The consultation document states that "The public will be asked to make a commitment before the precise projects are fully identified and prioritised." I don't know about you but before committing ourselves to expenditure of $36.9 million I believe we should know what we are getting for our money. What projects are the projects intended, and have alternatives been fully explored? Take fixing Lake Whatuma for example. The solution is not so much about making a stagnant water body flow again, it is about the level of the lake. Buying out surrounding land and raising the exit to hold more water is not going to cost $36.9 million. It's about making an attempt to bring the lake back to a more natural state.
The dam's resource consents set out the environmental flows that have to be provided at no cost to the ratepayer. The scheme has to provide flushing flows, and minimum flow levels. Under Option B what HBRC is actually suggesting are additional environmental flows. Now I'm all for improving environmental flows, but will the Tukituki River actually need them once Plan Change 6 and the 0.8 DIN limit kicks in? We are being asked to agree to the expenditure of over $36.9 million, taking on blind faith that it is actually needed.
This leaves us with option C. To state that there will be no environmental flows under this option is disingenuous for the reasons outlined above. We could always insist that HBRIC just allows additional flows at no cost if it can be justified that they are required. After all HBRIC belongs to us, the ratepayers. If this means that they have to go back and renegotiate with outside investors, then so be it.
There is also the question of committing $36.9 million of profits from the scheme and the Port to this one catchment. Think about what other environmental uses this money could be put towards. Where is the money coming from to fix Lake Tutira? What about Waihi and Waiau Rivers in Waiora? What about the upper Mohaka? To me this is the biggest hole in the analysis provided by HBRC in this consultation. It demonstrates how rushed this whole process has become.
So I'm going to keep my submission short and simple. So the politicians will understand it. It will support option C, even though it is not perfect. It is the Clayton's option. The option you make when you don't have any alternative. Like most ratepayers I want to stop dogs dying in the Tukituki River, I'm just not convinced that spending $36.9 million of our money is the best solution. It is money that could well be spent elsewhere so we get a bigger environmental bang for our buck. Because HBRC has not even considered putting alternative options to us they do not deserve our support by approval of options A or B.
So please attend one of HBRC's roadshows, make a written submission on this proposal, and then speak to it at council. It's not that scary. Just responding saying "I support option C" is enough to get you sitting in front of council and letting them know how you feel about this deal.
It counts when they consider the percentage of submissions which support each option. Making a verbal submission is also very effective. After all, it's election year and you have more rights than just the ability to place a tick on the ballot.
Take advantage of your rights, the council certainly does. I'm happy to help anyone who asks. Just email napierbailey@gmail.com. Remember, your voice counts.
- Paul Bailey is a former bank manager and business owner.
- Views expressed here are the writer's opinion and not the newspaper's. Email: editor@hbtoday.co.nz
