Iwi says no to flood defence

A local iwi wants to stop a dam that would protect the Bay of Plenty town of Matata from another devastating flood, because the proposed site is on sacred ground.

A leader of Te Rangatiratanga O Ngati Rangitihi, says the iwi has no sympathy for owners of properties destroyed in the May 18 disaster, even though they cannot rebuild without the dam.

"They're not Rangitihi," secretary David Potter told the Herald. "They're disgraceful as far as we're concerned."

His comments have enraged the property owners and caused tension within Ngati Rangitihi.

Whakatane District Council approved the dam late last year as the best way of protecting the 57 properties in the worst-hit area of town from another disaster. The decision ended months of uncertainty for those waiting to return home.

But Te Rangatiratanga O Ngati Rangitihi, which claims 1780 members, reacted by lodging a formal objection with the council.

"The debris dam, which Ngati Rangitihi strongly oppose, will result in damage to a wahi tapu [sacred place] and an archaeological site," Mr Potter wrote in a letter dated December 22.

The letter said the land was a former pa site and burial ground for Ngati Rangitihi ancestors after battles fought in the 18th and 19th centuries.

An urgent application had been made to the Historic Places Trust for protection of the site "in order to prevent any further desecration of our wahi tapu and other taonga".

The letter also claimed that the council had ignored its obligations under the Resource Management Act to consult Ngati Rangitihi.

Mr Potter told the Herald that the iwi wanted the dam stopped regardless of the effect on the 57 property owners.

He said Ngati Rangitihi told them not to build in the area when it was subdivided in the 1970s.

"They built on a burial ground. We asked them not to build there."

The iwi had also warned that the area was prone to flash floods.

Matata resident Marilyn Pearce, whose property was inundated with mud, logs and boulders, reacted angrily to Mr Potter's comments, saying it was "rubbish" that there had not been proper consultation.

"It's just blatant lies," she said.

Mrs Pearce understood the cultural significance of the site but not the focus of the iwi objectors.

"Forget the dead and concentrate on the living," she said. "I know it's sacred ground, but it's everywhere. I don't think we're undermining their beliefs."

Another property owner, Bill Whalley, said Ngati Rangitihi had never warned against building on the land and he believed it was pointless saying the area was flood-prone.

"You can say that about any stream in New Zealand that comes out of the hills."

Tensions have also flared within Ngati Rangitihi, with kaumatua Henry Pryor saying Mr Potter had no mandate to speak on the iwi's behalf.

"I'm very, very annoyed about that," Mr Pryor said.

He said it was wrong to suggest the iwi wanted the dam stopped regardless of the consequences.

"Iwi has sympathy for everybody whose houses were destroyed."

But Mr Pryor agreed with Mr Potter that the council should not have given permission for the subdivision 30 years ago, and he also had doubts about the dam.

He wanted further discussion on the project and planned to call a meeting of Ngati Rangitihi and Matata residents early next month.