The RMA Under Review: a Case Study of Project Aqua

Abstract

This article analyses the Labour-Progressive government's actions with respect to the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill 2003 and the 2004 review of the RMA — legislative responses to Project Aqua, the first major hydroelectric scheme to be proposed in New Zealand since the Clyde Dam (completed in 1989). Through the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill 2003 (hereafter the Waitaki Bill), the government intended to improve resource management in the Waitaki catchment because of issues highlighted by Project Aqua. Examination of government papers surrounding the development of this Bill demonstrate that the government did not intend to fast-track the project, as some suspected.

The government announced that it was reviewing the RMA the day after Meridian Energy Limited cancelled Project Aqua. The timing of the review announcement raises questions about the rationale for the review and does not provide reassurance that sound policy was behind the RMA review.

Both the Waitaki Bill and the review of the RMA were reactive responses to resource management issues. In particular, the Waitaki Bill was a response to water allocation issues that could have been anticipated by both regional and central governments who had failed to use the planning tools available to them under the RMA. Experts in the field of resource management in New Zealand have pointed out that amendment of the RMA is not necessarily the best way of improving resource management. Despite the government's apparent recognition of this, the political reaction to Project Aqua demonstrates that RMA review and amendment is a tempting strategy for politicians. This article suggests that the government's legislative responses to Project Aqua contribute to creating a public expectation that resource management problems are only solved through RMA review and amendment. This is a concern if unnecessary amendments to the RMA result in poor resource management and negative environmental impacts.