title: Hoera Te Mimiha

authors: Hart, Philip

abstract: Hoera Te Mimiha was a rangatira of Ngati Koi, an inferior hapu to Ngati Tamatera, and had affiliations to other hapu. Although to Pakeha he was a mere labourer, in Maori society in Ohinemuri in the 1870s and 1880s he was a leading figure. Details have been traced of his whakapapa, his wider family, and especially his children, one of whom married Hone Werahiko. 
Mimiha spent much time in the Maori Land Court trying to prove his entitlement to be included as an owner of several blocks of land, not always successfully, for he could not prove some of his cases either through ancestry or occupation. Other rangatira with superior whakapapa were able to show the weaknesses of some of his claims, forcing him into giving evasive answers to cross-examination. His evidence did reveal what land he had occupied and farmed.
Mimiha willingly sold land, including his interest in the Ohinemuri goldfield (the boundaries of which he had pointed out to surveyors), and obtained a good income, for a time. Being interested in mining from the early 1870s onwards, he was one of the few Maori willing to descend a shaft at Thames, an experience that encouraged him to push for opening Ohinemuri to mining, even, it seemed, if that endangered Maori control of their land. Having prospected at Karangahake before it was opened to mining in 1875, he participated in this rush and subsequently in the Te Aroha one of 1880, having interests in claims at all three portions of the latter field. When his daughter’s partner was murdered at Te Aroha, he calmed Maori anger, once again winning the gratitude of Pakeha.
Because of selling much of his land, he struggled financially, although unlike some Maori he did not drink his money away. Cutting off part of the ear of a Pakeha accused of raping his wife resulted in several court cases marked by dubious evidence presented by both sides. After being imprisoned for perjury, efforts by Pakeha to have his conviction reviewed resulted in his being judged to have been the only witness not to have lied to the court, but this sordid affair blackened his character.

text: Hoera Te Mimiha Hoera Te Mimiha was a rangatira of Ngati Koi, an inferior hapu to Ngati Tamatera, and had affiliations to other hapu. Although to Pakeha he was a mere labourer, in Maori society in Ohinemuri in the 1870s and 1880s he was a leading figure. Details have been traced of his whakapapa, his wider family, and especially his children, one of whom married Hone Werahiko. 
Mimiha spent much time in the Maori Land Court trying to prove his entitlement to be included as an owner of several blocks of land, not always successfully, for he could not prove some of his cases either through ancestry or occupation. Other rangatira with superior whakapapa were able to show the weaknesses of some of his claims, forcing him into giving evasive answers to cross-examination. His evidence did reveal what land he had occupied and farmed.
Mimiha willingly sold land, including his interest in the Ohinemuri goldfield (the boundaries of which he had pointed out to surveyors), and obtained a good income, for a time. Being interested in mining from the early 1870s onwards, he was one of the few Maori willing to descend a shaft at Thames, an experience that encouraged him to push for opening Ohinemuri to mining, even, it seemed, if that endangered Maori control of their land. Having prospected at Karangahake before it was opened to mining in 1875, he participated in this rush and subsequently in the Te Aroha one of 1880, having interests in claims at all three portions of the latter field. When his daughter’s partner was murdered at Te Aroha, he calmed Maori anger, once again winning the gratitude of Pakeha.
Because of selling much of his land, he struggled financially, although unlike some Maori he did not drink his money away. Cutting off part of the ear of a Pakeha accused of raping his wife resulted in several court cases marked by dubious evidence presented by both sides. After being imprisoned for perjury, efforts by Pakeha to have his conviction reviewed resulted in his being judged to have been the only witness not to have lied to the court, but this sordid affair blackened his character.

year: 2016

title: Lake Rotokakahi water quality update 1990-2011

authors: Butterworth, Joseph

subjects: Lake Rotokakahi

abstract: Lake Rotokakahi is an Iwi-owned lake administered by the Lake Rotokakahi Board of Control on Behalf of lake owners who are descendants from the Ngāti Tumatawera and Tūhourangi hapū of Te Arawa. It is mesotrophic (moderate water quality) lake with an area of 4.4 km² comprised of exotic forestry (57.1%), pasture (26.3%) and regenerating indigenous forest/scrub (16.6%).

text: Lake Rotokakahi water quality update 1990-2011 Lake Rotokakahi is an Iwi-owned lake administered by the Lake Rotokakahi Board of Control on Behalf of lake owners who are descendants from the Ngāti Tumatawera and Tūhourangi hapū of Te Arawa. It is mesotrophic (moderate water quality) lake with an area of 4.4 km² comprised of exotic forestry (57.1%), pasture (26.3%) and regenerating indigenous forest/scrub (16.6%).

year: 2012

title: Which future for the Hurunui? Combining choice analysis with stakeholder consultation

authors: Marsh, Dan

subjects: choice experiment

abstract: The future of the Hurunui River and its catchment has been hotly contested between those who seek to store and/or divert water from the river in order to increase agricultural production and those who would like to see the river undeveloped and the quality of natural resources in the river and catchment improved. The Canterbury Regional Council wished to develop an approach to manage catchment nutrient loads across the region in order to achieve the objectives of its Natural Resources Regional Plan (NRRP) for water quality and aquatic habitats. Our approach, combining stakeholder consultation with choice analysis, was developed and tested in the Hurunui catchment in 2010-2011.
The policy objective of the choice experiment was to describe and quantify the preferences of Canterbury Region residents with respect to existing conditions (the status quo) and potential future land use and water quality scenarios for the catchment. It was envisaged that this quantitative information on preferences across the region would be used by policy makers at the same time as they considered the outcomes of the stakeholder deliberative process.
At the conclusion of the consultation process there was ‘general acceptance’ of a future development strategy for the Hurunui catchment that would maintain water quality in the main river at 2005-2009 levels while improving the tributaries to 1990-1995 water quality. Results from the choice experiment are broadly supportive of this approach. Canterbury region residents would require substantial compensation (mean $244-$315 per household per year) before they would accept a decline in water quality in the main river or in the tributaries. Willingness to pay for improvements in the main river is lower with a mean of $25-$33 per house hold per year.

text: Which future for the Hurunui? Combining choice analysis with stakeholder consultation The future of the Hurunui River and its catchment has been hotly contested between those who seek to store and/or divert water from the river in order to increase agricultural production and those who would like to see the river undeveloped and the quality of natural resources in the river and catchment improved. The Canterbury Regional Council wished to develop an approach to manage catchment nutrient loads across the region in order to achieve the objectives of its Natural Resources Regional Plan (NRRP) for water quality and aquatic habitats. Our approach, combining stakeholder consultation with choice analysis, was developed and tested in the Hurunui catchment in 2010-2011.
The policy objective of the choice experiment was to describe and quantify the preferences of Canterbury Region residents with respect to existing conditions (the status quo) and potential future land use and water quality scenarios for the catchment. It was envisaged that this quantitative information on preferences across the region would be used by policy makers at the same time as they considered the outcomes of the stakeholder deliberative process.
At the conclusion of the consultation process there was ‘general acceptance’ of a future development strategy for the Hurunui catchment that would maintain water quality in the main river at 2005-2009 levels while improving the tributaries to 1990-1995 water quality. Results from the choice experiment are broadly supportive of this approach. Canterbury region residents would require substantial compensation (mean $244-$315 per household per year) before they would accept a decline in water quality in the main river or in the tributaries. Willingness to pay for improvements in the main river is lower with a mean of $25-$33 per house hold per year.

year: 2012-12