To: Consents Section, Environment Canterbury

(the Canterbury Regional Council)

From: Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc.

(Central Office)

Submission in opposition to applications by Central Plains Water Trust

and Ashburton Community Water Trust for the Central Plains Water Enhancement Scheme to undertake river works, take water, supply water, discharge to water, undertake earthworks and associated activities

Location:Waimakairiri River, Rakaia River and various sites and waterbodies listed in applications.

Application numbers: See attached cover page and application CRC 061942.

18 August 2006

1. Introduction

The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society (Forest and Bird) is New Zealand’s oldest conservation organisation. It has founded in 1923 and currently has 56 branches throughout New Zealand with around 38,000 members. The constitutional purpose of Forest and Bird is:

“To take all reasonable steps within the power of the Society for the preservation and protection of the indigenous flora and fauna and natural features of New Zealand, for the benefit of the public including future generations.”

This submission is on behalf of the Central Office of the Society. Forest and Bird opposes all of the applications by the Central Plains Water Trust (CPW)

and Ashburton Community Water Trust (ACWT) for the Central Plains Water Enhancement Scheme and any south bank Rakaia scheme. The reasons for the submission are set out below.

The proposed 40 cumec takes (plus 2 cumecs for operation of fish passes) from each of the Rakaia and Waimakariri Rivers, the construction and operation of the intakes, associated river training works, bed disturbance and changes to the rivers’ natural flow regimes would have major effects on natural character, landscape, ecological, intrinsic, recreational and amenity values, water quality and the ecology of the river mouths. These effects have not been adequately investigated and assessed by the applicant, so it is impossible to determine their full extent.

2. Inadequate information

The Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) does not satisfy the requirements of section 88 and the Fourth Schedule of the Resource Management Act (RMA). By not examining potential adverse impacts in sufficient detail or scope, the applicant is also under-stating their seriousness, extent and scale.

The AEE does not reflect the scale, significance or complexity of the application. There is little or no original investigation or research which seeks to understand or evaluate the scheme’s impacts on the river ecosystems and social and cultural values they support. Its inadequacy means that it is impossible to identify all of the potential effects or assess their significance.

The AEE has few references to the technical reports and studies which should support it, or to the methods, data and analyses used to arrive at the AEE’s conclusions on river flow regimes and aquatic ecosystems. No detail is provided about any technical investigations carried out since the 2001 and 2005 AEEs. Providing the methodology, data sources and analyses used to justify the conclusions reached is a basic part of scientific method. The failure to do so here makes it impossible to undertake a meaningful scientific review of the effects of water takes on river flow regimes and river aquatic ecosystems.

Nor does the application comply with section 10.2 of the Waimakariri River Regional Plan which details the particular information required for water takes. The application does not assess alternatives or describe the effects on habitats, flora and fauna, cultural values, wetlands, amenity and landscapes which 10.2(b)((ii) requires for example.

The assessment of alternatives is insubstantial and lacks serious intent.

The application should not have been notified by Environment Canterbury which should have rejected it as incomplete under s88(3).

The inadequate information does not allow the Council to consider the effects of the application as required by section 104 RMA.

There is inadequate information on many matters including the following:

2.1 Ashburton Community Water Trust (ACWT) scheme

The Central Plains AEE includes no assessment of the effects of the proposed ACWT take on the south bank of the Rakaia, how the intake is to be constructed, the effects on the riverbed or its construction, and where and how water is to be used and distributed, discharged and the effects of this.

The AEE (s3.4.1) only refers to one intake on the north bank of the Rakaia River with no detail about the south bank intake. The ACWT should have been required to submit a separate application rather than disguising itself under the CPW one. The CPW AEE is entitled “Central Plains Water Enhancement Scheme.” Since its inception, the scheme has been understood to involve irrigation of the area between the Waimakariri and Rakaia Rivers and not as including any land south of the Rakaia. It is extremely misleading for submitters and the general public for the ACWT scheme to claim to be part of the CPW application.

The ACWT application does not comply with section 88 RMA or the Fourth Schedule and should not have been notified. It should be immediately declined. The ACW Trust should be requested to submit its own application. It is an abuse of the RMA processes if Environment Canterbury allows the ACWT to provide evidence to a consent hearing describing its scheme when this should have been provided at the application stage. Any new and adequate ACWT application should be publicly notified.

2.2 Natural character, life supporting capacity and ecological effects

The elements which contribute to the natural character, landscapes and natural features of the Rakaia and Waimakariri Rivers and other affected streams are not described. Without a comprehensive assessment of the Plains landscape and the natural character of the rivers and Wainiwaniwa valley, the scheme’s effects (including those associated with reduced and less variable flows) cannot be assessed.

The applicant has failed to provide adequate hydrological information to describe or assess the rivers natural flow regimes, including their variability, and the extent to which flows will be reduced and stabilised and the effects of this. The time that the rivers will spend at or near the minimum flows (“flatlined”) and the implications of this for aquatic habitat quality and quantity need to be described and assessed. So does the seasonal variability of the flows above the minimum.

In the Waimakariri River for example, the total area of habitat for most fish and invertebrate species available at 40 m³/s (approximately the mean annual low flow) is on average, for all species analysed, 34 % less than that available at the median flow of about 89 m³/s (Jowett at al). Lower flows for longer periods will reduce the amount of suitable habitat for most aquatic organisms, including birds. The effects of this habitat loss including on breeding success, population, abundance and distribution have not been described or assessed.

