Fish & Game urges locals to have a say on river scheme

Hawkes Bay Fish & Game is urging locals “who value clean rivers to fish and swim in” to make sure they have a say on proposals for the Tukituki River catchment.

Manager Pete Mc Intosh says time is running out put in a submission to the Board of Inquiry established – the deadline is August 2, 2013.

All concerned residents should make a submission to the Board via the Environmental Protection Agency, and also email their MP – telling them why they personally value Tukituki River and its tributaries.

Mr Mc Intosh says Fish & Game agrees with the comment that the serious concerns of the Mayors, business leaders, iwi leaders, environmental groups and submitters have so far gone unheeded.

“We applaud the Mayors of both Napier and Hastings who have sought an independent peer review of the Ruataniwha water storage scheme - to make sure the risk to ratepayers is accounted for in the regional council's plans.

“We believe it entirely inappropriate that Hawke’s Bay ratepayers are being forced to fund a project in the absence of any real evidence to support its financial and environmental benefits.”

Mr Mc Intosh says Fish & Game is not opposed in principle to the water storage scheme, including the dam, but promised improved flows over the summer months cannot be guaranteed.

“We have no confidence in HBRC’s assurances on this, given what we regard as their long term failure to properly manage the resource, and the present situation in which ground and surface water is over-allocated.

“Our biggest concerns centre on the additional river pollution it believes will result from the intensified land use the dam will allow.

Hawkes Bay Regional Council reports suggest that nitrate levels from increased farm runoff into the Tukituki River will rise by over 500% - allowing pollution to reach what they themselves have termed ‘toxic’ levels.

“We believe the Tukituki River will end up unhealthy for public use (as it is now over the summer months) unsafe for swimming and other recreational pursuits – due to the levels of e-coli and phormidium (toxic algae).”

We are completely dissatisfied with HBRC’s public consultation process for the scheme -- We believe HBRC entered the consent and consultation process with a preconceived outcome of building the dam.

If the HBRC was serious about investigating water storage alternatives, they would have explored smaller on-farm community schemes which would allow for water to be stored where it’s needed, he added.

We believe HBRC needs to return to protecting and enhancing the environment, not allowing a major increase in pollution which it admits WILL result from the dam. Those responsible for allowing a serious decline in water quality should be held to account.

“Hawkes Bay rivers and the people who enjoy them for various recreational pursuits stand to be the losers. The financial and environmental costs of this scheme are simply too high.”

Meanwhile, Labour MPs Maryan Street (Environment), Ruth Dyson (Conservation) and Moana Mackey (Energy and Climate Change) visited the proposed Ruataniwha dam yesterday.

“We were very pleased to go and examine the site," said Maryan Street, "and the scale of the proposal became apparent immediately. We were grateful for the time the Hawke's Bay Regional Council gave us on our information-gathering trip. Afterwards we met with members of Hawke's Bay Fish & Game and Transparent Hawke's Bay who aired their concerns with us.

"We left with more questions at the end of the day and will seek further information. The financial viability of the project is of real concern, with farmers not signing up to it in droves because of anxieties about how much water will cost when the dam is working.

“The flooding of that piece of the environment is also of concern and promised remediation measures of additional planting will need to be clear, together with the state of the flooded area and the ecosystem within it.”

Ms Street says permission for additional levels of nitrogen sought is also problematic. “While we applaud the project's assault on phosphate levels, the increase in nitrogen levels permissible seems inexplicable, particularly if the area of the Ruataniwha plains is to move more towards cropping than dairying, as we were advised.”

Increased nitrogen levels suggests intensifying dairying, rather than cropping, even though cropping has its own leaching problems, she said.

"Commitment to better water quality will need to be assured, as the plan's proponents say they are indeed committed, and more comprehensive consultation with interested groups such as iwi and Transparent HB is required, in our view. Withholding of scientific information does not fill anybody with confidence, and more openness is required if this is to get broad based support.

"There is more work to do before we would give this project the thumbs up," said Maryan Street.

For details on how to make a submission visit: www.epa.govt.nz/Resource-management/tukituki

ENDS

© Scoop Media