Advisory group’s input called into question
MY problem with waiting for advice from the technical advisory group (TAG) on the Manuherikia River, as described in Hilary Calvert's letter (6.9.21), is not being able to determine whether TAG has the capacity and independence in their membership to provide the advice so needed by some councillors.
The membership at the moment comprises two scientists provided by two irrigation companies, one scientist from Otago Regional Council. The other members were provided by iwi, Kai Tahu and by Fish and Game. Both these bodies have already made clear that they are happy with the science provided, and may not see the point. And the last member was from the Department of Conservation.
I have asked the chairman for uptodate membership of TAG and have not as yet received an answer.
Are the majority of councillors putting all their hope on two irrigation company scientists and one from ORC?
The sniff test is not good. Marian L. Hobbs
ORC councillor
COUNCILLOR Calvert’s presentation of advice from the technical advisory group (TAG) on minimum flows for the Manuherikia is disingenuous to say the least (Letters, 6.9.21).
While the advice did state their hydrology model is yet to be peer reviewed, it also stated the habitat model is robust and fit for purpose.
To describe the lack of peer review as a ‘‘glaring gap’’ is a glaring overstatement. The problem council staff have is finding someone to peer review the report is that most of the major expertise in this field wrote the model. Council staff obviously considered that the work on the Manuherikia catchment was advanced enough to recommend minimum flow levels for the same reason we do. That is that a couple of peer reviews will make no difference to the main thrust of TAG’s recommendations.
Furthermore, while requiring accuracy is reasonable, and there is no dispute over that, to ask that science is complete is impossible as there will always be more to know about the river.
What the council was being asked to do was to note a minimum flow for the Manuherikia which is technical speak for indicating a direction of travel the council is intending to take, which they had done for other rivers in Otago. This would give an indication about what to expect when the council is legally required to decide a minimum flow at the end of 2023 and give landowners time to adjust.
It’s ironical that Cr Calvert is promoting the need for scientific evidence when making decisions around minimum flows when the council has been making decisions about granting applications for abstraction permits for irrigation for decades without any scientific evidence. The council’s first obligation is surely to maintain a healthy ecologically functioning river and, after that, to allow abstraction for irrigation. Or does she see their responsibility confined to protecting the economic interest of just the relatively small number of individuals who benefit from extracting the water for irrigation?
I’m sure the public will make their own mind up on this question at the next elections but that could be too late. Phil Murray
Central Otago Environmental Society chairman
GERRARD Eckhoff (Letters, 2.9.21) pillories Crs Hobbs, Scott, Forbes and Robertson for bringing ideology to their regional council responsibilities.
Gerrard forgets that politically active people often assume their own particular political allegiances are experienced as common sense, not political ideology or bias. We never see the motes in our own eyes.
His regular opinion pieces confirm his. Stuart Mathieson
Palmerston