The nature and extent of the earthworks and disturbance in the beds and margins of the Rakaia and Waimakariri to construct and maintain the intakes and river training works and the ecological and other values of the sites and how they will be affected are not described adequately.

The AEE (s3.4.4) notes that the works between the intake and the sidling canal on both rivers will be on “relatively undeveloped riverberm”. Riparian areas potentially include significant indigenous vegetation remnants because they are “undeveloped.” The significance of indigenous and other vegetation on the riparian margins and its value as habitat for indigenous species and the effects of intake works and canal construction on its extent and health should be described and assessed. Areas of significant indigenous vegetation and habitats should be mapped.

The potential for increased weed spread from disturbance in the riverbeds and earthworks is not examined.

The headrace and distribution canals cross several streams and rivers and potentially obstructs natural flows, obstructs fish passage and affects natural functioning and character in each of these waterways. Water has to be piped, siphoned or otherwise taken under or over the streambed. The values of these streams and the crossing sites, and the nature, extent, and effects of the associated earthworks and disturbance are not described.

2.1.3 Ecological values and effects

No surveys or other investigation appear to have been done to identify reaches of particular value to braided river birds as feeding and breeding habitat. There is no assessment of how disturbance to the riverbeds and the reduced and less variable flows will affect the availability, quality and functionality of instream and riverbed habitat, or breeding success, particularly for threatened species such as black fronted terns and wrybills, and native fish and invertebrates.

There is no assessment of the rivers’ native fish and aquatic invertebrate populations and how the proposed takes will affect their habitat values; e.g. what proportion of native fish and invertebrates will be killed or damaged by being sucked down into the gravels at the intakes and how this affects the distribution and abundance of these species.

2.1.4 Sediment

The effects of construction and riverbed disturbance in elevating sediment levels are inadequately assessed, as are the effects, including on water quality and aquatic habitat of sediment pulses when sediment sluices and 20-25 ha. sediment ponds are emptied, particularly if this is done at times of low flow. It is not clear where sediment removed from the canals is to be disposed of and dust nuisance created when this is simply dumped.

The banks of the Waimakariri and Rakaia rivers are steep in places. Here and on streams crossings the earthworks required to construct the intakes, sidling and other canals could cause significant riverbank erosion, bank collapse, and sediment discharges. No geotechnical investigation appears to have been done to assess ground stability or the extent and severity of such sediment discharges and their effects on the rivers and aquatic habitat.

2.1.5 Gravel and spoil

Dumping sites for spoil from construction of intakes, canals (where surplus to requirements for embankments), and more than 110,000 cubic metres from the tunnel to the storage lake are not identified, nor are the effects of such dumping.

Gravel is required for construction works, eg lining of canals and the core of the dam The values of the source sites (eg Waimakariri and Wainiwaniwa), the quantities required and the impacts of extraction on gravel replenishment and river functioning and values at these sites are not examined. The expectation (AEE 3.5.4) that “materials encountered along the alignment” will be suitable is not substantiated by geological or other information.

2.1.6 Coastal processes

The effects of the removal of gravel for construction purposes and removal of sediment on coastal sediment flows and the replenishment of coastal beaches are not assessed and whether this will contribute to increased coastal erosion.

2.1.7 Estuaries

The significantly reduced and less variable flows may cause significant changes to the river mouths and estuarine areas and affect their habitat and amenity values and healthy functioning. These are not assessed.

2.1.8 Economic uses associated with instream values

Non extractive use of the rivers generates substantial economic benefits (e.g. tourism, recreational outfitting, adventure events such as the Coast-to Coast). Reduced flows and the loss of natural character potentially have severe economic costs which have not been assessed.

The Rakaia, Waimakariri and Selwyn Rivers, Te Waihora and other natural areas provide significant ecosystem services – the processes that nature provides for free and from which we benefit – such as fresh water filtration, drinking water, erosion and flood control, riparian and other wetlands to buffer against flood events. If the ability of natural areas to provide these services is destroyed or compromised by the scheme they are virtually impossible and very expensive to try to replace artificially (e.g. the costs of alternative sources of drinking water for Christchurch will be substantial if groundwater is compromised by the land use intensification).

The AEE has not calculated the net present value of these ecosystem services or how they will be affected. The economic analysis of the scheme’s impacts on the regional economy based on output, added value and jobs is unduly narrow. It overstates economic benefits and ignores economic costs including the economic costs associated with environmental degradation.

2.1.9 Recreation and amenity values and public access

Current public recreational use of the rivers and their margins – not just for wet uses, such as fishing, kayaking, and boating but use of the whole river corridor, e.g. for walking, picknicking, and nature study are not adequately described in the AEE. It does not describe the different recreational uses, their significance, the number of people involved, the way in which they value the river, and the effects of diminished and less variable flows, and the scheme structures and riverbed disturbance on these uses. Nor is the extent to which public access is reduced assessed.

2.1.10 Waianiwaniwa Reservoir

The water quality in the proposed1200 ha. reservoir is a major concern given the impacts of stratification, eutrophication, decaying vegetation and oxygen depletion. Poor water quality has been an ongoing problem at the Opuha reservoir, yet no similar re-oxygenation facilities are proposed here. If the reservoir provides a base flow to the Waianiwaniwa River, the effects of discharging oxygen depleted water of poor quality into the river need assessment.

