Jonathan Krebs: Negative reaction blind to future

Jonathan Krebs

As with many dam supporters in the "silent majority", I have witnessed media debate regarding the irrigation scheme being dominated by a seemingly endless barrage of negative commentary over the past three or so years. While this has been frustrating for me, it is not surprising. Minority viewpoints often gain airtime through producing sound bites of sensational and distracting rhetoric around the side. Meanwhile the proponents are dedicated to a legal process dealing with the facts.

Having read Grenville Christie's "Talking Point" (Hawke's Bay Today, Friday, March 20) I feel I need to respond. Two years ago, while HBRIC Limited prepared its case for the Board of Inquiry, the Regional Council was accused of attempting to "kill" the Tukituki River. Mr Christie has added "theft" to the apparent list of crimes perpetrated by the backers of the scheme.

As readers no doubt know, I am all for correcting an injustice. But it seems to me the real injustice here is not what harm the irrigation scheme might cause to the environment. The real crime is against the future prosperity of Hawke's Bay region from the serial attack through hyperbole and overstatement consistently levelled against the project. The signal that yet more court resources and time will be consumed on the case (Mr Christie referring to "a major fight that will delay the scheme") is even more disturbing.

I seriously doubt whether Hawke's Bay has the stomach or appetite for that, or would see any credibility in yet another round of appeals or legal challenges to the consents granted by the Board of Inquiry for the dam.

As someone born and bred in Hawke's Bay and who has hopes my children might find a future here, I simply cannot understand why there is so much negativity surrounding what is a great social and economic opportunity for this region. No doubt some of the very detractors to this scheme bemoan the lack of political action to tackle Hawke's Bay's unhappy social indicators (health, education, employment), but then knock a genuine attempt to reverse the trends. Let them tell the Ruataniwha farmers currently depending on water that depletes the Tukituki to "turn the tap" off, and front up to those that lose their jobs and livelihoods as a result.

Sure there are risks (as Mr Christie points out). But humankind has taken risks for centuries. The port at Napier was a risky venture. Napier and Hastings were not built after the earthquake without risk. We now know more about the consequences of our decisions than ever before, enabling prudent decisions to be made, better informed than ever before.

The Board of Inquiry evaluated 29,000 pages of evidence. It decided that the social, economic and cultural case for the scheme outweighed any risk. I am not going to second guess that.

Mr Christie, I suggest you read the decision. It found that fears over coastal erosion or from earthquakes were unfounded. It found after considering all the facts that the public and Maori had been extensively and appropriately consulted, despite subsequent claims to the contrary.

I understand that two very experienced international consortia have since pored over the detail of this proposal and a preferred bid on a fixed price contract involving a $270 million investment just needs the green light. That green light so far as the Regional Council is concerned (investing $80 million of cash assets to secure better than a bank rate return) will only be given if farmers and the private sector themselves consider the risks reasonable. This would be a cash investment. The port is not at risk, not one jot. I understand nearly 80 per cent of those that submitted to the Long Term Plan on this issue last year supported the decision to invest in this way.

Returning to the point about sensation, and to Mr Christie, I say, the offer by HBRIC Limited to donate to DoC five-and-a-half times more land than they seek in exchange is about as far from "theft" as I could imagine. The department (and therefore the people of Hawke's Bay) will get a larger forest park. Additionally, HBRIC is offering 35 years of pest control over some 2700 hectares of public and private land, including the 145ha it will be giving to DoC in exchange for the 22ha it receives. I am told one submitter to this process suggested the 145ha of land HBRIC was offering would be such a valuable addition to the Ruahine park, DoC should take it anyway, but keep its 22 hectares. Now, would that be theft?

I also understand that the one threatened plant (mistletoe flower) found on the 22ha of DoC land in question was, when the ecologist returned to that site for another visit, gone " likely eaten by a possum. New Zealand's leading bird ecologist advised the Board of Inquiry that New Zealanders needed to get over the idea that simply locking up vast tracks of public land protects the native plants and animals that live within the DoC estate. It doesn't. We end up with damaged forest canopy and no birds. The HBRIC proposal is one where people, the environment and the economy can come together to produce an overall better and more sustainable outcome.

Don't let one-sided debate (or worse, more delays in endless and costly court battles) kill the single greatest opportunity for the future of this region we may ever see.

-Jonathan Krebs is a Napier criminal defence barrister.

-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.