Rakaia River decision

Press, 12 July 1985, Page 10

Rakaia River decision

Sir,—l support all who have spoken out against Ruth Richardson’s call for the Planning Tribunal’s decision on theJjakaia Ri&r to be overturned. A ctjiple of

years ago she was wanting Rakaia irrigation schemes included with other Think Big projects. The South Rakaia irrigation scheme has a 6 per cent internal rate, which is 4 per cent below the required rate of 10 per cent. All Think Big projects except one are unprofitable. Miss Richardson’s lack of understanding of our treasured democratic system along with her persistent efforts to promote a totally uneconomic project for political gain and to secure catchy headlines will ensure that both she and her party will remain where it is — out of office.—Yours, etc., J. RUCK Ashburton, July 9, 1985.

Sir,—A certain amount of political foot stamping was probably inevitable following the Planning Tribunal’s decision on the Rakaia. Ruth Richardson’s claim that the decision is not a multiple-use one comes into this category. The tribunal’s decision gives irrigators access to far more water than they already have, but sets a limit on extraction at the point where it would endanger the river’s other intemationally-important values. It' is an excellent multiple-use decision. I am afraid it is not multiple use that Ruth Richardson is seeking, but multiple abuse.—Yours, etc., BILL HORSLEY. Rangiora, July 9, 1985.

Correction

A letter written by Colin Burrows on the Rakaia River decision and printed on Wednesday referred to an “investigation carried out with the vigour that is usual for a Planning Tribunal hearing.” The word “vigour” should have appeared as “rigour.”