17 objections to dam water rights

Press, 7 April 1978, Page 18

17 objections to dam water rights

P Wellongton reporter Seventeen objections have neeti lodged against the decision to grant water rights for the DG3 oam on the Clutha River by the National Water and Soil Conservation Authority There are 15 individuals and companies plus the environmental defence society and the Otago branch of the Royal Society. Some doubt remains over whether these last two organisations have the status to lodge objections, but the authority has decided not to challenge them in the meantime. The appellants have produced 10 major grounds why the decision should he set aside: — (1) For not taking adequate account of the impacts of the over-all development of which the dam DG3 is an integral part. (2) For not paying any or sufficient regard to the recommen’ation of the Otago Regional Water

Board on the applications by the Minister of Electricity. (3) For not paying any or sufficient regard to the fact that valuable productive farm land will be lost permanently by being flooded or by being radically altered to becoming an uneconomical unit, leading in consequence to loss of production and income nationally and individually. (4) For not taking proper account of damage to ecology, the destruction of scenic and natural features and the destruction of tourist and recreation values, the aggravation to flooding, social considerations, and the adverse environmental impact generally These social considerations referred to the Cromwell Gorge and Cromwell township areas, in particular, w'ith families being forced to leave the district. (5) For basing the decision on a single purpose development for electrical energy and not a multi-

purpose development. (6) For basing the decision on a incorrect t. ~u-omic omic approach by failing to compare properly the question of power production with the detrimental effect of lost production from the land to be inundated. (7) For not taking account erf the unique climatic conditions in the Cromwell Gorge area. (8) For not taking account of the alternative options regionally and nationally to the proposed high dam. (9) For failing to take account of the fact that there was no, or insufficient proof that the national energy requirements either actual or potential warranted the developments applied for by the minister of electricity. (10) For making the decision on the wrong criterion. The Town and Country' Planning Appeal Board is expected to hear the objections in late July.