EPA Hearings – Day 1 (18 Nov 13)

A pretty straight forward day with the sessions up to afternoon tea being taken up by opening submissions from HBRC & HBRIC.

What was interesting about the opening submissions was the number of times Mr Robinson mentioned that evidence had been ‘uncontested’. It was obvious that this was an issue of funding and time constraints for opponents to Plan Change 6 or the dam, more than anything else. As I’ve expressed before its ‘May the best, and most expensive lawyers win.’

It was also interesting that Plan Change 6 has been altered to take account of submissions from “a number of submitters representing the primary production sector” (par 38-44)

There is also an acknowledgement that “proposed minimum flows provide 80-90% habitat retention for the critical species”. As if this is somehow better than 70-80%. And what happens when further intensification is proposed? A further 10-20% degradation would be acceptable?

unfortunately I had to leave just as Helen Codlin from HBRC presented her Scene Setting & Values evidence and was cross-examined. I’ll have a look through the transcripts for anything of interest.

Tomorrow will be a busy day with Iain Maxwell, Grahame Hansen, Benita Wakefield, Fiona Cameron, Tim Sharp, and David Leong presenting their Scene Setting & Values evidence and being cross-examined.

This entry was posted in BOI and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s