Tasman District Council sides with Waimea Irrigators

Quite often a mayor's role involves influencing the public and acting as promoter of local government ideals and projects. The celebrity appeal of a mayor gives them a rock-star like aura which often provides god like powers of authority. According to Local Government NZ 2015, "Mayors often find that the range of issues they are asked to respond to extends well beyond their council’s range of responsibilities, yet even though they may not have a formal responsibility they can, by using their “bully pulpit” role, achieve quite a lot".

The term “bully pulpit” has become synonymous with positions of influence especially within political spheres. Mayors have power to influence and can use this in various ways. For example, in the Tasman region, Tasman District Council (TDC) Mayor Richard Kempthorne conveys his opinion (where beneficial) in the local and national media regarding the proposed Waimea dam project. The TDC Newsline is their monthly propaganda pamphlet  which provides a regular platform for Mayor Kempthorne to promote the idea that rate payers and residents alike should accept the proposed scheme as ‘it’s within the region’s best interest’. Regardless of this being a biased opinion, how does this promote democratic governance?

When investigating further into the proposed scheme, reasons for the mayors backing of it becomes clearer. Wealthy land and business owners in the Waimea area have influence within the council framework and wider community. This special interest group has much to gain from increased irrigation to grow their business yields. Hence, this message is now conveyed with a smile by Mayor Kempthorne as being beneficial to the wider Tasman region, as it would supposedly provide water security for businesses; create more jobs and a stronger economy. Only positives of the proposed scheme can be noted in the mayor’s rhetoric which amplifies his bias towards the scam.

Pictured below, TDC conducted community hearings around the region for submissions on the proposed Waimea dam project. Mayor Richard Kempthorne can be seen at the far end of the table (not wearing a tie). This situation exemplifies where a mayor can influence the public through their privileged position of the “bully pulpit”.

Community submissions at the Takaka TDC service centre regarding the proposed Waimea dam scheme. Sourced from Stuff NZ (2018).

On February 2, 2018 TDC committee members voted on the proposed Waimea dam scheme to proceed. There were over 1513 submissions regarding the proposed scheme and more than 100 submissions made in person. The TDC and allied Waimea Irrigators Limited are set to be project partners and the project will be funded by rate payers, crown finding and irrigators if the plan goes ahead. Although the proposed dam was voted through by the majority of councillors, there were some against the idea. Councillor Peter Canton said "Having considered all the submissions and evidence, I do not support this funding model" . Mr Canton also stated he believed that to support the resolution would be a "snub" in the face of democracy and added "Would I die for water? Maybe. Would I die for democracy? Absolutely".  "So I can't support this because overwhelmingly, our community has said to us that they do not support it”. 

Latest figures for the proposed Waimea dam show the total cost could be $26m more than the 2015 estimate of $82m. The forecasted cost includes $18 million extra for contractors and another $8 million for other work-streams.  This is a 37 percent increase and “unless a solution can be found to close the gap the dam won’t go ahead,” says the Tasman District Council.  

Understandably Mayor Richard Kempthorn is “gutted” about this and fears for Tasman’s secure future water supply. Proponents for the environment may celebrate this outcome, especially when minimum river flow rates of 800 litres per second come into effect in November 2018. This could mean that the Waimea River won’t dry up as it did in the drought of 2001. Central Government are calling for irrigation schemes to be economically viable on their own without requiring significant public funding.  This was conveyed by Finance Minister Grant Robertson who also stated in April 2018 “we must be mindful of the potential for large-scale irrigation to lead to intensive farming practices which may contribute to adverse environmental outcomes”.

Last week councillor Sue Brown attended the Local Government New Zealand annual conference where potable water was discussed. Central Government could be changing things such as standards, monitoring, auditing and compliance for drinking water she says. Also, “in one way the dam could meet new water standards Central Government are hoping to achieve”. She found the latest figures for the planned dam “astounding” and says “this is a stop and think moment”.  

Councillor Paul Sangster says that the dam may not be needed right now, however, it would likely be needed for future water needs in the Waimea area. Furthermore, he believes that $26m on top of the $82m was an advance on the original estimate. Councillor Sangster says that if there was provision within the project for generating electricity, benefits from the scheme would be broader for the district. With increased growth comes increased demands and this proposed scheme works to meet such demands Cr Sangster inferred. 

Funding for the project has been spent dealing with conflict to land acquisition for the dam.  In April 2018, Stuff NZ reported that DOC, Ngāti Koata and JWJ Forestry had objected to land acquisition by the council for the proposed dam. The ensuing mediation, court processes and consultancy costs had apparently impacted adversely on finances. Lindsay McKenzie chief executive of TDC at the time stated, “this is placing pressure on the project budget." 

The TDC suggests that irrigators, urban water users, the Waimea river network and wildlife will benefit from the scheme; however, Water Information Network (WIN) says that this is not the case. WIN believes that TDC has skewed the facts providing rate payers with false benefits and say that it’s irrigators who’ll benefit mostly and rate payers from across the entire region would be making contributions for years to come if the plan goes ahead.