MY GRANDMOTHER always seemed to have a saying to cover any eventuality. One of them was "fools rush in where angels fear to tread". I could understand the fools rush in part but what was I to make of where angels fear to tread?
Sadly there is an example right before us. To date some $12 million has been spent on getting the dam to the position it is at today and a further $2 million of operating expenses was approved recently. This means a minimum of $14 million in expenses will be incurred by the ratepayers of Hawke's Bay before construction of the dam can proceed.
At present there four stumbling blocks which need to be overcome before financial closure can be achieved. As a reminder, these conditions are viable contracts for 40 million cubic metres, a viable construction contract, investors and workable consents. What has been forgotten, however, is that there are two other rather large stumbling blocks. Firstly HBRIC has yet to obtain clear title to all of the land that it intends to flood to create the dam reservoir. I'm talking, of course, of the proposed conservation land "land swap" deal. There is a strong argument that the Department of Conservation (DoC) does not have the legal mandate to make this deal, which is why I believe that whatever the decision is that is made by DoC it will be appealed. If DoC declines the deal, then HBRIC will appeal, and if DoC approves the deal then someone else will appeal. You do have to wonder though, given that the Makaroro Valley has been the preferred site for the dam for going on two years, why is the process of obtaining clear title only in its infancy?
The blame for any delays can only be laid with the management of HBRIC.
Secondly, the recent Environment Court finding on Plan Change 5 found that there should be objectives in the Regional Policy Statement saying "no degradation of existing ground water quality in the Heretaunga Plains and Ruataniwha Plains aquifer systems" and "the maintenance or enhancement of groundwater quality in aquifers in order that it is suitable for human consumption and irrigation without treatment, or after treatment where this necessary because of the natural water quality". Why is this important you might ask? Given that Plan Change 6 has to give effect to Plan Change 5, in my mind (and I'm not a lawyer so this is not a legal opinion) this means that any land management resource consents issued in the Ruataniwha Plains have to ensure that the Ruataniwha aquifer does not degrade any further than it has at present. That's the bottom line. Regardless of the final outcome of Plan Change 6, it seems to me that there can be no further intensification of farming on the Ruataniwha Plains given that nitrogen leaches into the aquifer. My advice to any landowners considering signing up to the RWSS would be to seek independent advice on this, as this decision is likely to make it impossible to gain an economic return on any capital investment in farm irrigation.
