by Russel Norman
OK, how bad can it get. Currently Horokiri, Ration and Pauatahanui Streams near Porirua are strongly protected under the Wellington Regional Freshwater Plan. And for good reason – they are the home of a lot of endangered New Zealand fish.
But these streams and their gullies are also the proposed route for Transmission Gully motorway from Porirua to Kapiti.
So you guessed it. The Nats are moving to de-protect these stream so they can build the motorway on them.
They are doing this by rushing through a plan change using the Environmental Protection Agency.
So to recap, the Govt is using the Environmental Protection Agency to remove protection from endangered New Zealand fish habitat so that we can build a motorway on it, with the resulting increase in greenhouse emissions.
George Orwell eat your heart out.
The EPA are asking for submissions. I suggest you tell them what you think while having no illusions about Nats intentions.
NOTE: Below is an extract from the NZ Transport Agency application to the EPA with the proposed changes to the Regional Freshwater Plan in bold :
(2) Adverse effects which cannot be avoided are remedied to the extent practicable;
(3) Adverse effects which cannot be avoided or remedied are mitigated to the extent practicable;
(4) Adverse effects which cannot practicably be avoided, remedied or mitigated are offset.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Russel Norman on Sun, February 13th, 2011
Tags: EPA, Horokiri, Pauatahanui, Russel Norman, transmission gully
More posts by Russel Norman | more about Russel Norman
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
Like or Dislike:
11 
2 (+9)
Maybe they don’t have enough brains to understand what they’re reading.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4 (-3)
Valis may be correct. And succint.
On the other hand, this is one of those projects where almost any argument against is going to get trampled under foot…
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
The Nats are not “moving to de-protect these streams” as you state. The Minister only approved the fast track process (5 months ago by the way). The Environment Court will still decide whether the amendments sought by NZTA (a crown entity not the Nats) achieve the tests of the RMA.
Get your facts straight. At present your comments are hysterical and inaccurate.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
I believe that the big question is what will “Adverse effects which cannot practicably be avoided, remedied or mitigated are offset.” actually mean in practice, and how will this be enforced (if at all)?
And who gets to decide what is “practicable”?
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
““Adverse effects which cannot practicably be avoided, remedied or mitigated are offset.” actually mean in practice”
‘Practicable’ means ‘cheap’, ‘offset’ means ‘PR stunt’.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
I am afraid you might be right Sam.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)