Different emphasis on protection

Press, 27 February 1980, Page 24

Different emphasis on protection

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

“Should be protected’’ or “will be protected”: this difference in emphasis has divided those keen to see New Zealand’s many wild and scenic rivers protected. The Government has promised that they “should be protected” but this falls short Of the level of protection many people want to see. The Government’s policy was announced late last year and . was overlooked by many people in the contemporary excitement over the National Development Act. The policy statement was the culmination of more than two years of argument and bickering — principally between the Commission for the Environment ”"d the National Water and Soil Conservation Authority. Finally, the Minister of Works and Development (Mr W. L. Young) and the Minister for the Environment (Mr

V. S. Young) announced “Rivers or sections of rivers that have outstanding wild, scenic or Other natural characteristics should be protected.” The Government hopes to encourage local bodies and special interest groups to use existing provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, Water or Soil Conservation Act, Reserves Act, Forests Act, and other relevant legislation to bring about this protection. Water and soil legislation is presently well along the road to major revision. The Government says that it will be necessary to supplement the existing legislation with statutory provision “for the recognition of the national, regional and local interests in the protection of some rivers or sections of rivers.” It is apparent that the

Government intends that these statutory provisions should be included mainly in the revised water and soil legislation (which has already taken several years and may take several more), and that recreational users should be given the same opportunity to apply for the protection of a river as other river users have to protect their use by obtaining water rights. Recreational water right applications would be subject to appeals, submissions and objections, as are other applications. This policy statement indicates that in the revised water and soil legislation, the Government contemplates representation of recreational users within the general water and soil organisation, and probably on the revised National Water and Soil Conservation authority too.' But the recreational users themselves see the Govern-

ment’s proposals as cosmetic — covering up a situation unfavourable to recreational use. Recreational users, they say, cannot afford the money to compete with commercial users of water in the planning process, and to compare commercial uses with non-profitmaking pleasure uses. is pointless and impossible. The proof of the government’s intentions will emerge during the first contests over water uses between commercial and recreational users. The first such dispute is already brewing over the Motu River — a wild and scenic river in eastern Bay of Plenty. Here the National Water and Soil Conservation Authority has granted water rights for hydro-electric power investigation work. The Canoeing Association has appealed against this decision. The Motu runs through

100 km of remote, rugged, forested, and scenic gorges. It is regarded as New Zealand’s best whitewater river by jetboaters and canoeists, and the area has recently been gazetted as part of the Raukumara Forest Park. This decision was made by the national authority at an “in committee” meeting last December. The water rights permit the Ministry of Works and Development to take and discharge up to 25,000 litres of water per day for test drilling, and 1000 litres per day for “domestic use in temporary accommodation for up to six men.” The Ministry of Energy says that an y dam on the Motu would be 10 to 15 years away. This w'ater right was not granted by the Government, but it was granted by a statutory authority and was granted on the application of a Government department. The circumstances of the Motu application and water

right have not encouraged conservationists that “should be protected” gives protec- ’.i tion. The Canoeing Association is aggrieved over the Motu, L and with some reason. It hats previously expressed its < interest in the river to the c national authority and to the Poverty Bay Catchment Board. Yet it was not advised of the application for a water right which'was nearly a year earlier. The association only learned of . the water right when it was advertised four days after the “in committee” meeting had decided to grant it. If the Government is keen ■to see the opinions and needs of recreational uses catered for within the exist- ... Ing (or amended) water and soil organisation structure, then more effort will be needed than has been made over the Motu. The deep suspicion of the recreational users is quite understandable