The effects of the dust nuisance created by the exposure of at least 830 ha of dry reservoir bed during the peak irrigation season from January to May need assessment.

Submitters warned of many of the severe ecological and other impacts of the Opuha Dam, issues which were largely disregarded by the consent authority. The 1997 collapse of the partially constructed dam and its pulse of contaminated water “caused abrupt and dramatic changes to the structure and ecology and the Opuha River and the lower Opihi River below the dam” with “consequences for several years”[1].

The Wainiwaniwa dam is a much larger earth dam. As well as potential fatal effects for people and property below the dam wall, the collapse or breaching of the dam risks contaminating groundwater and streams with similarly contaminated water toxic to aquatic life. The vulnerability of the reservoir to, and the effects of, a catastrophic dam collapse (as occurred with the Opuha earth dam) require assessment.

2.1.11 Water quality effects including on lowland streams and Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere

Phosphorus

Land use effects and effects on water quality of lowland streams and groundwater from land use intensification and irrigation have not been adequately assessed. Plant growth (both terrestrial and aquatic, including periphyton and aquatic macrophytes) is assisted by phosphorus as well as nitrogen. The growth of algae in Canterbury rivers and streams has been shown in a number of cases to be limited by phosphorus rather than nitrogen. Phosphorus levels in the Central Plains area (< 1mg/L)[2] are already up to 1000 fold higher than the NZ periphyton guidelines for prevent nuisance growths (between 0.0001 and 0.026 mg/L depending on the frequency of fresh events). Accordingly, even a small increase in phosphorus concentrations as a result of the overland run-off from scheme could have significant impacts on lowland streams and Te Waihora. This has not been assessed.

Acid mine drainage

The severity, extent and effects of Acid Mine Drainage from the inundation of operational and abandoned coal mines on the reservoir site have not been assessed.

2.1.12 Climate change

The International Panel on Climate Change confidently predict a global warming of between 1.4 and 5.8°C in the next 100 years. New Zealand authorities predict an increase in average summertime temperatures of 1.2 °C- 1.6 °C, a 0-10% increase in average summer rainfall and 0-15% decline in average winter rainfall in the scheme area over the next 75 years. Significant changes to precipitation (including snowfall) may result in longer dry periods and increased flooding. The impact of climate change and the sustainability of the large takes, and irrigation based land uses have not been considered in the AEE.

2.1.13 Health effects

The effects on the health of aquatic species and human health, such as a significant increase in Cryptospiridium outbreaks because of increased faecal contamination of waterways and increased dairy cow numbers have not been assessed.

3. Part II Resource Management Act

Granting the applications as sought would not promote sustainable management and would be inconsistent with the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act (RMA), in particular sections 5, 6, and 7 for the reasons below.

3.1 Section 5 - Sustaining the potential of natural resources

The application does not safeguard the life supporting capacity of the Rakaia and Waimakariri Rivers and other affected water bodies because of the adverse effects on the natural character, flow regime and dynamics of the rivers, the reduction in habitat quality and its extent, and the severe potential effects on amenity and intrinsic values.

Nor does it sustain their potential to meet the needs of future generations for healthy ecosystems and natural landscapes.

The application does not allow many people and many parts of the community to provide for their social, economic and community wellbeing because of the degradation of two nationally important rivers, the likely irreversible contamination of groundwater, including aquifers which supply Christchurch’s drinking water, and the extensive and unsustainable land use intensification which the scheme will cause.

By allocating water on the basis of shares in the CPW Ltd share float and encouraging the trading of these shares[3] the scheme would create a market for water which would effectively privatise river water. The Ritso Society’s Code of Practice allows appears intended to promote emissions trading [4]which suggests that the scheme will enable contaminant discharges through payment to CPW Ltd or the Trust. This together with the lack of independence of the CPW Trust and its ability to be directed by the CPW Ltd means that the scheme’s financial benefits would be captured by a small number of company shareholders, not the community. The community and the natural environment would bear the significant costs of the scheme.

3.2 Section 5(2)(c) Avoiding remedying and mitigating adverse effects

The application does not adequately avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of its activities on the environment. Adverse effects on indigenous ecosystem values and functioning are not adequately described. The measures to avoid, reduce or mitigate these impacts are inadequate or poorly targeted because of these information gaps.

The effects of more intensive land use (eg dairying) which are driving the scheme are not adequately examined.

The claim that water users will adopt “sound environment management practices”[5] is nowhere substantiated by the details of those practices or any certainty that they will be enforced.

The scheme has very significant adverse effects. Any positive economic effects from farm development and dairying associated with irrigation are overstated and the environmental externalities and related economic costs for such growth are largely ignored.

3.2.1 Cumulative effects

The cumulative effects of the altered river character and severely reduced flows will create a chain of events that may result in the collapse of complex ecosystems and localised extinctions. Reduced food availability will impact upon the food chain, leading to imbalances and permanent changes in the diversity and abundance of species. Changes in flow regime and temperature will affect species differentially. These have not been considered and would be severe.

The cumulative ecological and other effects of the proposed takes together with existing takes (including takes such as proposed Barrhill-Chertsey abstraction on the Rakaia which has yet to be exercised) have not been considered.

