New electricity generation on the Clutha River has again been revived as a prospect within the next decade and the one certainty of it is that all the old arguments for and against further exploitation of the river and the Clutha Valley will be aired.
There will be concern that, if Queensberry and Luggate dams come to pass, there will be short-term gains but few long-term jobs, and that the benefits will accrue more to Contact Energy, and to the national interest, rather than to Otago in general and the Upper Clutha in particular.
Similarly, we are wary - in respect of a possible Beaumont dam - of the prospect of the lesson being repeated of the Clyde dam: that it was badly under-planned, no real attempt was ever made to develop the promised multipurpose approach, and politicians were sold on the scheme because they thought it meant industrial growth.
It did not, as it transpired, because the predicted demand turned out to be a chimera.
In the past, political control of electricity produced a pattern of overcapacity.
Corporatisation was supposed to have removed this likelihood, since the penalties for both over- and underinvestment would be severe on shareholders.
But, as we have seen with the appeal hearings over wind farms in Otago, and in a related sense, the errors and confusion over actual water flows in the Lower Waitaki, the so-called market-driven electricity sector can offer no clearer answer than central government where long-term planning of needs is required.
Will we need all the wind farms known to be proposed in Otago if they are considered in the context of national electricity requirements?
How can demand for, say, irrigation in the Lower Waitaki be met when we do not even know how much water is actually available?
What influence will this miscalculation have on future power schemes proposed for the river?
Political party energy policy statements issued in the past few days leave us little the wiser as to any kind of national long-term energy planning that might answer these questions.
The Clark Government's proposed National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation emphasises the use of wind, geothermal, solar and tidal sources, with hydro energy projects last.
Unusually, it also requires what it calls the "reversability" of generation projects to be considered; in other words, it discourages permanent structures such as concrete river dams.
And it throws back to local councils the responsibility of incorporating into district and town plans the need to "balance the national benefits of renewable electricity generation projects with local considerations".
Fine words, and perhaps fine sentiments, but ministers will still be able to "fast track" major projects.
The National Party's energy policy talks of using expensive thermal energy - largely oil and gas generation - to provide security of supply, and it will overturn the Government's ban on new base-load thermal power stations.
The policy is not at any stage specific about hydro-generation, which perhaps implies that it has not considered future generation from the Clutha.
What it is specific about, however, is its intention to speedily reform the Resource Management Act, "putting an end to frivolous and vexatious objections", to "allow more generation to be built".
Its policy would enable "some future large electricity generation and transmission projects" to "be facilitated".
In short, this will mean even faster-tracking than already provided for by ministerial call-in powers.
At this point, National will be bound to lose public confidence in the South, because if such proposals are soundly based, well-researched and follow the criteria for good development, there is no reason why the ordinary procedures should not produce a proper result.
It is only when poor plans are put forward, the research work is skimped, and the public misled, that proceedings may be held up and projects delayed.
"Vexatious" it may be, but that is the very time when all the checks are needed.
It is vital for sensible democratic government that normal procedures of consultation, argument and scrutinising are followed.
In a wider context, the question arises as to what extent the people of the region could expect co-ordinated multipurpose planning for what would essentially be a private dam concept, such as may be proposed by Contact, that would include as well as electricity generation, irrigation, recreation and tourism.
The utilisation of a region's natural resources should result in some benefit to that region.
Too frequently we have seen the South Island's resources harvested for the more populous north with little or no local benefit.
Given their past experiences, the people of Otago have every reason to be sceptical of "wise men" bearing gifts.
