Nash and Ross reply to Tomahawk concerns

REGARDING ‘‘Tomahawk sand mining: locals worry’’ (ODT, 8.9.22).

‘‘We're doing it for the community’’ is a play straight from the miner's playbook, and Nash and Ross Limited (NRL) is no different.

NRL has been spreading its rhetoric for years: that it is taking hundreds upon hundreds of cubic metres of sand, for free, from Tomahawk Beach, supposedly to clear a path for water to leave the lagoon so nearby homes won’t get flooded.

This rhetoric is useful only to convince itself it is not rapidly destroying one of Dunedin's unsung beautiful beaches, just down the road from St Clair where the whole city decries our sand loss.

NRL has the enviable position of selfreporting its extraction volumes (I'd love to be able to grade my own tests!), and even then it barely complies, with a woefully outofdate 20year consent which has 10 years still on the clock.

Due to its two major sand mining extraction events last month, it has destroyed the natural channel for water to leave the lagoon, and created unbelievably rapid erosion of the protective dune.

This has meant storm waves are now free to roll straight up the highway they've created; this pushes mounds of sand back up into the lagoon, blocks the channel and, ironically, contributes to the flooding that they are supposedly alleviating.

Go and see the damage for yourself, but take your boots and tramping sticks because the beach is now almost inaccessible to the public due to the damage so wantonly caused, all while they sing the ‘‘we're doing it all for the community’’ song.

Steve Catty

Tomahawk [Steve Nash replies:

‘‘Nash and Ross Ltd respect the passion shown by the residents of Tomahawk Beach for their homes and the natural surrounding area, as evident in Mr Catty’s letter.

However, that passion has led to them ignoring the facts in the matter and making some comments that are an insult to Nash and Ross Ltd.

We will only point out the facts we have to work with and leave it there.

Since the 1950s, Nash and Ross has served the public interest by carrying out the consent at Tomahawk Beach that was put together by a body known as the Tomahawk Domain Board.

In an effort to stop the flooding of lowlying homes in the lagoon area, the board put together the consent.

Since then, there has been no further flooding and the continued efforts to maintain the beach and lagoon have worked.

Not only do we have to keep record of the amounts of sand removed, but also must present evidence of the beach’s condition before extraction and after each extraction, by way of several photos taken from precise locations around the beach.

We are also required every year, under the consent, to have an independent survey or report on the beach profile and supply that report to the Otago Regional Council, all at our expense.’’]

Drink, don’t drive

I APPLAUD and endorse Judge David Robinson's sentiments (ODT, 28.9.22) of zero tolerance for drinking while driving.

Indeed, what gives drivers the right to drive while impaired by booze?

We all have a ‘‘right’’ to access health services, education and travel, but we don't tolerate doctors and nurses, teachers, caregivers, babysitters or airline pilots drinking on the job.

And the poverty of counter arguments is beautifully summed up by criminology emeritus professor Greg Newbold, who was reduced to calling opponents of drinkdriving ‘‘wowsers’’ instead of marshalling cogent academic arguments with which to defend his position.

By all means drink. Just leave the car at home.

Mike Hamblyn Opoho