Newsroom reported today on the Waitaha hydro fast-track application. The article notes that I prepared an independent review of the applicant’s recreation assessment, which the panel declined to consider.

I won’t comment on the panel’s procedural decisions – FMC is seeking legal advice on that. But the underlying evidence issues are worth noting, because they’re not unique to this case.

The 2025 recreation assessment before the panel relies substantially on a 2008 report (Booth) that was not publicly available until I obtained it via OIA for this review. That foundational report’s interview data – now 17 years old – has been carried forward through successive assessments without revalidation through new user research. The 2025 report is framed as an “update” but collects no primary data.

My review identified recurring issues: inherited claims treated as settled baseline, conceptual instability around how “value” is defined and measured, and methodological opacity that makes the findings difficult to interpret or scrutinise.

These aren’t criticisms of any individual – they reflect a common pattern in how recreation evidence accumulates in long-running consent processes. Earlier assessments get cited, their limitations compound, and by the time a decision is made, the evidentiary foundation may be significantly weaker than it appears.

For those working in planning, resource management, or recreation advocacy, the Waitaha case illustrates why independent review of technical evidence matters – and why public access to foundational reports should be standard practice, not something requiring an OIA request years later.

My review is available [link]. The full Newsroom article is here [link]. It’s Paywalled sorry.