Imagine starting a ‘community trust’ that’s distrusted from its inception.
That’s the path the CHB District Council is currently treading with its proposal to spawn a Hawke’s Bay Community Water Trust.
The CHB mayor and chief executive spin their Trust as a vehicle to advance a robust, agnostic toolkit of options for addressing CHB’s water needs. However, any close reading of the draft deed of trust reveals its narrow purpose — to advance the Ruataniwha Dam ‘Scheme’ (this mandate to advance the ‘Scheme’ is underscored repeatedly in the draft deed). And to generate some cash compensation for Water Holdings HB, commercial holder of the Ruataniwha Dam 1 consents.
However the Council stumbled a bit at its meeting this Thursday when Councillors were given their first look at the draft deed itself and the advice given by their chief executive and asked to endorse it.
It became abundantly clear that Councillors were either uninformed and/or uncomfortable with the details. Some Councillors were not sold on the appointment process that would give CHBDC one seat of four (eventually out of five) on the Trust. Some questioned a separate enabling deal the Trust would enter — terms yet to take shape — that would compensate Water Holdings HB for handing over its Dam #1 consents and IP to the Trust (potentially with no reimbursement of CHBDC for its own spending on this cause to date, approaching $100k).
Anyone who read the draft deed and was interested in a truly ‘community’ trust working in the best interests of CHB could have asked another couple dozen questions about the intent, composition and financial viability of the proposed Trust and CHBDC’s ongoing relationship to it.
And given that skeptics of the Trust led by Wise Water Use HB, denied an opportunity to address the meeting, showed up at the meeting by the dozens, overflowing into the chamber’s hallway, Councillors backed off for the day, endorsed the ‘direction’ of the draft deed, asked for various questions to be further addressed, and asked that broad community input indeed be sought.
All of that careful re-thinking and earnest consultation is supposed to occur by 31 October, in a mere two weeks. Then the matter will put before the Council again at its 31 October meeting, despite the chief executive conceding there is no deadline compelling such swift action.
A genuinely representative ‘Community Water Trust’ with an appropriately comprehensive mission might indeed serve a useful purpose in CHB. But does this sound like a trustworthy formula for creating a such a Trust?
Mayor Walker is certainly not to be trusted that’s for sure , she is pro dam we all know that , but using ones position to further that dam is completely unacceptable.
The original dam was a financial fiasco, almost like a Ponzi scheme. The economics were demonstrably unsound, and the Regional Councillors were being hoodwinked by their consultants to believe otherwise.
The original scheme required a large investment from commercial investors, who were then guaranteed a financial return by the Regional Council. The Regional Council had to borrow money at commercial rates, using the port as security, in order to guarantee the return to the commercial investors. Doesn’t that sound like a Ponzi scheme?
Based on water sales there was no possibility that the Council could generate sufficient funds to meet their outgoing obligations and the operating costs.
So with Scheme#2, where is the income generated to meet the outgoing costs?
The CHBDC are being hoodwinked by the [different] consultants, with a different theme, again.
What sort of fairytale world have you been living in Liam? Since when have political figures, once they wriggle & squirm their way into positions of some actual power, not used such position to their (&/or vested allies) advantage! It goes on all around this fine wee globe, and has been that way for centuries!
This is just another pitiful attempt to line the pockets of a few at the expenser of the vast majority. A two week window to “consult” the public at large – even Trump would be impressed by that piece of nonsense. For heavens sake CHBDC get a brain – drop this ridiculous idea and let Water Holdings suck it up and pay their own costs (both past and present) and start acting in the interests of the majority of your constituents instead of kowtowing to a few entitled landowners
Grant Nicholson. 200% well said Sir.
As a former elected Councillor, I am deeply concerned with the apparent lack of transparency and proactive engagement, particularly given the high level of interest within our community. Local Government (democracy) is about representing the best interests of the wider community, not a minor group of landed self-serving individuals.
Mark Quinn, from a new group called Challenging Councils, is touring the country – I heard him speak in Napier and Hastings – certainly makes you think about who is spending our rates and what we are getting back from all that spending. How much of our rates are going offshore into nebulous funds? Dannevirke on Monday 21st October
Check out [email protected] or their FB page.
If this proposed community trust is genuinely for the benefit of CHB rate-payers/community why the lack of transparency and urgency? Something to hide? Got the feeling that our council is being sucked in by some clever (selfish?) landowners.
Who knew that voting National/ACT/NZF would enable regionally-crippling schemes like this, that benefit a select few at everyone else’s cost and stuff the environment in the process, to be fast-tracked and annointed? Honestly, who knew?
Aside from the damage to the environment, the reduced flows in the Tukituki will mean less shingle transport to the coast which will exacerbate coastal erosion. Reduced water flows will also degrade the quality of the water.
Farmers need to introduce good water retention practices for their soil or perhaps, dare I say it, change the current land use, rather than reactivate this extremely costly proposal.