-How much water has been consented for extraction, and is this amount sustainable? How do we know whether we have so much water that we can give it away for export? Where's the data?
-How can we be giving away water for export at the same time orchardists and other growers (to say nothing of home lawn sprinklers) face possible bans on water use?
-Irrigators need to defend - with substantial documentation - the quantum of water they wish to extract according to their land area, soils, crops etc; bottlers seem to get as much water as they ask for, no questions asked. Where's the fairness in that?
-Are we charging someone for this water, and if not, why not? Shouldn't our region get some direct financial return for our region's water? Should overseas investors profit from our free water?
-Aren't there "higher uses" for this water that would create more jobs here in Hawke's Bay or yield more value that would better reward the region for its asset? And can't we allocate our water to those uses?
Not one of these questions is silly or inappropriate. Some have more defensible answers than others from a narrow consenting standpoint. The last two are hugely important from an economic development standpoint; and the sustainability question is paramount.
But on its face, the situation seems to defy common sense. And that's why so many people are rightfully alarmed, incredulous and angry.
Whoever is letting this happen must be, as one email said: "Damn fools".
Well, to some extent I agree. Collectively our region's elected leaders - and especially we at the Hawke's Bay Regional Council - are damn fools for allowing this situation to unfold entirely under the radar.
Part of the problem arises from the routine delegation of consenting to council staff. In theory (and most practice) that's a sound management approach. And so 95 per cent or more of normal consenting happens without elected councillors ever being aware. If anything, in the past we might have asked once a year how much does this consenting cost and how fairly are we charging applicants?
Earlier this year I argued to my council that councillors should be made aware as a routine matter of each and every consent application that walks in the door. The proposal was accepted; now councillors receive a regular spreadsheet that at least provides a topline heads-up on what applications might be coming through the pipeline.
However, the water bottling consents had already been granted in 2013 by Hawke's Bay Regional Council, with the staff, using its discretion under the RMA, compounding the injury by having also decided that broad public notification was not needed.
Clearly, some applications can raise important pubic issues that should be aired at a political level. And that's a judgment I, as an elected councillor must have the opportunity to make - to get the issues on the table in full public view. With the new alert process in place, I pledge to take that opportunity whenever I deem necessary.
No longer can councillors say: "We didn't know".
-Tom Belford is a Hawke's Bay regional councillor.
-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
