Clearing up misconceptions on dam

Firstly, corrections of misunderstandings and errors of fact in Bruce Bisset's anti-dam Friday column entitled “Ratepayers will foot the bill”.

1. I have never had talks with the Minister of Finance in 2009 (or ever for that matter,) and ‘‘port monies” will not pay for the Water Storage Scheme.

It is irrigators who will totally pay for the project, including the cost of environmental enhancements such as biodiversity projects and flushing flows.

Even now, at least three years before any water is delivered, sufficient water is contracted to have the scheme at financial break even, with all costs including bank finance fully covered.

2. The CHB councillor referred to does not have, and has never had, a “pecuniary interest” and the other supportive councillors mentioned ARE taking risks – with their personal reputations built up over decades of public service. It is the armchair critics who are exempt from taking any risks.

Secondly, a brief reminder of what this issue is about and what is at stake:

The EPA Board of Enquiry has approved new strict environmental rules for the Tukituki catchment (Plan Change 6) and at the same time approved the complementary Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme (RWSS). PC6 and RWSS are the two sides of the one coin and are mutually dependent on one another, in particular the Storage Scheme providing the water required in dry periods to maintain increased minimum river flows, as well as security of water supply for more environmentally sensitive and productive farming systems.

With PC6 and RWSS together as was intended, it is a societal win/win for the environment and the economy.

However if Greenpeace and other litigants are allowed to stop RWSS, it will be a complete disaster. PC6 water quality and other environmental improvements will be difficult if not impossible to achieve.

It will necessitate shutting down at least half of all irrigation water takes, with huge negative economic and social effects in Central Hawke’s Bay (which is already slowly dying), with bad flow-on effects spread across the rest of the region.

Regrettably that is unlikely to worry the likes of Greenpeace as an international lobbyist, who have absolutely no stake in our region and simply fly in and fly out protesters and lawyers.

Regrettably seriously mistaken on this issue, in regard to environmental objectives, as the saying goes, they seem willing to “cut off their nose to spite their face”. Alan Dick HB regional councillor In response to the letter written to the editor yesterday by Geraldine Travers the principal of HGHS:

Thank you for your response as indeed I had intended on this being a talking point and appreciate your feedback. Just to clarify a couple of things:

I have indeed avoided the pitfall of damning all girls’ schools by saying “Engineering is not encouraged at some girls’ schools”. I went on to say “Some girls’ schools are very strong in promoting technical subjects”. This gives me the opportunity to say you should feel proud of your school because, as you have pointed out in your letter, Hastings Girls’ High School is definitely one of the more proactive schools. I know this as I am pleased to report that I was invited into your school to speak about my journey as an engineer and I felt well received by both the staff and the very motivated bright girls you have at your school.

Also I would like to confirm that my daughter is attending Napier Girls’ High School which is equally as strong in the ‘‘STEM’’ subjects.

I also apologise for using the term ‘‘sewing’’ as I understand now that it is actually ‘‘textiles technology’’ and should not be undermined as a useful and interesting subject. Which brings me back to my original point of giving all children as many options as possible regardless of their gender and let them chose which one suits them? Jane Muldowney BEng (Canterbury), CPENZ, MIPENZ I am finding the dam debate somewhat bemusing, especially from those who purport its virtues.

For those who have the greatest desire for its construction were in the past the least concerned about climate change.

The farming community in the past showing the least concern, along with many of our district and regional councillors. Now all of a sudden, it’s the hot topic of the day.

Some 20 years ago I started writing letters to your newspaper about the dangers of climate change without a single murmur from Federated Farmers and local political dignitaries.

So is this dam to be built, to alleviate the punishing consequences of climate change that our region will have into the foreseeable future?

Or is it really about business as usual, expanding unsustainable dairying and meat farming at the expense of the eco- systems of our rivers and streams?

I challenge those very people, to stand up and confess that climate change is now becoming one of the greatest issues facing humanity and the erection of this dam is solely to alleviate the increasing drought our region will experience.

For let us remember, whether you fence off the rivers and streams from cattle incursion, what drains through the soil, drains into our streams, rivers and ultimately out into our ocean. The consequences for their biodiversity will become increasingly dire. Bernie Bowden

Hastings All day yesterday and today I was fearful of going out, I thought to myself should I buy a crash helmet, or a hard hat, would all animals be safe outside.

All this worry was due to your headline, ‘‘It is going to rain buckets today and tomorrow’’.

I was wondering if it was going to be metal or plastic buckets, both would hurt. The correct headline should have been “Heavy rain due today and tomorrow”.

I now am happy that the buckets have missed Hawke's Bay. (Abridged) Ernest Seadon

Hastings