Conflict over plans for Motu River

Press, 9 April 1980, Page 14

Conflict over plans for Motu River

Wellington reporter The Motu River, flawing into the eastern Bay of Plenty, is one of the last unmodified major rivers in New Zealand. It is popular with all •‘Whitewater’’ sportsmen, such as canoeists and jetboaters, who are opposed to the intention of the Ministry of Works and Development to test-drill for a future hydro-electric power station.

The conflict is embarrassing the Government and its “wild and scenic rivers” policy announced late last year. It was generally overlooked in the concurrent excitement of the National Development Act

The policy essentially is the result of a compromise between conservationists and developers and says that wild and scenic rivers “should be protected." The conservationists wanted the policy to. read “will be protected” and were at best luke-warm over the Government’s decision. The first river to be considered by the National Water and Soil Conservation Authority under this new policy was the Motu. The authority approved the Ministry’s application for a water right to drill, subject to appeal, at its December meeting. The canoeists were very angry. They claimed that, information on a pending decision had been withheld from them, the decision had been taken “in committee” to avoid debate, and the first they had known was when the deci-

sion was advertised. In the Gisborne newspaper. The authority maintained the decision had been taken “in committee" to * protect the Poverty Bay ■ Catchment Board. But. since then a new com- - plication has arisen, and so at its April meeting the > authority again considered the Motu “in committee.” ’ It ratified the December decision but gave new grid references for the; drilling work and the associated water rights The original December decision had approved work for the wrong part of New Zealand. Al diss cussin was taken "in committee” and only the decision published. The error is somewhat embarrassing for the Ministry of Works and Devel* opment, and for . .the authority. The Nature Conservation Council noticed the error in. the public notice and pointed these out to the tribunals division of the Justice Department, asking that the decision be readvertised correctly, thus requiring a. new decision by the authority. ... The authority had apparently hoped to cor- : rect the error when if came before the Planning Tribunal in May, on appeal from the Canoeing. Association, but the tribunal itself apparently felt unable M rule on the matter. ' s/’i.

All this is doing little for the Government’s new wild and scenic rivers policy, and is giving ammunition and comfort to its opponents, while adversely influencing the open-mind-ed.