Alan Dick
Two articles on the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme (RWSS) published in your Tuesday edition are worthy of further comment.
Firstly, the article "Ruataniwha dual role under scrutiny again" and comments by Mayor Lawrence Yule, need to be placed in context.
Virtually all councils in New Zealand face the issue being raised here, ie, it's not unique to HBRC to be both a regulator or an investor. All councils under the Local Government Act provide for community services and infrastructure and are also regulators.
The water price will also clearly pay for the scheme infrastructure and return a dividend to the regional council.
For example Mr Yule's Hastings council planned for and invested in the regional sports park with his council also being the land use subdivision and building consent regulator.
The apparent conflict is dealt with by separation of roles and responsibilities by using different staff and decision-makers albeit within the one council.
In the case of RWSS, regulation has been dealt with separately by the regional council and the board of inquiry but the project and investment has been governed independently through the board of HBRIC Ltd which has directors, staff and advisers specifically appointed to manage a development of this scale and complexity.
Turning to the opinion piece written by Councillor Rex Graham "Farmers must make the right call" - this appears to be a case of shooting the messenger - in this case a reputable valuer who is simply pointing out the benefits and risks of taking RWSS water.
Mr Graham argues on the one hand that the water is too expensive and on the other that a few "wealthy farmers" should not be able to make a capital gain. Doesn't appear to be a lot of consistency or logic there.
It's worth pointing out a few facts that Mr Graham "conveniently" ignores.
The Ruataniwha Scheme water price covers the cost of environmental improvements such as waterway fencing, riparian planting and provision of flushing flows to clear algae within the main stem of the Tukituki.
The water price will also clearly pay for the scheme infrastructure and return a dividend to the regional council.
By contrast a grower holding a water take consent on the Heretaunga Plains gains additional value for his or her property, yet the only price for this is very modest consent, compliance and science charges.
Consent holders do not pay directly for any environmental mitigation.
Mr Graham refers to "social capital". The social capital implication of the RWSS is actually that for every extra $1 generated in an irrigated farming system there are $3 more generated in the wider community through services, local employment and investment in food processing.
So perhaps Mr Graham should be consistent and take a similar stand on the issue of public good values and access to water through consents compared with his jaundiced position on the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme.
-Alan Dick is a Hawke's Bay Regional councillor and former mayor of Napier
-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