Minutes of Regional Council Meeting

1. Welcome/Prayer/Apologies/Notices

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and Councillor Debbie Hewitt offered the prayer.

Mr Mohi advised that he would need to be excused at 3pm today.

2. Conflict of Interest Declarations

There were no conflict of interest declarations.

RWSS Special Consultative Process - Consideration of Submissions

Mrs Lambert provided an outline of the process of hearing the submissions as well the public and stakeholder meetings held throughout special consultative process.

Discussion traversed the Deloitte peer review and the assumptions that the business case was based on, in addition to the possible impacts of the draft Board of Inquiry decisions.

It was noted that two submissions, 110 and 111, included only the first page of the submission form with the name and contact details of the submitter, and that staff enquiries to obtain the detail of the submission have been unsuccessful.

RC41/14

Resolutions

That Council:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made on issues submitted on the Statement of Proposal to invest up to $80 million in the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme are made after the provisions included in sections 83 and 85 of the Local Government Act 2002 have been followed.

2. Receives and considers the submissions and hears those that are presented in person.

Scott/Wilson

CARRIED

RWSS Special Consultative Process - Consideration of Submissions

Council commenced hearing the verbal submissions from members of the public.

Mr Ian McIntosh (submitter 71) stated his conditional support of the project. Mr McIntosh provided an overview of issues still outstanding, including the conditions precedent. He requested that the Council hold firm to the 30 September 2014 financial close date.

Mr David Appleton (submitter 26) provided an overview of his written submission, relating to impacts of the scheme, specifically the effects of intensive land use on the Tukituki River catchment. Mr Appleton also raised points in relation to the size of the structure and the power generation capacity.

Mr Grenville Christie (submitter 27) stated his position that he does not want Council to go ahead with the dam – as the cost is too high – and based this on his understanding that the project will lead to toxic levels of pollution in the rivers and on the land. Mr Christie further stated that progress and profits through pollution is not acceptable. In favour of water storage as long as it doesn’t lead to pollution.

Mr Joseph Wuts (submitter 32) spoke to his main concern of destruction of the environment, and expressed his belief that the environment should be the regional council’s first priority, not the economy. Mr Wuts further expressed his belief that increased drought years are just something that we are going to have to live with.

Mr Hugh Ritchie (submitter 31) stated his support for the water storage project, as someone who has been involved in the process from the beginning and a farmer intending to join the scheme. Further stated that environmental flows are a major concern and consent conditions associated with water use can be an incentive to improve environmental outcomes.

The meeting adjourned at 10.05am and reconvened at 10.30am

RWSS Special Consultative Process - Consideration of Submissions

Council recommenced hearing the verbal submissions from members of the public.

Mr Bill Sutton (submitter 36) stated that he does not support the RWSS as proposed, but rather would suggest the scheme needs to be improved. Mr Sutton focussed his comments on the expected financial returns, and his view that the returns will not sufficiently cover the up front costs to ratepayers or the loss of income from potential alternative investments. Seeking agreement that a summary for each of four alternative scenarios be prepared.

Mr Xan Harding (submitter 40) stated his qualified support for the RWSS. Further, Mr Harding stated his understanding that the Board of Inquiry has delivered the decision of the environmental aspects of the dam being acceptable and that the decision the Council needs to make is whether to invest, in the best interests of Hawke’s Bay.

Mr Paul Harris (submitter 46) stated his position of support for the scheme, particularly in a strategic sense. Provided his view that there are huge advances in nutrient management, and that this is a challenging decision because the region hasn’t got experience in making this type of decision.

Mr Paul Bailey (submitter 79) repeated previous statements from his submission to the HBRC Annual Plan including his perception that Council is undermining its regulatory role through its involvement in promoting the scheme and providing staff technical advice. Mr Bailey further expressed his belief that the beneficiaries of the scheme are private individuals, i.e. landowners and irrigators, and that they should be the ones to take the scheme forward by investing their own money, not the ratepayers through the regional council.

Mr Andrew Watts (submitter 123) stated his support for the scheme he believes will have huge benefits to the HB economy and enhancement of the Tukituki River by lifting minimum flows. Mr Watts further provided an overview of growth in regions where water storage schemes are already operating.

Mr Ray Knowles (submitter 137) stated that he supports the proposed dam only if it proceeds with the strict environmental restrictions in place on the farms that receive the irrigation water. Mr Knowles further provided several examples of ‘clean’ primary industries that could enhance the region’s reputation as a leader in sustainable food production under the scheme’s environmental conditions.

