It made the comment on the opening day of evidence in an Environment Court hearing in Queenstown yesterday. The case revolves around whether a water conservation order should be amended to prohibit the building of any hydro-electric dam on the river. The amendment was sought by the New Zealand and Otago Fish and Game Councils and it attracted more than 240 submissions which were heard by a special tribunal, appointed by the Ministry for the Environment.
The tribunal decided the conservation order should be changed to ban damming and diversion, to protect the habitat of a native fish known as Gollum galaxiid, (Galaxias gollumoides).
That decision has been appealed to the Environment Court by three parties: Pioneer Generation, which has plans for a dam on the river, the fish and game councils, who want the river's wild and scenic landscape values and trout fishery values to be recognised as "outstanding", and Whitewater New Zealand, which wants a ban on damming to protect the kayaking amenity provided by the river.
The hearing has been set down for three weeks and lawyers for the appellants and parties to the appeal made their opening submissions yesterday before Judge Jon Jackson and commissioners John Mills and Kathryn Edmonds.
Mike Holm, for the environmental society, which is a party to the appeal, said Pioneer was not asserting there was a specific hydro project which had been costed. Expert witnesses, who had yet to present their evidence in court on behalf on Pioneer, were "cautious" about the hypothetical dam, he said.
"It will only be possible to address the real likelihood of a dam on the Nevis following cross examination."
Kerry Smith, for Pioneer, pointed out that the generation company was seeking to preserve the ability to apply for consent to put a dam on the river, "which is somewhat different from presenting a resource consent application".
"No particular hydro-electric power scheme has been proposed by Pioneer Generation Ltd but its evidence provides information about an indicative scheme to give some context," he said.
Pioneer had already said it would limit the extent of any proposed dam in any future resource consent application so impounded water did not go beyond the Nevis Crossing bridge. Any lake would be about 14ha.
The company also accepted that the water conservation order might impose an obligation for any resource consent hearing to consider the galaxiid fish.
Evidence would be given that a ban on damming because of a perceived threat to galaxiids was "unsustainable" Mr Smith said.
Maree Baker- Galloway, for the fish and game councils and Whitewater New Zealand, said the damming prohibition was needed to protect the outstanding fishery.
"If the inundation footprint is restricted to just downstream of the Nevis Crossing, it will inundate an area of the Nevis fishery that is very different from the majority of the fishery in terms of scenery, access and landscape, " she said"Because of the slow growth rate of trout in the Nevis, the fishery is extremely sensitive to change ... therefore very vulnerable and in need of protection."
Introducing a dam would also spoil the experience for those kayaking on the river.
