A recent article posted on the AgriHQ website (Treasury doubts Nats’ irrigation profit outlook) vindicates my argument that the economics of the dam don’t stack up.
“Papers obtained under the Official Information Act show Treasury also thought a forecast lift in economic growth from new irrigation schemes would come mainly through activity related to building them”
How’s that for a long-term strategy? Or how about this?
“Treasury looked at modelling that MPI had commissioned from the New Zealand Institute for Economic Research (NZIER) on the economic impact of irrigation but said it understood that the $2.1 billion or 0.8% extra gross domestic product the schemes were forecast to provide from 2035 would come mainly from the stimulatory effect of construction activity”
Personally I haven’t viewed the papers AgriHQ obtained under the OIA so I’m merely commenting on what they have reported. But when an industry publication is making these sorts of statements then something just isn’t right.