Storage is really the only option left for further irrigation development in the central plains area. Also, it is likely the saviour of the flows to lowland streams from the current irrigation activities, through adding more water into groundwater storage across the top of the plains.

People seem to forget that CPW is simply applying for the remaining water allocated by the Waimakariri River Regional Plan, although storage of this sort was not really considered.

The water quality effects associated with central plains are complex. The main issue with CPW (from a water point-of-view) is water quality, which has to be addressed on-farm. If nitrates and E.Coli start showing up in the groundwater, you must know who’s been doing what, where and when, which is a logistical nightmare and very difficult to prove (especially in court). The lawyers have a field day on this kind of stuff especially when effects show up after the 6 month limitation for enforcement action stipulated in the RMA.

The RMA is not a conservation act, it is a sustainable development act, that is, it is enabling legislation not prohibiting

http://www.cpw.org.nz/

“The Central Plains Water Trust was established by the Christchurch City and Selwyn District Councils to facilitate sustainable development of Central Canterbury’s water resource.”

“It continues the work of the Central Plains Water Enhancement Steering Committee to develop proposals for a large scale community water enhancement scheme providing water for irrigation between the Rakaia and the Waimakariri Rivers.”

“A joint Environment Canterbury / Selwyn District Council hearing to consider Central Plains Water Limited’s resource consent applications will commence on 25 Feburary 2008 at the Christchurch Town Hall.”

“The Trust has formed Central Plains Water Limited. Central Plains Water Limited has around 400 shareholders, these being the owners of properties approximately between the Malvern foothills, the Rakaia River, State Highway One and the Waimakariri River, where it is envisaged that water for irrigation will be provided by the proposed community water enhancement scheme.”

You wouldn’t think it could happen, but apparently there is a clause in the RMA that can be interpreted as allowing any developer who can persuade the hearing that their development is in the public interest to go ahead and use it.

That is a terrible precedent - using the powers of the State to promote the interests of private greed!

as its the one which is going to bit u’s on the bum come election time, frog….

and those ****s in Labour

How’s meterias bill going btw. done the numbers yet frog, and got that whip out yet?

for 2 grand a week per MP id be expecting action not cowardice

rgds

As I understand it no law was broken as the forgone interest was less than $10k which was (and sadly still is) the disclosure limit.

No law was broken with National’s Trust donations either - and you’ve certainly made something of them.

That said, I don’t really mind that Frogblog isn’t covering it. There’s really not that much of a story there, and what there is has been done to death in the news- people talk about that sort of thing in humour all the time, it’s just most of it doesn’t end up in the news because people don’t disclose it. *shrug*

The silence also reflects that the Greens are probably in a difficult position in regards to political finance reform. The farce of the Electoral Finance Act has reflected very poorly on the Greens, and is now a vote-loser rather than the populist winner that the leadership would have assumed it to be. It could also be that the Greens are vulnerable on political finance scandals themselves, and are back-peddling from trying to take the high moral ground. A lot of people assume that the Greens are given few donations and that business interests are all opposed to the party. Of course, as the Greens become more middle of the road and middle class, and it shouldn’t be surprising that some sections of business are warming to the Greens. Eco-business and the Green Party go hand in hand. Even if you only look at one election like 2002, you can see that the Greens get loads of money from business. In that election the Green Co-convenor David Clendon bragged that, ‘We have had donations from some quite large corporate donors’ (quoted in Espiner, 10 March 2002: p.C2). Green fundraiser Danna Glendining also stated her expectation of receiving $500,000 in business funding (O’Sullivan and Small, 29 June 2002).

In terms of whether the Green Party - or any other party - receives large or dodgy donations, it’s worth keeping in mind that there were many ways to get around the donation disclosure regime of the Electoral Act (just as there are many easy ways of getting around the new EFA). Therefore there shouldn’t be too much credence or trust given to the figures supplied annual to the Electoral Commission for any party.

Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz

I also used her initials instead of her full name. And IIRC RN and KP had a fairly high profile story in the SST last year about their relationship so I am not exactly revealing anything private.

Anyway I am still recovering from the shock of Phil U saying something complimentary about Russel in this thread!!