3.2.2 Land use intensification

As the Ministry for the Environment has noted:

“The addition of water to farm systems can have greater adverse effects on water quality than the taking of water for irrigation. This is because additional water input such as irrigation of grazed dairy pasture accentuates nitrate leaching by increasing annual hydrological recharge.”[6]

Increasing water availability on the plains will intensify land use on more than 60,000 ha. of the central plains with potentially severe effects on water, including groundwater quality, lowland streams, Te Waihora and coastal waters. An ECAN report notes that “further work is needed to understand the relationship between nutrient inputs to coastal Canterbury waters and the development of algal blooms.” [7] The scheme has the potential for significant impacts well beyond the Central Plains area.

The natural capital for farming is not being maintained in a healthy condition. Indigenous biodiversity has been annihilated over much of the plains. Lowland streams once used for swimming and valued habitats are now nutrient enriched, degraded by animal faecal matter, increased turbidity, and other contaminants.

The scheme will exacerbate rather than improve the impacts of current farming practices. It promotes unsustainable land and water use.

Land use intensification on the plains to date has depended largely on the choice individual landholders over time. By providing water to 60,000 ha. at once, the scheme would cause a dramatic surge in intensification and conversion to dairying, effluent spreading and similar uses The impacts of the associated surge in nutrient, microbial and sediment contaminants have not been adequately examined.

The Ritso Society’s Irrigation Sustainability Code of Practice is not part of the application, and has not been developed. There is no certainty that it will avoid, remedy or mitigate effects on water quality or achieve water efficiency. While fertiliser application may be controlled to reduce nitrate contamination, animal urine is a major source of nitrate contamination and this is unlikely to be able to be controlled effectively.

3.2.3 Effects on groundwater, lowland streams and Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere

The AEE predicts increased flows for most streams and rivers on the lower plains and increased inflows into Te Waihora. Any benefits this might for aquatic ecosystems is likely to be undermined by increased nitrate contamination. The net effects of increased flows and increased contamination need to be considered. The AEE indicates that the amount of nitrate leached to groundwater would at minimum be double current levels, assuming best practice contaminant reduction is used. This has severe consequences for human health, for drinking water and for effects of nitrate as a nutrient for periphyton and macrophyte growth in lowland streams and Te Waihora.

Forest and Bird is not confident that groundwater systems on the central plains are understood sufficiently to allow the applicant to be confident in its predictions that lowland stream flows will increase or the extent of such effects. Nor is modelling of nitrate contamination sophisticated enough to be certain that contamination levels will not exceed the predictions.

4. Section 6(a) Natural character of the coast, rivers, wetlands and their margins and wetlands

Each river has its own distinctive natural character which is related to water source, riverbed materials, gradient and topography, flow regime, water chemistry, and pH for example. Accordingly each river and the effects of the scheme on it need to be considered individually.

Natural flow variability is critical to sustaining the natural character and healthy functioning of the Waimakariri and Rakaia as braided rivers. Braided rivers are highly unstable, characterised by high spring-summer flows and rapid, frequent flooding. This instability and the constant change in the number and distribution of channels, braids, islands and bars is a fundamental part of the natural character of braided rivers. Indigenous riverbed plants, for example, rely on regular disturbance of the gravels through flood flows. Flood and flushing flows are critical to maintaining the health and natural functioning of the river.

The proposed takes combined with existing consents is likely to flat line the Waimakariri to the minimum flow of 41 cumecs for considerable periods, especially given the absence of a 1:1 flow sharing regime in the Waimakariri River Regional Plan. By taking 40 cumecs continuously for run of river irrigation during summer and filling the storage lake during winter (using A permit water in winter when Waimakariri Irrigation Ltd takes reduce) CPW would be flat lining the river. Flows in the Rakaia will also be flatlined close the minimum flow provided in the Rakaia Water Conservation Order (WCO).

Long periods of low or stable flows, especially in spring and summer, will destroy the rivers’ natural character, degrade ecosystem health, their ability to support the current abundance and diversity of indigenous species and the morphology and functioning of the river mouths. Reduced flows mean concentrations of pollutants are likely to be higher.

There is no certainty that the applicant would only take the “unused” amount when existing “A” water permit holders for the Waimakariri are not taking water. There is a high risk that both existing water permit holders and the applicant would take water at the same time (e.g. through equipment malfunction or several permit holders not ceasing takes at the correct time). The cumulative effects of actual takes and the proposed CPW take occurring together have not been examined. This could reduce the Waimakariri River below minimum flow; and in the Rakaia, breach the WCO. Nor is it clear where the applicant proposes to measure minimum flow.

The intake structures proposed gives the applicants a limited ability to control the amount of water abstracted, with the risk that in low flow conditions stretches of the rivers could be dry.

The extensive earthworks, blasting, rock protection, groynes and riverbed disturbance caused by construction and maintenance of intakes, river training works, diversion of braids towards the intake would degrade natural character and landscape values. Ongoing disturbance of the riverbed is likely to be required to maintain a flow to the intakes. The applicant seeks carte blanche to disturb the riverbeds and undertake earthworks over large areas. The sediment sluice, sand trap zones, river training and other works in the bed and along the margins of the rivers will destroy their natural character for several kilometres at each of the four intake locations

The intake sites are vulnerable to damage from dynamic river environments, including flood events and erosion. If the structures are damaged or destroyed by flood events machinery is likely to be active in the riverbed for longer periods and river “training” and “protection” works increased, further compromising natural character.

