Dan Elderkamp: Land swap is just an illusion

Forest and Bird Society members from left Dan Elderkamp, Colleen Hulena, Trevor Hulena and Max Chatfield at Lindsay Bush reserve in Waipukurau.

Professor Roger Maaka, in his "Talking Point" of September 9, makes assertions which require a response.

We acknowledge his mana and Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea's (TTOT) mana whenua over the CHB rohe, and particularly over Lake Whatuma, but believe TTOT has not adequately considered its kaitiakitanga role over Te Taiao, for these reasons.

First, the 90m-high dam (RWSS) will do irreparable damage to the Makaroro awa, which he correctly describes as a taonga. Second, the RWSS will affect the mana whenua of Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga, as the Tukituki also passes through their rohe. Third, the proposed land swap of 22ha of conservation park for 146ha of Smedley land is, besides being unlawful, full of holes: scientifically, morally, ethically and legally. We read the same reports as TTOT and we also have access to scientists who will counter the DoC report with equally valid and more convincing arguments. We believe the DoC report has been written so as to seem favourable to the land swap, as highlighted by Dr Amelia McQueen's recent "Talking Point".

Many native species will be forced into much smaller areas ... further threatening the area's sensitive biodiversity

Dan Elderkamp

Fourth, the land swap is an illusion - the DoC land and Smedley land are owned by the Crown, and the Crown cannot swap land with itself. Both lots of land may have differing purposes, but the fact that the Crown has authority over both areas is indisputable. Thus there is no gain whatsoever - in fact we will permanently lose the 22ha of conservation land.

The Crown, if it wanted to, could add the Smedley land to the Ruahine Forest Park with the stroke of a pen, without making it appear like a so-called "swap"in order to justify the RWSS.

Fifth, Professor Maaka is possibly correct in supporting Mr Kessels' view that no species would become locally extinct as a result of the dam being built, but other highly qualified people would dispute this. He also seems unaware of what Mr Kessels did not say, which was that the many native species adapted to this habitat will be forced into much smaller areas and forced to compete for a much smaller food source. This will cause higher mortality rates, further threatening the area's sensitive biodiversity.

Sixth, Professor Maaka asserts that the RWSS makes improving the quality of Lake Whatuma possible, assuming that the water delivery infrastructure would pass nearby. We acknowledge the significance of the lake to TTOT but can't see how the destruction of 400ha of rare North Island braided riverbed, including 241ha of native bush, possibly justifies this. While we are grateful for the work and support given by the HBRC to groups working at Lake Whatuma, to now use the RWSS as a carrot for commencement of major works on the lake is regrettable. Whether the RWSS is built or not, we sincerely hope that the HBRC will commit the funding and effort to the restoration of lake Whatuma that it deserves.

We challenge them to publicly commit to this.

Seventh, Professor Maaka mentions economic and social benefits which might result from the RWSS. These benefits are achievable in far less environmentally destructive ways, but the RWSS is the quick-fix, think-big type scheme that the pro-dam lobby thinks will solve all CHB's economic woes. Doing the right thing by our environment - despite the many painfully evident examples of environmental destruction across New Zealand - remains but an aspiration. Environmental destruction has become justifiable for the sake of economic prosperity for the few, for which the many will suffer in generations to come.

Last, there is the legal issue of the DoC land's conservation status being revoked.

Regardless of all arguments for and against the RWSS, the Conservation Act does not legally allow for revocation and subsequent land-swap of conservation land for commercial purposes. The only way it will happen is through a law change - without this, any revocation and land swap will be unlawful.

-Dan Elderkamp is co-chairman of CHB Forest & Bird.

-Business and civic leaders, organisers 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