That means that the sediment stays in the existing river, but there is reduced flow in that river at other times to wash the sediment down and out to sea. Therefore there may be a risk of sediment build-up in the existing river and associated increased flooding in and around the existing river.

I hope their impact assessments have looked into this.

Trevor.

Vital for whom? Sustainable for what? With 1200 objections to it, it does not seem as though the locals are enthusiastic about either the scheme or the manner of its implementation.

Apart from the dubious nature of the scheme itself, the precedent this will set is appalling.

Any hydrologists out there who can comment on these points?

According to CPWL “A headrace canal will channel water for 56km from intakes in the Waimakariri and Rakaia riverbeds. Water within the canal will be about 5m deep and 30m wide at the surface.”

“Very little water will be taken when rivers approach peak flood levels, as it would mean the scheme has to dispose of large volumes of sediment.”

“neither ‘take’ will be continuous and represent the maximum amount of water that the scheme could take at any one time. When either river is in a period of low flow, no water will be taken below the established minimum low flow.”

http://www.cpwl.co.nz/technical/technical-elements.html

So rather than the throwaway line ‘replacing rivers with cows’, perhaps a more measured and historically-minded approach to the topic is needed. There can be no question about the rivers being ‘replaced’, after all. They’re well away from the presently watered farmland, and there is 140 years’ experience in running these schemes.

Think globally, act locally. But fer Gaia’s sake, bone up on the local topography first….

Something Labour is very selective about, especially when Auckland has the ability rather than the need. Then the concept of egality goes out the window.

The problem with socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange is that the state apparatus and politicians very quickly replace socialisation with nationalisation and complete reverse Marx’s intention that socialism makes the state reduntant.

Or at least that’s my understanding of the Communist Manifesto. I stopped reading Das Kapital when I encountered the absurd assumption that labour is the only way value is added. How someone with enough brains to understand the rest of capitalsim couldn’t recognise the value added by invention is beyond me. Perhaps he wasn’t brave enough to tackle multiple basis for capitalism, such as brawn, brain and bravery.

I don’t see a problem with that BP.

The converse is that people who are are able can slack aroung and bludge off the State, while people who through impairment or domestic circumstance have no capacity to earn or contribute to society live a life of poverty.

Don’t dismiss it as “red” just because Karl Marx wrote it - we have a lot to learn from Marx, just as we do from right wing economists and philosophers.

Being Green is taking the best bits from many economic theories, and putting them into the context of finite resources.

None of Marx, Keynes, Adam Smith or Hayek understood that bit, because in their times it was presumed there were infinite resources, and that is the underlying axiom each of their economic theories are based on.

As Greens we need to move on and develop new economic theory based on finite resources. But that doesn’t mean rejecting all of the principles expounded by economic theorists of the past, including Marx.

Where’s the policy re this with the Greens? Ther is none.

The Greens have even got a market-based carbon credit trading scheme in their policy. And it’s one that doesn’t give a free ride on the taxpayer to the agricultural sector, which is what Labour’s does.

It’s Labour that’s playing games with state subsidies that distort the market, not the Greens.

As for the Nats, remember their innovation of the Accommodation Supplement? This is essentially a huge state subsidy to landlords that no party (including the Greens) has worked out a way to get rid of.

It’s a millstone around the neck of any future Government, because it artificially inflates residential rents and therefore property prices, but abolishing it would result in unacceptable hardship for residential tenants.

So, BluePeter and JH, who’s really “red” at the end of the day?

That was kinda his point.

But only the colour of the label has changed….