Forest & Bird wins Ruataniwha dam appeal

Bravo. Speaking as a tramper and a ratepayer here in Hawkes Bay, the sooner this white elephant is put to sleep the better.

There's still a Supreme Court option. Wait for it.

The decision isn't on the Court of Appeals website yet, but I've been forwarded a copy if anyone wants a copy. I haven't read it yet. It's 36 pages, a two to one decision, and probably boring. Meanwhile there's a fairly okay summary on Stuff: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/83749609/court-decision-puts-question-mark-over-controversial-ruataniwha-dam ===== "The majority of the Court found that under the Act the Director-General would have had to be convinced in his assessment that the intrinsic values of the land in question were no longer worth permanent protection as envisaged by the Act. "He was not entitled, as the High Court had ruled, to base his decision on a broad assessment of the merits of the proposed land swap for the conservation estate as a whole," the Court said. [---snip---] In deciding to revoke the status of a specially protected area, the Director-General had to ask whether the land was no longer required for conservation purposes. "In the case of conservation parks, account must be taken of the purpose of special protection — to permanently maintain its intrinsic values, provide for its appreciation and recreational enjoyment by the public, and safeguard the options of future generations — as well as the emphasis on recreation which distinguishes conservation parks from other specially protected areas," the Court said. "A proposal to exchange specially protected land will only be relevant to the revocation inquiry if the Director-General is first satisfied that the specially protected area no longer merits its particular designation — in this case, a conservation park held for park purposes — and should be reclassified as a stewardship area. "Because the Director-General did not exercise his discretion to revoke by focussing on the land's intrinsic values, but rather took into account the objective of exchanging the land and the net gain to the conservation estate, the decision was unlawful," the Court said.

I think the funding for the dam will dry up before it gets to supreme court. Dairying is no longer profitable enough to fund white elephants. Also there was vever enough water in the rivers in question to make it work to the desired extent without completely killing those rivers. These rivers are not like the Canterbury rivers which get refreshed by glacier melt when the summer rains stop.

its a small river no one from outside the area will have heard of..., its not even one of the bigger rivers in the region...

@geeves agreed. The rivers in HB are in a sad enough state as it is. Anyone who believes 'flushing' the Tukituki with released dam water from the Makaroro will improve the health of either river has rocks in their head. We need to drastically reduce the large amounts of nitrates and other crap (literally) getting in to these rivers, not intensify dairying up near the headwaters. Madness.

Madness and indeed greed.

Blind greed at that. Its doomed to lose money. Never expect to see a return on the taxpayer subsidy. However now watch the blame get piled on us nay sayers

There was an article somewhere about someone talking to a farmer asking how they would pay back the dam, the farmer said words to the effect of , I’m 60, I wont be around long enough to have to pay for it, I don’t care.