The application is likely to increase weed spread in the riverbeds. Earthmoving equipment can transport weeds and earthworks create the disturbed ground that weeds favour.

The poor water quality means in the Waianiwaniwa reservoir means it is unlikely to provide suitable habitat for indigenous wildlife, particularly birds and fish or encourage recreational use.

4.1 Effects of mixing waters

The scheme is likely to result in the mixing of waters from the Waimakariri, Rakaia and Selwyn River catchments, and possibly other waterways. For example, flows in the headrace canal, distribution network, and Waianiwaniwa reservoir would be sourced from both the Waimakariri and Rakaia rivers, by-wash from the distribution network will contain mixed waters, as will emergency discharges.

Mixing waters from different rivers has potentially significant biosecurity risks in promoting the spread of pest species such as didymo, aquatic weeds and pest fish.

Transferring water between and within catchments would change the natural character, ecological health and functioning of the waterbody into which water from another catchment is discharged, and could affect the abundance, diversity and distribution of species. For example, if glacial waters from the Waimakariri or Rakaia rivers enter Te Waihora via the Selwyn or any other waterway, this would change the proportions of freshwater and seawater in the lake. The lake environment and its habitat values depend on its current brackish character. The effects of water mixing have not been adequately assessed.

4.2 Wetlands

The canals and the reduction in flows are likely to affect riparian and coastal wetlands such as Brooklands Lagoon. The ecological and other impacts of this have not been assessed. Nor have the effects of discharge of surplus water and bywash from the races and emergency discharges to at least nine wetlands and ephemeral streams. The irregular nature of the discharges will not sustain the wetlands and sudden spilling of water may disrupt their natural functioning. There is no information on the objectives for wetland management, design of the bywash system, the quantity, quality and frequency of bywash discharges, or their effects at the specific locations.

5. Section 6(b) Outstanding natural features and landscapes

The Canterbury Regional Landscape Study (1993)[8] identified both the upper Rakaia and Waimakariri Basin and the lower rivers as outstanding natural features and landscapes. The AEE (s6.10.1) has very short description of the plains landscape but no description of the river corridor landscape or outstanding natural features such as Te Waihora. Again it is inadequate.

Reducing the mean flow of the Waimakariri by one third and the mean flow of the Rakaia by one fifth will have significant effects on the number and pattern of river braids, channels, and islands. The effects of this and of the scheme components (including river training works, headrace, canals , distribution structures and reservoir) on the landscape values of the river corridors, streams and Plains have not been assessed and are likely to be significant.

Waimakariri Gorge

The gorge is an outstanding natural feature valued by recreationalists, artists and the public. The riverbed works, blasting, and intake structures in the upper gorge and where the river emerges from the gorge will destroy its naturalness and degrade landscape and amenity values.

The Gorge Bridge is a significant scenic viewing point and a popular area for picnic and recreation because of the river’s spectacular natural character and the drama of the gorge. Constructing intake works here will destroy both natural character and amenity values while the canal will restrict public access to the river.

6. Section 6(c) Significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna

The indigenous plant communities of the Rakaia and Waimakariri riverbeds are significant for their scientific, ecological values and landscape values. The dynamic and unstable character of braided riverbeds contributes to a high diversity of plant species and growth form with different stages of primary succession occurring at the same time. Reduced and sustained low flows risk permanent changes to indigenous riverbed plant communities.

Braided rivers are nationally and internationally rare and provide a unique and significant habitat for indigenous wildlife. The Rakaia and Waimakariri represent two of the largest habitats for aquatic birds in New Zealand. Both rivers have outstanding habitat values with high species diversity, providing breeding, roosting and feeding habitat for more than 80 bird species (almost all of the indigenous bird species characteristic of braided rivers). Several threatened bird species occur, including black stilt, wrybill, black-fronted tern and the black-billed gull. The Waimakariri and Rakaia are major breeding habitat for two further endemics, the banded dotterel and South Island pied oystercatcher.

The Rakaia Water Conservation Order (1981) (WCO) recognised that the Rakaia River and its tributaries provide “outstanding wildlife habitat above and below the Rakaia Gorge, outstanding fisheries, and outstanding recreational, angling and jetboating features.”

Braided river birds require a diversity of shallow and deep-water habitats. Their behavioural adaptations to cope with variable flows include a rapid breeding cycle which starts early and the ability to re-nest quickly. By reducing the number , extent and depth of braids, the scheme would reduce suitable feeding habitat. The takes would also reduce the “moat effects” and number of riverbed islands. Research has shown higher breeding success on islands compared to other areas of riverbed where birds are vulnerable to the full suite of predators. Other potential effects include but are not limited to:

· decline in invertebrate food sources

· increased algal growth,

· build up of sediment during periods of prolonged low flow,

· increased weed spread reducing the clean, bare riverbed birds depend on for breeding and roosting.

increased competition
increased predation
increased 4WD drive and vehicle access over larger drier bed with consequent disturbance to wildlife, vegetation and natural character
changes in water temperature, and

· change in flow characteristics within remaining braids

Intake construction and operation and river training works may disturb areas used by birds. Since the Rakaia WCO was gazetted, the black fronted tern has become more vulnerable to extinction. The flows in the WCO and the Waimakariri River Regional Plan may be inadequate to help sustain these and other threatened species and need re-examination.

