Clutha dam action adjourned

Press, 9 April 1979, Page 29

Clutha dam action adjourned

PA Dunedin The action seeking a review of the National Water anr Soil Conservation Authority’s decision to grant water rights for a high dam on the Clutha River at Clyde has been adjourned to May 14. After two days of the hearing in the Supreme Court at Dunedin before Mr Justice Somers, counsel for the plaintiffs were only part way through their final submissions, with final arguments still to he made by defence counsel. The plaintiffs, the Environmental Defence Society and Verona Mary McGregor and others, allege that the authority’s decision was biased, and that in making the decision, it had given insufficient weight to important evidence and had considered extraneous matters which the plaintiffs were given r.o opportunity to rebut. Two Christchurch lawyers, Mr C. B. Atkinson and Mr C. A. McVeigh, appear for them, while the authority and the Attor-ney-General are represented by the SolicitorGeneral (Mr R. C. Savage, Q.C.) and Mr P. Graham, of Wellington. William Russell Howie, manager of water resources in the Ministry of Works and Development, said in cross-examination by Mr Atkinson that a cost-benefit analysis prepared at his request for the authority was based on figures presented by the applicant for the water rights Mr Atkinson said only Mr Howie’s version of the analysis had reached the authority, accompanied by strong recommendations from him. Those who claimed to b affected by the Minister’s proposal must have

felt that they had a full and careful hearing by the regional wate. board and that their evidence and submissions were going to the authority which had jurisdiction to decide the issue. “Yet they find that some of the most important submissions and evidence did not reach the authority or reached the authority in a distorted form, very much to their disadvantage,” Mr Atkinson said. The Minister of Works (Mr W. L. Young) chaired the authority’s meeting which granted water rights for the dam on December 6, 1977, the court was told. The court had heard that the Government received its first right to the river water in December, 1977, four months after the Ministry of Works t igan work at the dam site. The Minister of Electricity applied to the authority for water rights. Mr Howie described how the authority made its decision. He said he prepared a report on the high dam proposal which was received by the national authority on December 6. With some small amendments, the authority adopted Mr Howie’s report and decision and granted water right for a high dam. “At the meeting on December 6, 1977, the authority sptnt about one and a half hours discussing the Clutha application, he said. The propriety of a Minister sitting on the authority while a Crown application was discussed was not mentioned at the meeting, Mr Howie said. The Minister of Works is designated as chairman of the authority by the Water and Soil Conservation Act, 1967. Mr Atkinson outlined the steps set down by legislation for those seeking a water right. “Jurisdiction to grant water rights generally is vested in the regional water board,” he said. “But a Crown application is not made to the regional water board. It goes directly to the National Water and Soil Conservation Authority

through the Minister concerned. “If the water is of national importance, the application must also be referred to the regional water board, in this case the Otago Catchment Board.” In previous submissions, Mr Atkinson told the Court the Otago board recommended, in October 1977, that water rights be granted for a low dam. The national authority which makes the final decision on water rights has seven members. “The Minister of Works, who is appointed chairman by statute, has a deliberative and casting vote,” Mr Atkinson said. A second member is appointed to the authority on the Minister’s advice. The five others represent soil and river control bodies, catchment, municipal and county authorities.