Greenpeace to file legal challenge over dam

The site of the proposed 80-metre Ruataniwha Dam, over the Makaroro River.

A legal challenge has been laid down by Greenpeace New Zealand to Hawke's Bay Regional Council over the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme.

Yesterday, Greenpeace announced it would be filing a judicial review of resource consents granted by the council to extend the land area the scheme could irrigate, which the council said would aid expansion of dairy farms in the region.

The motion, to be lodged at Napier High Court, challenges two resource consents given to the Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company in January, which were granted without public notification on the basis of a council assessment that any environmental effects would be no more than "minor".

Greenpeace's agriculture campaigner Gen Toop described this move as "inconceivable".

"The public are being asked to fork out hundreds of millions of dollars on a dam that will cause more industrial dairy farming and more pollution of our rivers.

"It's just wrong that the public, who will lose out on clean rivers thanks to the dam, have been shut out of this process."

Council spokesman Drew Broadley said the council was aware of Greenpeace's action on the council's decision to not publicly notify the resource consents for the extension of the command area of Ruataniwha in 2015.

"At the time, the council thoroughly considered the situation and its legal responsibilities. The extension was just that, a modest extension, of an already consented scheme," he said.

Council staff had undertaken a notification assessment for the resource consents, as they did with every application and this was legally reviewed. Mr Broadley said it concluded consents were not required to be publicly notified. The assessment was that the effects of an extension to the irrigation zone were minor and that no parties were considered affected.

Less than a year ago, 17 original consents and a notice of requirement related to the scheme were granted to the Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company by a board of inquiry.

That process saw significant public interest and opposition, involving almost 400 submissions and nearly 30,000 pages of evidence, many about the risks to water quality in the area.

Greenpeace would now wait for a hearing date, but Ms Toop expected the council and investment company would request an urgent hearing as all signs suggested they were not interested in public opinion about the environmental and financial dangers of this scheme.

Mr Broadley said, in its earlier decision on the scheme consent, the board of inquiry envisaged until all the water agreements were signed, which was still happening, there would likely be modifications to the scheme footprint such as these.

"Should a judicial review be ordered it is not expected this will affect the timetable for the council to make a decision on investing in the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme, as there is still a great deal to do before construction begins," he said.