Both rivers are significant habitats for indigenous fish and aquatic invertebrates including threatened species such as long finned eel. Other affected waterways also provide significant native fish and aquatic invertebrate habitat. Reduced flows will reduce suitable fish and invertebrate habitat potentially reducing their viability and population health.

The intake structures, training and protection works and canals are likely to fragment and destroy areas of indigenous riverbed and riparian vegetation. Inadequate information makes any robust assessment of effects impossible.

Brooklands Lagoon provides extensive estuarine habitats and has high habitat values, particularly for birds. It and the Rakaia rivermouth are used by migratory waders, coastal and riverbed species.

The Waianiwaniwa reservoir site is the only known location in the world with an abundant stock of the Canterbury mudfish, a rare and endangered species. Its habitat will be destroyed by inundation and no mitigation is possible.

The proposed fish screens on the four intakes are larger than any previously constructed and their ability to exclude and divert fish with minimal mortality to injury is unproven. No information is provided on the fish species for which the screens are designed and whether they will safeguard indigenous fish. There is inadequate information on how fish are to be safely returned to the rivers given the long return channels, and the risk of drying out and predation within these. The scheme design requires an additional 2 cumecs to be abstracted for the fish screen and diversion system. The relative benefits of leaving the water instream have not been assessed.

Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere

The lake is an outstanding natural feature and landscape and a significant wildlife habitat. Te Waihora is internationally important for many migratory wading species which visit the lake and associated wetlands, the diversity and high proportion of bird species it supports and the many indigenous fish species it is habitat for. If the water table around the lake rises as a result of the scheme this may result in septic tank and other contamination on inflowing streams and the lake. Increased inflows may raise lake levels leading to pressure for more frequent openings of the lake to the sea. This will change the natural functioning of the lake. Increased freshwater may also change the ratio of freshwater/seawater in the lake affecting aquatic vegetation and invertebrates and the lake ecosystem.

7. Section 6(d) Maintenance and enhancement of public access

The 50 m wide canal and embankment corridor will obstruct public access to more than 30 kms of the Waimakariri River above and below the Gorge and more than 9 kms of the Rakaia. Both rivers are heavily used by the public.

Reduced and less variable flows reduce the ability of instream users to access, use and enjoy the rivers.

8. Section 7(b) The efficient use and development of natural resources

Historically easy access to water has not promoted efficient use or water conservation. Water has been wasted both in the way it is used and the purposes for which it is used. The scheme perpetuates this and emphasises reliability of supply at the expense on instream values and the natural environment.

The headrace and canals constructed across free draining gravels (e.g for around 50% of the headrace route) are an inefficient method transporting water because of the loss through seepage and evaporation. The AEE[9] assumes that between 5 m³/s – 7 m³/s will be lost within the distribution system. The scheme design which bywashs a large proportion of the water delivered on farm is wasteful. The AEE that more than 20% of the water entering the distribution system will not reach the farm boundary, which is extraordinarily wasteful.

The distribution system is inflexible, wasteful and inefficient in requiring farmers to take water (ordered three days previously), regardless of whether rain has fallen in the interim or water is needed[10]. This promotes over use and wastage of a valued resource.

Water is not allocated to the most sustainable or efficient land uses because it will be allocated on the basis of shares purchased, rather than to the land use with least environmental effects. The scheme perpetuates inefficient and wasteful water use.

Greater efficiency involves changing land management regimes to ones which better recognise the dryland farming environment and drought prone nature of the region. This could significantly reduce the agricultural sector’s demand for water. The intensification of dairying and other water demanding crops is not efficient water use given climatic conditions and likelihood of increasing drought.

9. Section 7(c) The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values

The Waimakariri is Canterbury’s most heavily used river for recreation. It and the Rakaia are nationally important recreational resources.

Natural river flows are a significant contribution to people’s recreational experience, eg walkers, fishers, kayakers, birdwatchers, picnickers and other users. By degrading natural character, reduced flows degrade amenity values and user’s recreational experience. Earthworks and riverbed disturbance for the intake structures and the canals themselves are likely to compromise those values over extensive areas.

The heavy machinery and major construction works proposed risks a significant noise and dust nuisance in the riverbed and on the plains. Maintenance of river training works and scheme structures would result in ongoing degradation of natural character and amenity values from noise.

The reservoir and canals are no compensation for the loss of amenity (including recreational values) associated with and derived from the natural rivers given the diverse activities which occur in the and close to the rivers. When reservoir levels drop from January to May the exposed dry bed (c 830 ha) of the reservoir is likely to create significant dust nuisance in windy conditions. The bed will be dry and dusty during peak summertime recreation period making the area unattractive for recreation. The Opuha dam has failed to provide the recreational amenities promised.

10. Section 7(d) Intrinsic values of ecosystems

The headrace allows the mixing of Waimakariri and Rakaia water and the seepage of Rakaia water into the Waimakariri groundwater and tributary streams. This destroys the integrity and intrinsic values of natural waters. Reduced and less variable flows and the decline in habitat quality and quantity would also degrades intrinsic values.

