Water right for Clyde dam refused by tribunal

Press, 20 August 1982, Page 1

Water right for Clyde dam refused by tribunal

PA Wellington The Government has been refused the water rights for a high dam on the Clutha River near Clyde in the latest in a series of legal wrangles over the issue.

The Planning Tribunal, which sat in a reconvened hearing in Hamilton earlier this month, ruled yesterday that applications for the rights should be refused. • The tribunal originally granted the rights but it was stalled by the High Court in Christchurch. The. Court directed the tribunal to take end-use of power generated by a high dam into consideration. ’ .. The construction of an aluminium smelter at Aramoana near Dunedin was a crucial factor in the end-use of the power. In its reserved decision yesterday, the tribunal found that there was either no or insufficient evidence “which could lead us to find that a smelter is likely to be built.” The judgment said the tribunal was “driven to the conclusion... that (a high dam) with its consequential inundation of valuable land should not be built. Therefore, the decision of this tribunal is that the appeals are allowed and the applications are to be refused.” • The Government last evening held back on an immediate response to the Planning Tribunal’s decision. In a brief, one-paragraph statement, the Prime Minister, Mr Muldoon, said the options open to the Government would be studied “urgently.” “Having received the decision of the Planning Tribunal the Government will study urgently the further steps that are available to be taken,” Mr Muldoon said. “This will take several days. When this study is complete,

a further statement will be made.” The Minister of Energy, Mr Birch, would say only that the Government was “reviewing several options.” The options include the possibility of an appeal against the decision and the Social Credit League, which has pledged to support the Government in “last resort” legislation to keep construction going.on the dam, called on the Government to exhaust legal procedures. The league’s leader, Mr Beetham, last evening emphasised that. this, was an integral part of the agreement between the Government and Social Credit which allowed the Auditor-General, Mr A. C. Shailes, to authorise spending on the project. The decision was welcomed by the Labour Party which said it exposed “the Government’s bumbling incompetence over the whole Clyde dam saga.” In a joint statement, the party’s energy spokesman, Mr D. F. Caygill (St Albans) and constitutional affairs spokesman, Mr G. W. Palmer (Christchurch Central) said the essence of the decision was simple — “No smelter, no' dam.” Labour said it would be a breach of the agreement with Social Credit for the Government to introduce legislation on the dam now. “The matter is far from over. To legislate now would intervene in the process of appeal. The only way the Crown can avoid the conclusion that its whole conduct has been one massive confidence trick is to appeal to the

High Court or go back to the tribunal for a rehearing,” he said. The tribunal's decision came after several legal steps in the Government’s bid to fully develop the Upper Clutha between Roxburgh and Wanaka for hydroelectricity. Originally, the development was contingent upon the Aramoana smelter — the flagship of the Government’s growth strategy — being built but the Minister ... of Energy, Mr Birch, said 1 * later that energy planning reappraisals meant that the dam at Clyde would be needed regardless of the smelter. The Government was originally granted the water rights by the National Water and Soil Conservation Authority but Central Otago orchardists, whose land would be flooded, and environmentalists took their case to the tribunal. It upheld the authority’s decision and an appeal against the tribunal’s decision was lost. The grounds for the appeal judgment were challenged in the High Court and Mr Justice Casey ruled that the tribunal' should have taken end-use of the Clyde power into accolint when it made its decision. The tribunal therefore sat again. His Honour had found that by not. taking end-use into account, the tribunal had “deprived itself of the ability to take fully into account the promotion of soil conservation... ” To page 4