Among the 149 projects announced Sunday for fast-track treatment is the Ruataniwha Dam 2, now re-styled and spun as the Tukituki Water Security Project. Five other projects will also be fast-tracked, including expansion of the Expressway.

Going forward, for writing efficiency BayBuzz will simply refer to the scheme as RD2. Make no mistake, RD2 is RD1, wrapped in fancier rhetoric alluding to climate change rescue, ecological benefits and the promise of Māori jobs.

Once the fast-track bill is enacted (by year’s end), proponents of RD2 will officially apply to have the project approved. It will then be referred to an ‘Expert Panel’ that has to the power either to refuse the application or approve it, including with conditions. That decision will be subject to legal appeal on only very narrow procedural grounds.

The Expert Panel appointed by Government must include:

• A former High Court or Environment Court judge, appointed by the infrastructure minister as the “convener”
• A lawyer or planner as the chairperson
• A representative from the relevant local authority (council)
• An environmental expert
• In cases where Treaty settlements require it, an iwi authority representative 
• Māori development and te ao Māori expertise 

Of course Water Holdings HB (WHHB) already holds consents, due to expire next year, to build RD1=2, so the benefit of making the fast-track list is that presumably those consents will be extended, perhaps with fresh conditions.

The other significant benefit of making the list is that in reviewing the application, the Expert Panel can override a number of existing laws – including the Resource Management Act, the Conservation Act, the Wildlife Act, the Reserves Act – to achieve the legislatively mandated goal of promoting economic growth. 

You might recall that a Supreme Court decision blocking the re-classification of conservation land that would have been inundated by RD1 was key to stopping RD1 in its tracks. That’s not a problem under the fast-track bill. The Expert Panel can simply override the underlying statute.

So, the new fast-track law and its favoured 149 projects, some of which are undoubtedly sensible, dictate the nature of the decision-making process going forward with respect to RD2. [Note: Hawke’s Bay has five other projects on the list, which are listed below; we’ll address them in the future.]

The Expert Panel named for RD2 will have unchallengeable control over who it seeks advice from in making its decision. There are no public hearings or submissions involved. The panel will seek comment from those considered ‘directly impacted’, such as landowners and local councils. The broader community affected can get stuffed.

And because the original consents for RD1 were awarded by a previous ‘Expert Commission’, the new panel is unlikely to probe deeply into the environmental and economic claims of the RD2 applicant.

It will be fascinating to see the HB Regional Council’s posture in all this — on the one hand touting a future water gap and on the other hand having previously abandoned RD1 for better water security alternatives.

Given the bill’s enactment timing, the holiday break, the need for an appropriate Expert Panel to be established and then receive and consider advice, it would appear a final decision on the RD2 application and any conditions to be placed on it is six months or more away.

During this process, environmental protections can be mangled or simply written off by edict. Iwi and the public can be conned with job promises and PR spin, ‘Community Trusts’ and the like (see our assessment of the aborning CHB ‘Community Trust’). That’s the easy part for RD2 advocates.

Much harder will be concocting the business case needed to attract the funding required for a project that will have a $1 billion price tag. The money couldn’t be raised for the far cheaper RD1. But who knows, maybe the well-connected RD2 backers will be able to find gullible overseas investors.

Other Hawke’s Bay fast-track projects: