BSA Upholds Complaint Against Central FM Re. Incorrect Labelling Of DoC Conservation Land As ‘Stewardship Land'

Scoop

2 days ago

Press Release – Wise Water Use
Wise Water Use Hawkes Bay spokesperson, Dr Trevor Le Lievre, says the finding raises a credibility issue for Mr Petersen, and is questioning his capacity to manage the build of the estimated-$500 million Ruataniwha dam v.2.
The Broadcasting Standards Authority has upheld a complaint against Central FM regarding an interview with Mike Petersen, spokesperson for Ruataniwha v.2, where 22 ha. of DoC conservation land was inaccurately labelled as 'stewardship land'.
The damning Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) decision, released today, found that Mike Petersen, lead proponent for Ruataniwha dam v.2, inaccurately labelled the 22 ha. DoC-owned land needed to build Ruataniwha v.2 as 'stewardship land', when in fact it comprises 93% conservation land.
Wise Water Use Hawkes Bay spokesperson, Dr Trevor Le Lievre, says the finding raises a credibility issue for Mr Petersen, and is questioning his capacity to manage the build of the estimated-$500 million Ruataniwha dam v.2.
The BSA found that Petersen '…made two definitive statements that it was not conservation land' on Central FM Radio, Waipukurau, in an interview held on 8 October last year with station part-owner and fellow dam-proponent, Steve Wyn Harris: [1]
The BSA found:
'The Authority agreed the description of the 22 hectares of Department of Conservation land needed for the dam project as 'only stewardship land', when approximately 93% of it has 'conservation park status', was a material inaccuracy which the broadcaster had not made reasonable efforts to avoid.'[summary]; and
'The broadcast created a misleading impression about the 22 hectares of DOC land needed for the project as being 'stewardship' land and having inferior conservation values'. [para. 25]
'Mr Petersen is asking the community to trust him to build a $500 million dam, yet can't even correctly identify the status of the DoC land needed to build the dam. This begs the serious question as to what else Mr Petersen has got wrong?' said Le Lievre, adding: 'alarm bills should be ringing loudly for potential investors.
'Mike Petersen is selling the public a story about Ruataniwha v.2: a story about economic prosperity to be shared by all, about a solution to our depleted aquifer and rivers, and about restoring our water quality, and dealing with the vagaries of climate change: has anyone fact checked the story?'
Wise Water Use is now questioning other statements made by Petersen:
'A number of statements have been made by Mr Petersen as part of the Ruataniwha v.2 story. We believe that in light of this recent ruling Mr Petersen now needs to provide evidence to back those statements,' said Le Lievre, who cited several unsubstantiated claims:
'This is a commercial project …we are not seeking public investment into this project at all' [2]
Mike Petersen recently petitioned local lines company, Centralines, for money to develop another feasibility case for the dam, and received a commitment of $100,000. Wise Water Use argues this money is coming out of the pockets of CHB power consumers;
The dam promoters are also wanting the public to pick up the cost of so-called 'environmental flows' which would allocate 20 Mm3 water annually for release down the main Tukituki River stem. [3] Wise Water Use calculates that should this cost fall to Regional Council ratepayers it would entail an average 10% rates increase and is running a petition asking the Regional Council to state publicly they won't assume the cost.
'There is a hydro generation component in the project as well, which appeals to those seeking green investment.' [4]
Wise Water Use points out that there have never been any detailed plan for hydro generation presented in any public reports on the dam, nor other public forum, and that such a proposal doesn't stack up financially, and argues this is an attempt to greenwash the project by Mr Petersen.
'The proposal is completely different in focus and intent from the original Ruataniwha project, despite sharing the original project's site on the Makaroro river.' [5]
Wise Water Use says that the renamed 'Tukituki Water Security Project' is no different to the Ruataniwha dam v.1: it would use exactly the same engineering design, rely on the same consents to take water, be located on the same part of the Makaroro River, still need the 22 ha. of DoC conservation land, and would remain an industrial-scale irrigation dam.
'Mike Petersen is fronting a $500 million dam project, which with associated on-farm infrastructure costs would cost more than $1 billion dollars. His inability to get the status of the DoC conservation land correct brings into question every other unsupported statement he has made in support of Ruataniwha v.2, and undermines the very viability of the project,' finished Le Lievre.