Can town come to the aid of country?
By Rueben Hunt
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Coalgate is breathing a sigh of relief
Last week the independent Resource Consent Commissioners signalled
their likely rejection of Central Plains Water Ltd’s (CPWL) plans for a 55
meter high dam within 100 meters of the Coalgate township. It is unclear
at this stage whether this is because the proposed dam was technically
flawed, or a recognition that the impact on the local community was
totally unacceptable. Or both. Either way the collective sigh of relief
within the Coalgate community was almost tangible. And it has also
helped partially restore some faith in the democratic process. Because in
this case, it appears that money and greed will not triumph against the
needs of this ‘salt of the earth’ Kiwi community.
Waianiwaniwa Valley has potentially been spared, so the historic
homesteads, fifth generation farmers and hundred year old trees can
continue their existence there. The endangered mudfish and recreational
activities on the Rakaia and Waimakariri rivers have been granted a
reprieve - for now. But with recent river levels even lower than last year,
even the proposed reduced extraction rates sound alarming.
This is all small consolation for the nine years of stress and, in some
cases, health complications, affected people have endured in the face of
CPWL intransigence. In light of recent events, you would have thought
there might be some wavering in CPWL’s stance on matters. Or even a
public apology for the insensitive and arrogant approach they adopted
throughout.
Quite the reverse. Based on the responses by the Chief Executive Officer
(CEO) of CPWL, Pat Morrison, CPWL, remains upbeat. He made three
points which, in my opinion, illustrate perfectly all the flaws in the CPWL
proposals.
1) Apparently the land owning farmers “gave a fair bit of trust” when
they purchased shares in the scheme. This is not entirely true. CPWL
had them over a barrel. Who wouldn’t want to cover all bets and buy
shares in the one horse race. If the scheme had been successful, unless
you had some of the limited number of shares, you would not have
received a drop of water from the canal(s) running across your land.
These shareholders are innocent pawns in CPWL’s scheme. I feel sorry
for them as, if nothing materialises, they will lose an average of $15K all
for nothing. And lest we forget, it is the dairy and construction industries
that really put all their trust in CPWL.
2) The CEO stated that “in Canterbury, 92 per cent of our water goes out
to sea”, reinforcing the need for water storage. This does not
automatically give them a right to extract water, a public resource, for
their personal gain. And as CPWL have demonstrated with their dam
plan, yet again they showed no understanding of the implications of their
scheme. In addition to the impact on recreational activities, reducing
river flow rates reduces the quality of water which, in turn, affects
migratory fish like trout and salmon. Plus it is likely to result in a further
increase in the number of Didymo outbreaks. Not to mention the
importance of the gravel these rivers transport to sea. For example, the
Waimakariri carries an annual suspended load of over three million
tonnes. It is vital this gravel is expelled out to sea, otherwise as the river
flattens out on the plain, the river bed level can rise, putting pressure on
the stopbanks which protect the city from flooding. Any comprehensive
water extraction proposal needs to consider these factors and outline how
it will take mitigating actions to prevent, in the worst case, the flooding of
Christchurch.
3) The CEO finally admitted that “irrigating from Lake Coleridge” “was a
‘logical step’ for the scheme”. This complete turnaround is surprising as
in 2006, CPWL discounted the proposal of a Coleridge intake for a number
of reasons, fully documented in section 4 of the environmental
assessment report they commissioned at the time. There is speculation
that the real reason the Coleridge intake was dismissed was because it
wouldn’t have been such a lucrative construction project. It is also
poignant that so many people had to endure nine years of heartbreak
when CPWL now admit there was an alternative all along.
If CPWL is to extract anything from the remaining hearings, maybe it is
not too late to start demonstrating the ability to think wider than just
their own self interests. Instead of just moving the goal posts in their
desperate hope to gain something from all their efforts. Indeed in their
legal submission in response to the Commissioners’ report, they have
already played the card requesting that some consents for a variation in
the scheme should be granted “as it represents a waste of the
considerable resources already invested.”’ I’m sorry, but businesses don’t
get measured on how much resource they invest.
How does this leave the community at Coalgate? They are battle weary.
Before the dam proposal, in the late 1990’s, they fought off plans to
create one of the largest landfills in the Southern Hemisphere in the
Wainiwaniwa Valley, where the reservoir was also proposed. So the long
term residents have endured attrition for over a decade now. It is highly
unlikely there will be sufficient collective energy to fight off the next round
of developers that waft by in their limousines, cocooned from the real
world around them. So whilst this battle may be nearly won, the same
cannot be said for the war against irrepressible growth and development.
Help is required from two quarters:
a) The planners. It is time to create a Canterbury wide district plan that
establishes a green belt around Christchurch as well as specific heritage
sites, such as the Coalgate region and Banks Peninsula. Development in
these areas would need to be tightly restricted, preventing the threat of
any future schemes like CPWL’s in the future. It is time to make a stand
and protect both our countryside and our past. I don’t need to remind
you, we don’t have much of the latter.
b) The support of our neighbours in the city is desperately needed.
Although the battles are being fought out in the country, out of sight of
the city, the outcomes will affect everyone in Canterbury. Whether it be
water quality, flooding, or the preservation of the countryside for all to
enjoy the recreational pursuits it offers.
There is a follow up hearing on Monday 11 May at 10am to hear from the
various legal counsels (and possibly other parties) on the matters
contained in the Commissioners’ minutes. This is in rooms 1 and 2 at the
Convention Centre in Kilmore Street. It would be encouraging to see
some city folk there. Whether you are passionate about preserving
Canterbury or just want to see a stand made against development purely
for money’s sake at the expense of many.
www.stopthedam.org.nz