Mr Matt Edwards (submitter 119) stated that he is primarily in support of the scheme, but not without reservations in relation to the associated risks. He further suggested that enhancement of the power generation be considered, and that Council should not borrow to fund operations. Mr Edwards also expressed his belief that everyone should be on an equal footing, and special consideration should not be given to Maori.

Mr Trevor Le Lievre (submitter 159) stated his opposition, on environmental and economic grounds, to the scheme. He further expressed his belief that the massive land use changes which the proposed dam will tip the balance toward unsustainable farming practices with irreversible cost to the environment. Mr Le Lievre went on to explain his assertion that the economic assumptions are flawed, and the process.

Deputy Mayor Ian Sharp on behalf of Central HB District Council (submitter 66) stated the Council’s support for the proposed RWS scheme for the benefit of CHB and the wider region. Mr Sharp stated that this is an investment, not a donation and reiterated the CHB position that if the conditions precedent are met, Council will be derelict in their duty if an investment is not made.

The meeting adjourned at 12.10pm and reconvened at 1.10pm

RWSS Special Consultative Process - Consideration of Submissions

Council recommenced hearing the verbal submissions from members of the public.

Mrs Pauline Elliott (on behalf of Transparent HB Inc, submitter 157) stated the purpose of the group is to ensure transparent decision making processes of local government, and that the group is opposed to this Council investing in this dam at this time. It is the contention of the group that at no time has there been sufficient information to enable the public to make an informed decision or recommendation on the RWSS. Mrs Elliott then provided her perception of the entire process as not being transparent.

Mr Gerard Pain (submitter 35) stated his opposition to the RWSS on the basis of the destruction of the Makaroro River and risks outweigh any of the (optimistic or dubious) benefits promoters of the scheme have touted – which he believes have been over stated.

Ms Adrienne Tully (submitter 606) expressed her abhorrence for and opposition to the RWSS project and the resulting destruction of the river. Would support on-farm or small scheme water storage.

Mr Ngahiwi Tomoana and Dr Adele Whyte (on behalf of Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Inc, submitter 174) stated their opposition to Council investment in the RWSS because they are not confident that it is a sound investment, and because they believe the flow on efforts will be risky culturally, environmentally and financially.

Mrs Pauline Tangiora expressed her cultural belief that the Council does not have the right to take the water and charge people to use it.

Mr Larry Dallimore (submitter 125) opposes the building of the dam as it will impede the natural flow of gravel, resulting in reduced gravel being transported to the Coast and therefore exacerbating coastal erosion issues.

Mrs Sara Gerard (submitter 168) stated her reasons for not wanting the Council to invest in the RWSS as: conflict of interest in HBRC’s role; large dams as part of a flawed paradigm with underestimated costs and exaggerated benefits and sediment losses to the coast; construction contract concerns, design change concerns and whole life cost analysis including decommissioning costs not having been carried out.

Mr Andrew Seager (submitter 81) stated that he is not for or against the dam per se. Interested in a clean environment and sustainable agriculture. Believes that the flushing flows provided from the dam could improve the health of the Tukituki River, but doesn’t think the HB ratepayers should have to pay for the scheme.

The meeting adjourned at 2.40pm and reconvened at 3.10pm, with Mr Mohi absent.

Mr Barry Ridler (submitter 140) stated that he wants the Ruataniwha dam project to be terminated immediately due to the water supply being unreliable and earthquake risks, as well as lack of return to farmers and issues with uptake in areas where he considers there is sufficient rainfall so that irrigation is not necessary.

The meeting adjourned at 3.30pm on Monday 16 June and reconvened at 9.00am on Tuesday 17 June 2014.

Tuesday 17 June 2014

Present: F Wilson - Chairman

R Barker

P Beaven

T Belford

A J Dick

R Graham

D Hewitt

D Pipe

C Scott

In Attendance: E Lambert – Chief Executive

P Drury – Group Manager Corporate Services

L Hooper – Governance & Corporate Administration Manager

RWSS Special Consultative Process - Consideration of Submissions

Council commenced hearing the verbal submissions from members of the public.

Mr Will Foley (submitter 172) stated his support for the HBRC investment of up to $80M in RWSS due to its benefits, more than just economic, to the CHB community and the wider region.

Mr Simon Cowan (submitter 188) stated his view that the farm enterprises must operate profitably for the scheme to work, and that if the conditions precedent are met supports Council’s investment. Mr Cowan expressed his view farmers don’t think the scheme will provide for profitability and the minimum 40 million m³ will not be achieved.