11. Section 7(f) Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment

The reservoir will degrade water quality in the Waianiwaniwa catchment Anoxic conditions in the Opuha reservoir from a failure to assess the effects of decaying vegetation (despite vegetation clearance before construction) have been an ongoing problem. Stratification is likely to lead to oxygen depletion at the lake bottom as has occurred at Opuha. Similar anoxic conditions in the bottom levels of the proposed reservoir are likely. Given its substantially larger size and depth than the Opuha reservoir, these are likely to be more severe because of lack of mixing.

Water quality in groundwater and lowland streams, and potentially the mainstem of the Rakaia and Waimakaririr downstream of the intakes is likely to be degraded.

12. Section 7(g) Any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources

Braided rivers , Te Waihora and other natural features are a finite resource. They cannot be replicated by humans. Significant ecological change is often irreversible. High quality potable artesian drinking water is a finite resource. Once polluted by nitrate nitrogen or other contaminants, groundwater can not be cleaned or replaced.

13. PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

13.1 The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.

The application is inconsistent with the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, in particularl Policies 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5 and 3.1.2, and 3.2.8. The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement is a relevant consideration for the Council because of the relationship between river flows and estuarine environments. Some bird species rely on both coastal and braided riverbed habitats.

13.2 Canterbury Regional Policy Statement

The application is contrary to provisions in the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement, in particular:

1) Chapter 8 Landscape, Ecology and Heritage - Objective 1 and Policy 1 (wetlands); Objective 2 and Policy 3 (natural features and landscapes); Objective 3 (Policy 4) (indigenous biodiversity) and Objective 4 Policy 5 (heritage);

2) Chapter 9 Water - Objective 1 and Policy 1 (water allocation), Policy 3 (water efficiency (Policy 4 (a) (natural state); Objective 2 and Policy 8, Objective 3 and Policy 9, Policy 10(a) and Policy 11.

3) Chapter 10 Beds of Rivers and Lakes and their Margins – Objective 1, Policy 1 , Policy 2.

4) Chapter 11 The Coastal Environment – Objective 1 and Policy 1.

For example, Forest and Bird submits that the Rakaia River is already supplying more water for human benefit through irrigation than can be done while safeguarding the matters set out in Chapter 9 Objective 1(a) to (h), not including the additional takes sought.

13.3 Natural Resources Regional Plan (NRRP)

The application is inconsistent with Plan Objectives, Policies and rules including but not limited to those in chapter 3 Air quality, chapter 4 Water quality, chapter 5 Water quantity, chapter 6 Beds and margins of lakes and rivers, chapter 7 wetlands and chapter 8 Soil Conservation.

13.4 Waimakariri River Regional Plan (WRRP)

The application is inconsistent with Plan objectives, policies and methods, including in the water quantity, water quality and river and lake beds sections of the plan, for example: objective 5.1, policies 5.1 and 5.2, objective 6.1, policy 6.1 and 6.2,objective 7.1, , policies 7.1 and 7.2.

The CPW scheme has potentially very severe effects on the Waimakariri River. While it may not reduce the river below the minimum flow provided for in the WRRP, the length of time for which the river is held at or close to 41 cumecs and the much less variable flows and the effects of this are inconsistent with objective 5.1 in particular. The inconsistency between the Plan objectives and its minimum flow regime (including the absence of flow sharing regime above the minimum) means the WRRP requires review. The WRRP fails to provide a similar level of protection to the Waimakariri as that afforded to the Rakaia by the WCO, despite the two rivers have outstanding landscape, wildlife habitat, natural character, intrinsic and amenity values.

The WRRP was one of the first regional plans prepared by Environment Canterbury. Despite being made operative in 2004, the document was largely developed in the 1990s with Council decisions in 2001. It precedes the NRRP, fails to provide adequately for Council’s statutory functions under the RMA as amended, including section 30(ga) the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity, and predates the upsurge in demand for water. The WRRP does not consider the effects of a single take of 40 cumecs (as opposed to several smaller totalling 40 cumec). The Plan is overdue for review. The Government’s Sustainable Water Programme of Action is likely to result in significant policy changes which will date the plan even more.

13.5 Selwyn District Plan

The application is inconsistent with Plan objectives, policies, methods and anticipated environmental results.

13.6 Canterbury Conservation Management Strategy

The application gives inadequate consideration to the provisions of the Department of Conservation’s Conservation Management Strategy in particular,section 4.6 Key Priorities, Objectives and methods for the Plains place unit, section 4.7 Key Priorities, Objectives and methods for the Waimakariri place unit, section 4.8 the Key Priorities, Objectives and methods for the Rangitata place unit, section 5.2.2 Landscape, section 5.2.4 Freshwater ecosystems and section 5.2.6 Indigenous species, and section 5.2.8 Animal pests and wild animals.

13.7 Te Waihora Joint Management Plan/Mahere Tukutahi o Te Waihora

The application fails to consider the plan. It is inconsistent with many Plan objectives and policies; in particular those in chapters 3, Landforms and landscapes, 4 Wildlife habitat and biodiversity, 6 Recreational use and public access, 7 Commercial and other activities and 8, Community relations.

13.8 Rakaia Water Conservation Order (WCO)

The Rakaia River Water Conservation Order (1981) recognises that the Rakaia River and its tributaries include and provide for “an outstanding natural characteristic in the form of a braided river.” The application would not sustain those characteristics.

Hearings on and the gazettal of the Rakaia WCO did not contemplate that a number of takes would be co-ordinated so that all of the water available for allocation would be taken continuously. The application has cumulative effects which breach the WCO.

