Fishing News index > November 2006

TrustPower’s Wairau River Hydro Proposal – The things you should know but haven’t been reported!

Lawson Davey, Fish and Game NZ

The consent hearing of TrustPower’s Wairau River Hydro proposal which seeks to divert up to 35 cubic metres of water per second from the Wairau (in addition to the 20 cubic metres of water it currently takes from the Branch River) is still dragging on. At stake is the fact that TrustPower propose to divert much of the Wairau River into their private canal for 46km, leaving a residual flow of only 10 cubic metres per second behind.  This flow is unlikely to be sufficient to meet the existing needs of the community, ecology and recreational users of the Wairau River.

The consent hearing first started on the 12th of June 2006 and would have to be one of NZ’s longest running consent hearings, with the hearing likely to run until November!  Although some are likely to blame the RMA for the long running process, it is my opinion TrustPower themselves are the ones who have caused the hearing to take so long.  This is because their consent application was deficient in a number of critical areas and the fact that the proposal to take water is not in proportion to the available water resource.  As a result of a deficient Assessment of Environment Effects, TrustPower has presented significant amounts of additional information at the hearing. They have also been unable to answer or satisfy a number of concerns that have been raised from the outset, which resulted in a large number of submissions being made in opposition to the scheme.

Recent evidence presented by submitters (but not reported in local media) has highlighted a number of concerns relating to the adequacy and reliability of flow data presented by TrustPower and therefore the predictions which could be made from those data.  Significant concerns have also been raised relating to the potential impact on the river flow at Tuamarina and the likelihood that the 8 cubic metre Class B irrigation restriction could be triggered on a regular basis due to the operation of the proposed scheme with its daily flow fluctuations.  Despite TrustPower presenting significant amounts of new information during the hearing, they have still failed to adequately address a number of significant issues.

TrustPower also opposed and tried to suppress evidence prepared by Marlborough District Council Hydrological and Environmental Staff.  Fortunately the hearing panel (after two days of legal submissions at additional cost to all parties) ruled that the staff reports can be heard. Other parties had been concerned that it is common practice to hear from the MDC experts, who are most knowledgeable about the Wairau River, have no particular position on the application and have to administer the consent if it were granted.  The Trustpower opposition to this evidence was essentially on the grounds that the MDC staff evidence was a one-sided critique, which was procedurally unfair and would result in additional cost to TrustPower.  It would appear the hearing panel were unmoved by this argument and wish to decide for themselves if any bias was shown in evidence from the Marlborough District Council staff.