bigger issue of how we can make the tough decisions around land use and water management, and deal with the different perspectives about these issues, not only at the political level but through more effective public engagement.

There has to be, and is, a better way.

All I would say now is that (with respect) Councillor Alan Dick is quite correct to point out that the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme is an integral part of Change 6 to the Regional Plan, aimed specifically at raising minimum flows within the Tukituki River to better protect aquatic habitat.

Harvesting winter rainfall for use by farmers in the catchment is a common sense way to take pressure off the river in summer, when farmers otherwise need that water the most to sustain their livelihoods. Some may question the option chosen, but few would challenge the logic.

Former Councillor Sutton in his talking point (Dam Disaster Cloaked in Secrecy, May 18, 2016) may blame his colleagues for allocating too much water in previous years as the reason why river flows in the Tukituki are so low in the first place.

The not so delicious irony is that a number of councillors currently in office were backed by a primary sector lobby angry at irrigation bans triggered by minimum river flow rules applied in the Ngaruroro catchment (you may remember the Grower Action Group 'tractor rally' protest in September 2013). It is perhaps not as easy to take a hard line on river protection, and resist pressure from farmers and orchardists to allow more water to be taken for irrigation, as Mr Sutton implies.

The political risk seems real.

Personally, perhaps the saddest outcome of the Tukituki catchment process for me has been how divisive the issues have become within the Hawke's Bay regional community.
This has clearly played out around the Council table, and more than anything else is what has motivated me to stand for the Regional Council in this year's local body elections.

I also think much of the debate misses the real point, i.e. how do we sustain an economy that is currently heavily dependent on the primary sector and in turn water, while protecting the precious resources that underpin that economy. This balance is only going to get more difficult to achieve with increased severity and frequency of droughts, and creative solutions to ensure resilience to climate change will be essential.

It is simply unbelievable that despite the Board of Inquiry being presented with 28,000 pages of evidence, many people bemoan the "lack of information" about the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme. It is quite clear that some people simply do not trust experts and scientists (or worse, economists) who are briefed by the Council or HBRIC Ltd.

They assume that these experts would put their integrity (and careers) on the line, and despite swearing a code of conduct to act impartially, simply say whatever their client wants.

Yet the opinion of experts retained by opponents of the Scheme is taken as gospel.
As I see it, you can't have it both ways, but my real point is that the Tukituki process was too hard (even brutal) for all concerned, too expensive, and no one would suggest it be repeated.

The TANK process for the other main catchments in the Region has itself taken nearly three years, and yet no outcome that can be set through regional plan rules on minimum river flows has been agreed.

The process has also not been without its own degree of controversy and political fallout.
This suggests to me that simply adopting collaborative models to make decisions is not the answer either, and we may yet be heading to a hearing and Environment Court model for these catchments, if better progress cannot be made soon.

Resource Management Act reforms will give councils greater flexibility about the types of processes they can adopt to make decisions involving land use and water management.

The national objectives framework within the National Policy Statement (Freshwater Management) will mean communities can have a say on where they wish to set the balance between environmental protection and economic values, without having to 'scrap it out' over all the science (and economics) each and every time a decision is made.

I think it is very important to start with both a greater degree of agreement about and acceptance of the science (how much water is there, what nutrient and other limits are needed to protect ecological health) for any process to work effectively.

This may mean we need to change the way experts are employed, and improve access to them by the interested public.

A regional community discussion about values can then follow, with people better understanding what decisions to be either more or less protective of our rivers will mean for their economy and environment. The overall process can be faster, cheaper (yes, fewer lawyers!) and one the public can have more confidence in.

So I would like to see Hawke's Bay "reboot" the conversation about water management, and lead a fresh approach that is respectful of different viewpoints. We simply have to move past the entrenched positions revealed through the Tukituki process, and develop a 'Hawke's Bay' model that better reflects the culture of this unique region.

¦Martin Williams is a barrister specialising in local government and resource management law, based in Napier. He is standing for the Regional Council in this year's local body elections in October.