We also need to consider the poor health of the lower Ngaruroro. The simple fact is that the lower reaches have been treated as a drain in the past. It is a highly modified environment. Some of the applicants have been beating their heads against a brick wall for decades to get some action from HBRC to improve the health of the lower Ngaruroro (or the Clive River as it is sometimes known). I certainly understand and sympathise with their frustration.
Whilst I'm supportive of the intent of WCOs (the one on the Mohaka for example was designed to stop the damming of that river) they are a hangover from the past. The legislation was passed in the "Think Big" era as a sop to the environmentalists of the time.
The world has moved on since then and it is not surprising that this is the first WCO application since the introduction of the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management (NPSFM). A perverse outcome of a WCO is that it shifts the authority for HBRC to manage the Ngaruroro on to the Minister for the Environment.
WCOs are also very difficult to amend. You could liken them to making the Ngaruroro a National Park. This makes it very difficult for HBRC to manage the Ngaruroro in a dynamic manner.
If the WCO only covered the upper reaches of the Ngaruroro I would have been very supportive of it. HBRC urged the applicants to have the WCO only cover the upper reaches and allow the TANK process to finalise its work on the lower reaches. If the applicants were unhappy with the outcome of the TANK process they could always make a further WCO submission for the lower reaches.
Unfortunately the applicants declined this approach so councillors were left in the unenviable position of having to make a decision to oppose the application.
Given that the WCO involves resource planning issues the decision on how HBRC would approach the WCO was first put before the regional planning committee. The committee was unable to reach a consensus on the approach to take so made no recommendation (such are the ways of process). However, because we were under severe time constraints to make a submission on the WCO the council itself decided unanimously to oppose the application.
Personally I argued that we should again attempt to negotiate with the applicants before lawyering up. A far cheaper solution than the anticipated $690,000 costs for HBRC. Who knows what costs will fall on the applicants?
It is a pity that lines have been drawn in this way. I think we are in a lose-lose situation.
But I understand what has led us down this path. I understand the difficulties the applicants would have in trusting HBRC to do the right thing. But the worm has turned. There is a far more progressive council sitting around the table than when the WCO was first mooted. One that takes its environmental responsibilities seriously.
It should be noted that the decision to put a halt on any further water takes from the Heretaunga aquifer was one that was supported by the TANK Group, including those from the horticulture, viticulture and cropping industries. If the TANK Group can support such a dramatic course of action maybe the applicants could see fit to trust HBRC and await the outcome from the TANK process.
I know I'd be willing to talk some more because we have yet to reach the point of no return. I hope the applicants would be too.
Paul Bailey is a Hawke's Bay regional councillor. Views expressed here are the writer's opinion and not the newspaper's. Email: editor@hbtoday.co.nz.
