Canterbury dam off but hearings go on

The National Business Review 2009 - 9 April 2009

Commissioners look at rights to water

By Chris Hutching

A Canterbury irrigation storage scheme that its promoters argue will lift the value of farms in the region has been turned down - but not in its entirely, yet.
The commissioners - Philip Milne, Bob Nixon, Andrew Fenemor and Ray Callaghan - published a "minute" last week saying they would decline consents for the company to flood the Waianiwaniwa Valley for a storage lake and associated works. The company had promoted itself as a community scheme, emphasising the storage component in its bid to seize rights to 40cumecs of water each from the Waimakariri and Rakaia Rivers.
The commissioners told Central Plains Water before Christmas that they were unlikely to grant the consents to compulsorily acquire private properties and flood the Waianiwaniwa Valley. But obtaining the water rights - with or without the dam - by Central Plains is imperative for its continued existence thanks to underwriting by Dairy Holdings, a company owned by Alan Hubbard of Timaru.
Central Plains long ago spent the $5 million initially raised by its farmer shareholders and a second $5 million has been promised by Dairy Holdings, with the anticipated water rights as security.
On March 26 the Central Plains lawyers responded to the prospect of being turned down for the dam with a letter to the commissioners stating that they believed the hearings should continue for the associated applications for taking water from the Waimakariri and Rakaia Rivers.
The Central Plains lawyer's letter outlines how the proposed dam is no longer an essential component (the dam was possibly the "straw man" policy alluded to in various Central Plains documents but never explained).
The Central Plains lawyers say that while the commissioners can turn down the applications for the dam, Central Plains itself would be prepared to modify its applications and "indicate a preparedness to withdraw the notice of requirement (compulsory acquisition) for the dam and upper intake" if the hearings continue.
"The consenting process is not for a particular scheme but is for particular activities which require consent," the Central Plains lawyers are now arguing.
One of the recurrent opposing arguments during the hearing was that Central Plains never had a viable scheme and was frequently modifying it. Central Plains argued that it wanted the consents and would mitigate any problems later.
Any Central Plains scheme would now be "run of river" and it might be tied into various schemes being proposed behind the scenes by irrigation interests involved in the Canterbury Strategic Water Study, which has identified other ambitious storage options, the most viable involving raising the level of Lake Coleridge.
The commissioners have responded to the Central Plains request in their latest "minute" by asking Central Plains to present arguments about how and why they should grant water rights in the absence of a definite scheme and whether this would involve allocating more water than any such future undefined scheme would require. The commissioners asked whether this would merely lock up the water resource by allocating Central plains with more than it needs at the expense of other potential applicants.
Other applicants are waiting in the wings and one of them - Ngai Tahu - is currently involved in separate High Court action arguing these issues. Ngai Tahu says it should be granted some of the available Waimakariri water because it has a definite proposal and should not be hamstrung by Central Plains claiming that it has priority for its scheme.
The commissioners are also concerned as to whether continuing the Central Plains hearing would be fair to other submitters who had made their submissions on a significantly different scheme. They also seek new economic information about the veracity of a truncated scheme.
The commissioners have asked Central Plains to present its arguments at a May 11 hearing.
During the hearings over seven months of 2008, the main opposition to the scale of the proposed irrigation came from landowners and other farmers in the region who frequently accused the company during hearings of arrogance and failing to consult. Opponents included lowland arable farmers who told the hearing that their harvests would be adversely affected by the raised water table arising from the magnitude of the scheme.
Several economists also told the hearings that benefits of the scheme were overstated.
The landowners directly affected by the proposed dam have lived with the uncertainty of the compulsory acquisition powers that were given to the irrigation company by former Environment Minister David Benson-Pope eight years ago in an unusual move involving a private company. These landowners have complained of being unable to develop or sell their properties.
Central Plains never approached them with offers to buy their land, seeking instead the compulsory acquisition path.

Half-way central plains decision 'highly unusual'

A Lincoln University resource management expert says political considerations may have been behind the halfway decision of three commissioners hearing the $600 million-odd Central Plains scheme.
Environmental planning and management professor Ali Memon said the commissioners, appointed by Environment Canterbury, had taken a highly unusual step in signalling they would decline the dam component and compulsory land acquisition while inviting further arguments about taking available water from the Waimakariri and Rakaia rivers.
"It's certainly an innovation if you can describe it like that. The commissioners are trying to be efficient to prevent the parties having to litigate everything from ground zero. But it raises fundamental issues about the role of commissioners.
"There is a concern about equity too about the rights of other people who been submitters. Were they also consulted by the commissioners? It looks as if the applicants are having a second bite of the cherry."
The situation highlighted the complications of an adversarial process rather than a collaborative one, he said.
It also highlighted the new government's plans for projects deemed to be of national benefit to be "called in" and dealt with by a central authority overseen by the Environment Ministry. Any such schemes handled on a national benefit basis would tilt the playing field in favour of economic objectives and away from environment and social considerations (at the Central Plains hearings the various economists were strongly divided about benefits), Mr Memon said.
"Maybe the commissioners were trying to avoid that call-in scenario."
Mr Memon said the granting of requiring authority status to Central Plains (to compulsorily acquire properties) raised eyebrows when granted eight years ago because it was really a private scheme. - Chris Hutching
Ends.