Editorial: No rushing on Ecan

Food for thought, and the variety that will take plentyof chewing on, was served up to those people who headedto the Waitaki Bridge Hall on Tuesday night to discuss thepossibility of a "divorce" from Environment Canterbury.

Not surprisingly, the widespread frustration with the performanceof Ecan in the three South Canterbury districts and Waitakigot a decent airing. That was what had led to the meeting,so it made sense that several people in high places in localgovernment gave vent to those frustrations.

But it was the address by a local government legal expert,Jonathan Salter, that appears to have been the most significantaspect of the gathering of 90 people. Plainly, he gave attendeesa useful insight into the potential complications that mightget in the way of an attempted parting of the ways with theregional council.

Mr Salter told the assembly that reorganising local government wasa difficult process that was rarely achieved. That is apoint well made, particularly when seen alongside two otherpotential obstacles -- what will be the additional costsof establishing an alternative body, and will a new authorityrealistically be able to overcome all the issues currently causingtensions between Ecan and the people of South Canterbury?

On the latter point, clearly, if the process is not carefullythought through, there is the possibility of existing frustrationssimply being transferred across to a new regional regimebecause their underlying causes have not been properly identified.

Resource management is a complicated issue that has the potentialto annoy all sorts of people -- both those seeking consentsand those opposing them. The fact that there is widespread disenchantmentwith Ecan in this area is not in itself a sufficient reasonfor seeking a separation if it can't be shown with somecertainty that the alternative scenarios will be better.Indeed, Mr Salter said a proposal for change would haveto show how a new form of regional council would betterserve the region than Ecan.

The cost is a major factor as well. Previous studies have indicatedthat a separation of the kind envisaged would come at an extracost, which means increased rates. A lot of people wouldbe prepared to accept some extra cost, but just how muchis the question. A careful assessment of exactly what thenew costs would be is vital before any change is seriously contemplated.

Ultimately the message emerging, and it's one that needsto be taken seriously, is that while breaking away fromEcan is a possibility worth investigating, it's a move thatsimply cannot be rushed into. All the relevant issues mustbe worked through methodically and in detail before anydecision is taken.

- © Fairfax NZ News