MHPS Presentation to CCC Meeting - Comments on the CPW Trust and CPW irrigation scheme. 22 April 2010

Good morning Councillors,

We understand that matters relating to the Central Plains Water Trust are on today's agenda. The MHPS would like to make the following comments:

Over the last 8 years we have made several visits to the Council with our concerns about the CPW irrigation scheme. The CPW commissioners have rejected the proposed dam in the Waianiwaniwa Valley, which came as a great relief to many people, but the decision has come at a high cost. Sixty properties are still affected by the Notices of Requirement to construct the massive headrace canal.

The MHPS is extremely grateful for the support of some City Councillors over such a long and difficult time.

In a matter of days, after a Hearing that has lasted over two years, a decision will be made on the proposed revised CPW Irrigation scheme.

The Society envisages that a run-of-river scheme will be consented, with a 40 cumec take from the Rakaia river and a 24 cumec take from the Waimakariri river. At present this is the last remaining easily accessible surface water from both rivers, under the existing Rakaia 'Water Conservation Order' (WCO) and the Waimakariri River Regional Plan.

The recent National/Act legislation which gives the new Govt-appointed commission the powers to revoke or vary WCO's, may mean that Canterbury's wild and scenic rivers that have been awarded protection for their national and international significance, will lose that status in order to provide the irrigators with more water.

With the recent announcement of Fonterra's involvement with CPW, it has become clear to us that wall-to-wall dairying is proposed for the Canterbury Plains. Over the last couple of years, 3 dairy corporates have come to the financial aid of CPW. There is no doubt they will be queuing up to take the water consented to the Trust - a trust endowed with the duty of protecting the water for the community's benefit. It appears the central plains landscapes, its waterways and aquifers will now become expedient in the drive to increase milk production through intensive corporate dairying.

We understand that the Fonterra milk drying factory proposed for the upper plains at Racecourse Hill requires the support of at least 200 dairy farms.

Fonterra has stated that it is a coincidence that the location of the proposed dairy factory is exactly where the massive headrace canal crosses the Main West Coast Highway. Chairman of CPW has stated he didn't have a clue this was being planned, yet his son sold the land to Fonterra and Fonterra has invested $2m in CPWL.

The timing of the Fonterra milk factory announcement is worth noting after the sacking of Ecan Councillors after the new legislation to weaken WCO's and after the completion of the CPW Hearing. Fonterra's plans to buy land holding CPW shares were never revealed at the hearing. Apparently 'no one had a clue'.

This again brings into question the role of the CPW Trust and its stated objectives.

In Denis O'Rourke's evidence to the CPW Hearing he submitted in para 10. that the one of original Terms of Reference for the Steering committee was to improve the security and prosperity of the Central Canterbury region through water management schemes that enhance ecological and recreational values while providing opportunity for agricultural; and horticultural diversity.

Mr O`Rourke went on to tell the Commissioners (para 15) that the Councils resolved to establish the Trust as a Charitable Trust, independent of Councils, with clear objects reflecting the intended community nature of the scheme.

The Commissioners later rejected the notion that the scheme was a community scheme and that it was patently a private scheme that would benefit its shareholders.

The objectives of the Trust were listed in the CPWL application to the Minister for the Environment seeking Requiring Authority status. It was bad enough that CPW planned to compulsorily acquire land for a so called community scheme, now those whose land is still affected by a 'Notice of Requirement' (NOR) face the prospect of having their land taken by Fonterra. Is there anything to prevent the dairy giant buying a majority of the CPWL shares and taking over the company in future?

As settlors of the CPW Trust, neither Council presented evidence to the CPW Hearing and their absence was confirmed by the Commissioners, as fully supportive of the irrigation scheme. Is that what you intended?

Both Councils provided limited technical evidence to the Hearing. Incidentally, we heard no evidence that convinced us that the City's water supply would be safe from intensive dairying on the plains.

If the scheme is consented, we see two looming issues for the City:
the take from the Waimakariri River, which will reduce groundwater recharge, and the leeching of dairy runoff to surface and groundwater. What was revealed throughout the Hearing was the lack of knowledge around hydraulically connected groundwater systems in both the Waimakariri and Rakaia rivers and the aquifers beneath the plains.

We understand that only 25% of the water already allocated is actually being used, yet both rivers are in trouble without the additional pressure of the CPW scheme. (Refer to this week's Press article re the low flows in the Waimakariri and the recent article on the Rakaia River).

Incredibly, in the Creech report, Ecan is repeatedly criticised for being "science led" rather than "science informed" and giving too much weight to scientific advice in decisions about allocation of groundwater, setting of rivers flows and management of water quality.

We can't depend on the CWMS to control the adverse affects of intensive dairy either, as the strategy depends on audited self-management programmes to encourage farmers to monitor and improve their own performance. (p. 15 Draft CWMS August 2009). We all know this doesn't work as Canterbury has a high level of non-compliance among dairy farmers. What's missing is enforceable regulation. Past and present government's have been and still are, unwilling to impose regulations on the dairy industry. Instead there is a push from the present Government to remove the regulatory roadblocks to accelerating irrigation in Canterbury). (Press 21 April).

Do we believe the current City council has compromised ChCh's the high quality of drinking water for future generations by their support of the CPW scheme? With the exception of those Councillors who opposed the scheme, yes we do. Given the 20 years or more timelag for nitrates to move through the soils, it's not a matter of if, but when!

Do we think the other settlor of the Trust, SDC has compromised the quality of drinking water across the plains? Yes, we do. It's already happening.
An investigation into a cluster of campylobacter cases in the Springston Township during February and March 2008 concluded that the outbreak was caused by contamination of the town's water supply. SDC then commissioned a replacement bore.

In November 2009 several Dunsandel residents become sick. E-coli had found its way into the 70m deep Community well. ECan agreed to pay half the cost of an investigation to find the source of the contamination (about $5000) but SDC has refused to pay their share, instead opting to charge Dunsandel residents the cost of chlorinating their water. Why would SDC council do this? Are they afraid to verify the cause in case the finger points directly at the dairy industry? Many ratepayers object to the addition of chlorine, and are now filling their drinking water containers when they come to Christchurch. We've heard of Cheviot residents doing the same thing. Is this the beginning of a trend toward unsafe drinking water across Canterbury?
The re-appointment of Trustees and the CPW Trust 'Statements of Intent' (SOI) is on today's agenda. SDC has already signed off on the latest changes to the SOI.
The MHPS is particularly concerned at the SOI addition that the Trust will assist CPW with any appeals.

We urge you to consider this well. We seek your assurance that the City will not provide any further funding in any form, to assist CPW in gaining resource consents in the Appeal Court.

Given the uncertainties around the adverse effects of the take from the Waimakariri River and the cumulative impacts of dairy runoff on the aquifers, we recommend the Council to follow the precautionary approach and file its own appeal against the scheme, if consents are granted.