Rakaia River decision
Sir,—Miss Ruth Richardson (“The Press,” July 4) may be technically correct that the Plan.ning Tribunal findings on the Rakaia River Conservation Order are “recommendations” rather than a “judicial decision.” However, the investigation was carried out with the vigour that is usual for a Planning Tribunal hearing and we should be prepared to respect the carefully considered views of its members on the interpretation of the law. Miss Richardson incorrectly implies that the tribunal’s recommendation precludes the multiple use of Rakaia water. Her stance stems from her belief that irrigation is better for Canterbury than the retention of water in the river. I challenge her to produce a cost-benefit analysis which proves this.—Yours, etc., COLIN BURROWS. July 7, 1985.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19850710.2.85.12
Bibliographic details
Press, 10 July 1985, Page 16
Word Count
121Rakaia River decision Press, 10 July 1985, Page 16
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Copyright in all Footrot Flats cartoons is owned by Diogenes Designs Ltd. The National Library has been granted permission to digitise these cartoons and make them available online as part of this digitised version of the Press. You can search, browse, and print Footrot Flats cartoons for research and personal study only. Permission must be obtained from Diogenes Designs Ltd for any other use.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.