Mrs June Graham (submitter 191) expressed her view that Council should not invest in the RWSS, but rather spend the money on soil health improvement and other farming practices that would contribute to the health of the Tukituki River – better long term alternatives, more responsive to major climatic changes expected. Mrs Graham went on to express her concerns relating to the information available to the public and changes to the information throughout the process.

Mr Garth Cowie (CED) and Mr John Matheson (CFO) on behalf of Napier Port (submitter 184) supports RWSS as a rate and unique opportunity to drive economic growth in HB which will increase cargo volumes through the Port and increases profits back to HBRIC Ltd and HBRC. Mr Cowie provided economic statistics reflecting HB’s position of 2^nd bottom in term of GDP per capita, and just above ½ the top performing region. Mr Cowie stated that the region needs to grow itself – and the RWSS scheme has the potential to grow the economy in the same way that storage has contributed to the growth in Canterbury. Investment return for Council from the scheme, and flow on profits from the Port. Need population to drive health and social outcome improvements in CHB that will only happen if there are jobs which will be provided by and as a result of the RWSS.

Mr Marcus Avery (submitter 164) stated his belief that the long term returns will be phenomenal and the investment needs to be considered in the longer term review, and provided a brief personal history of how he has come to that belief. Mr Avery further stated that a long term vision for the better of the region is what’s required and that the project will never be cheaper than now. He further believes that water quality issues are to be worked through, that farmers have more options with irrigation, and that everyone in HB and even nationally should be investing a little bit in the scheme to make it work.

Mr Andrew Curtis (on behalf of Irrigation NZ, submitter (154) stated that Irrigation NZ supports Council’s investment in the dam and that dry-land farming is not a realistic option as large processing companies require irrigation as a condition of contract.

Mr Mike Petersen (submitter 156) stated his support for Council to invest in the RWSS, critically important for the health of the Tukituki River and the economic and social benefits to the region. Irrigation is the game changer, looking to the future and what is possible. Has seen the result of the lack of water and what happens when the land dries up – and to those who have it as opposed to those who don’t. Sees opportunity to look at appellations in CHB and build strong brands with sustainable production. Needs the Council to show leadership and make the decision to invest with haste, contingent on the conditions precedent being met.

Mr Richard Dakins (on behalf of Ruataniwha Water Users Group, submitter 147) stated that agriculture is a driver of the CHB economy and that irrigation allows certainty for farmers when making investment decisions. If irrigation is not available then he foresees processing companies moving out of the region – and believes that some crops have been sourced from other places due to those areas having a secure water supply.

Now that submissions have been heard, Mrs Lambert explained the process from here which will be consideration of the Agenda item at the meeting next week when the decision whether or not to invest will be made.

The meeting adjourned at 10.40am and reconvened at 10.50am

RWSS Special Consultative Process - Consideration of Submissions

Councillors commenced discussion around information they would like further clarity about in relation to points raised or discussed in submissions, including:

1. Is there a variation around the design and construct price that could impact on ratepayers? (71 Ian MacIntosh + Transparent HB Pauline Elliot & others)

2. Alternative investments (36 Bill Sutton) & others.

3. And the flip side of that, Alternative sites for small community schemes?

4. HBRC to establish demonstration farms (137 Roy Knowles & 81 Andrew Seager) - as an investment?

5. Queries around design to gain maximum efficiency for hydro generation. (119 Matt Edwards)

6. What is being done in stabilising banks to prevent slumping due to wave motion to avoid “muddying’ the reservoir waters? (119 Matt Edwards)

7. What contribution does the Makaroro gravel make to the Tukituki river and the coast (125 Larry Dallimore) – see also points 11 and 13

8. What changes have been made to maximum draw down since EPA evidence? (168 Sara Gerard)

9. Queries around reliability of flow statistics (140 Barry Ridler)

10. Is there any evidence that change from CRF represents an increase in risk by going to a cheaper option? (140 Barry Ridler & 157 Transparent HB)

11. If flow rate from Makororo River is decreased what is the ability of the river to carry gravel to the coast?

12. Inclusion of operating costs and decommissioning? (140 Barry Ridler)

13. Broader understanding about gravel management and impact on system

14. Update on water user agreements and legal review report

15. Reference to flow augmentation dam in business case – is that a real proposition?

Answers and further information will be provided, where possible, prior to or in the Agenda item for Council to consider when making the investment decision next Wednesday, 25 June.

Closure:

There being no further business the Chairman declared the meeting closed at 11.05am on Tuesday, 17 June 2014.

Signed as a true and correct record.

DATE: ................................................ CHAIRMAN: ...............................................