14. STATUS OF THE ACTIVITY

The AEE assesses the application as a discretionary activity. The AEE (section 10), however, has not analysed the rules in the Natural Resources Regional Plan to determine the status of all of the activities encompassed by the scheme and whether some are non- complying. Council needs to undertake such an analysis or require the applicant to provide it.

In relation to the proposed Waimakariri River takes, the rules in the WRRO have not been adequately analysed. Performance standard (a) of Rule 5.1 of the WRRP, for example, requires that “fish shall be prevented from entering intakes” for the activity to be discretionary. There is no certainty that the proposed fish screens will prevent fish entering the headrace and distribution system. Accordingly, the take is potentially a non-complying activity.

Even as a discretionary activity the application must be assessed in the context of all of the objectives and policies of the relevant plan documents, and not just (for the Waimakariri takes for example) against the minimum flow rule in the Waimakariri River Regional Plan.

15. OTHER MATTERS

15. Consultation

The AEE asserts that there has been considerable community consultation and that CPW technical representatives sought to mitigate community concerns. From Forest and Bird’s perspective this is incorrect. The CPW consultation process was characterised by a failure to provide substantive information about the scheme and its impacts, an unwillingness to undertake ecological and other impact assessments seen as fundamental to any assessment of the scheme and a refusal to provide technical reports and studies (if they exist) on which the AEE is based. There has been a failure to consult in terms of best practice and the case law definitions of consultation.

15.2 Sustainable Water Programme of Action

The scheme is inconsistent with the guiding principles for the Government’s Sustainable Water Programme of Action (SWPOA). For example, one principle is that: “water will continue to be managed as a public resource”. Yet CPW will effectively privatise the use of 80 cumecs of water

A second principle is that “nationally outstanding natural water bodies will be identified and better protected.” The Rakaia, Waimakariri and Te Waihora are all nationally outstanding water bodies and are harmed not protected by the scheme.

A third is that: “community involvement and confidence in decision-making processes will be maximised, building on the opportunities for participation in the regional planning process.” CPW’s “consultation” has been token. Both the Trust and the company have failed to provide substantive information when requested by community organisations and individuals. They have failed to undertake basic ecological research.

16. Decisions sought from Council

Forest and Bird requests that Environment Canterbury:

a) immediately decline the application for an intake on the south bank of the Rakaia River and all other elements of the Ashburton Community Water Trust scheme. Advise the ACWT that it should lodge a new and separate application and submit an AEE which complies with the RMA.

b) put the Central Plains Water applications on hold while Council seeks further information from the applicants under section 92 of the RM Act on the issues highlighted in section 2 of this submission and other submissions, including the methods , data sources and analyses used to support its conclusions on river flow regimes and river aquatic ecosystems.

c) commission an agency with appropriate expertise such as NIWA or Cawthron to audit the AEE and undertake a gaps assessment. Marlborough District Council usefully did this with Trustpower’s Wairau River consent application and could advise on its value. Request further information from the applicants based on this audit and gaps assessment. Provide this and the results of all further information requested under s92 to submitters at least eight months before any hearing so that the material can be reviewed.

d) decline consent to all the applications for the Central Plains Water scheme.

e) initiate a review of the Waimakariri River Regional Plan, including to better implement Council’s statutory functions under s30 RMA and promote integrated management.

17. Hearing

Forest and Bird wishes to be heard in support of this submission and would consider presenting a joint case with submitters raising similar issues.

Local authorities have a statutory duty (under s102 and s103 RMA) to jointly hear and consider any application for a resource consent in respect of the same proposal, even if the applicant does not believe a joint hearing should be held. (Canterbury RC Re an application C013/94, 3 NZPTD 155). Despite Selwyn District Council not having yet notified the land use consents and designation, Forest and Bird believes Environment Canterbury and Selwyn District Council should hear the application jointly. The applicant cannot use any water for its scheme without the land use consents to construct the headrace, canals and distribution races. Any suggestion that the land use elements of the scheme are not related to the water takes and uses is ridiculous.

Having separate hearings would be inefficient use of Council resources, confuse the public and would not promote integrated management. Given the scheme’s complexity, its extensive impacts, and the large number of submitters, Council should clearly structure the process from here and advise submitters. It should consider organising part of the hearing timetable to focus on different aspects of the proposal, and having hearings in Christchurch, and close to Coalgate.

Eugenie Sage

South Island Field Co-ordinator

Address for service

Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society

PO Box 2516

Christchurch Mail Centre

Christchurch.

e.sage@forestandbird.org.nz

ph (03) 3666 317

fax (03) 365 0788

[1] Meredith A.S (June 1997) “Environmental effects of the failure of the Opuha Dam Canterburyr Regional Council Technical Series Report R97-

[6] Ministry for the Environment (1997) “Reducing the impacts of agricultural un-off on water quality.” MFE, Wellington

[7] Ford R and Taylor K (2006) “Managing Nitrate Leaching to Groundwater: An Emerging Issue for Canterbury referring to Bolton-Ritchie. L. (2006) Coastal water quality:Lake Ellesmere/Te Waihora to the Waitaki River mouth. Environment Canterbury Technical Report (in pre.).

[8] Boffa Miskell and Lucas Associated (Oct 1993) “Canterbury Regional Landscape Study” Vol. 2. Prepared for Canterbury Regional Council.