To: Environment
and Planning Manager, Selwyn District Council
From: Royal
Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc.
(Central Office)
Submission in opposition to applications by Central
Plains Water for land use consents for the construction and use of pipelines,
canals and other structures and works for the scheme
Location: Between the Waimakairiri River and Rakaia
Rivers, in the beds of the rivers, and various sites listed in applications.
Application numbers: Land use consents R065214 to
R065219 inclusive
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 32,000 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.”
The submission is:
This submission is on behalf
of the Central Office of the Society. The submission relates to all of the land
use consent applications. Forest and Bird opposes all of the applications. The reasons for the submission are set out
below.
The construction and
operation of the intakes, associated river training works, bed disturbance and
changes to the river beds, canals and races, and the construction and operation
of the scheme and consequent land use intensification would have significant
adverse effects on natural character, landscape, vegetation cover, ecological,
intrinsic, recreational and amenity values, water quality and the ecology of
the river mouths. The scheme does not
promote sustainable management.
Alternative sites and methods
have not been adequately considered. These include improving the efficiency of
existing water use. such as, improving the efficiency of existing i stock water
race and open canal distribution systems (e.g. through piping), improving the
efficiency of irrigation systems, and researching and promoting land uses with
a low water demand, and promoting small scale on-farm water harvesting and
storage. All these would either help “free up” existing water so it could be
re-allocated to other users or restored to over allocated aquifers and
rivers.
The assessment of
alternatives is insubstantial and lacks serious intent.
2. Inadequate information
2.1 Failure
to integrate information
The applicant’s failure to
integrate explanatory material and technical reports into one coherent AEE
which summarises and clearly describes the proposal and its effects, and
references supporting technical information makes it difficult for submitters
to understand, analyse and comment on the applications. The applicant’s ad hoc
commissioning of technical reports (generally with a narrow brief), and
spasmodic release of these (including after submissions have closed [1])
appears designed to obscure potential effects and obstruct informed public
submissions and consideration by the consent authorities.
2.2 AEE
inadequate
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. This unnecessarily burdens consent
authorities and submitters with having to investigate and assess these.
The effects assessment does not
reflect the scale, significance or complexity of the proposal. There is little
or no original investigation or research which seeks to understand or evaluate
the scheme’s impacts on the river ecosystems, landscapes 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 land use impacts.
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 difficult to undertake a meaningful scientific review of the
effects of scheme.
The applications rely on yet
to be prepared management plans to address adverse effects such as land
rehabilitation and restoration, dust, and significant natural areas. This means the consent authority and submitters
cannot consider how effects are to be avoided, remedied or mitigated and there
is no certainty that the plans will be adequate. The fact that the requiring authority may at
any time submit an amendment to the Plans to the Council increases the uncertainty.
Forest and Bird supports the
Selwyn District Council’s s92 request for further information [2]
and the inadequacies in the AEE identified by consultants to Council. The
information subsequently provided, particularly on potential ecological, landscape
and recreational effects remains inadequate.
There is inadequate information on many matters, and
measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate such effects, including the following:
2.3 Natural
character 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 fully described. Without a comprehensive assessment of the
Plains landscape and the natural character of the rivers and Wainiwaniwa
valley, the scheme’s effects (including of canals, races and earthworks) cannot
be assessed.
The nature and extent of the
earthworks and disturbance in the beds and margins including river terraces to
construct and maintain the intakes and river training works, crossing points
and siphons 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 identified and mapped.
The potential for increased
weed spread from disturbance in the riverbeds and earthworks and construction
machinery providing a mechanism for spread is not examined.
The canals cross several
streams and rivers and potentially obstruct natural flows and 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 streambeds. The
values of these streams and the crossing sites, and the nature, extent, and
effects of the associated earthworks and disturbance are not described.
The proposal to do “detailed investigation of the local instream
habitat conditions at each of the proposed crossing locations to determine if
any significant or sensitive habitats…. exist in the area prior to any construction
activities occurring”[3]
is opposed as being too late. This information is needed as part of the
designation process to assess effects. There is no certainty that significant
habitats will be protected.
For a project of this size
and scale comprehensive field surveys are needed of all affected waterways to
describe their habitat values and aquatic fauna present, with more detail for
affected reaches. This is needed to assess the significance of affected reaches
in the context of each river as a whole and of other lowland rivers and streams
in the Ecological District and Region.
Forest and Bird highlighted the need for such ecological investigations
repeatedly in 2000-2001 meetings. The Kingett Mitchell report on instream
habitat[4]
simply describes examples of each of four main generic aquatic habitats, and
provides little substantive information on the affected waterways. There is
little or no information on aquatic fauna, and no context. The habitat
modelling approach used is simplistic and understates the values of the
affected waterways for indigenous species.
The 38 kms of hillstream
habitat that will be destroyed by reservoir construction are not described
(e.g. through field surveys and other research which characterise affected
streams and/or stream reaches, their habitat values, describe the fauna
present, and assess their significance as aquatic habitat). Accordingly, the
effects of their inundation cannot be assessed.
The claims that the canals
will provide similar habitat to the RDR canals and stock water races are not
substantiated or given any context by an actual surveys or descriptions of the
habitat and species present in the canals (based on field surveys) or any
assessment of the value of the canal habitat, relative to natural waterways in
the Ecological District.
Significant natural features
such as geopreservation sites and effects on them have not been identified or
assessed.
2.4 Terrestrial
habitat values and effects
The intakes, headworks,
canals, reservoir, siphons, roads and other scheme infrastructure involve
extensive vegetation clearance and earthworks yet there is no description or
mapping of the affected indigenous vegetation and habitats, or assessment of
their ecological significance in the context of the ecological district,
ecological region or land environment.
The comprehensive destruction
of indigenous vegetation and habitats on the Canterbury Plains means that even
small indigenous vegetation remnants and single trees can be significant in
terms of s6(c) RMA because of their rarity. Existing ecological information is
limited for parts of the scheme area, e.g. no PNA surveys have been done of the
Waianiwaniwa Valley to identify indigenous remnant vegetation here,
A thorough ecological
assessment (including botanical and wildlife surveys) is required of all areas
within the scheme footprint, including areas directly affected by scheme
infrastructure. A similar assessment is needed of lands likely to be affected
by intensification and changes in vegetation cover. Such assessments should
survey, describe, map the indigenous vegetation present; survey, describe, map
and assess indigenous wildlife habitats; assess the significance of vegetation
and habitats in the context of the ecological district; describe and quantify
the scheme’s effects; and outline mitigation measures. Mixed indigenous
shrublands on the terrace risers of the Waimakariri, Selwyn and Rakaia Rivers
have potentially significant indigenous vegetation, for example.
A faunal assessment of
indigenous habitat remnants and associated areas is required given that
indigenous invertebrates, lizards, and birds are likely to be present. Such an assessment should include riparian
and riverbed areas.
The Kingett Mitchell report
on terrestrial ecology [5] is
a superficial assessment with no field component. It which does not provide an
appropriate ecological context or framework.
The proposal to survey canal
routes and other areas within the scheme footprint before or during
construction is opposed as postponing collection of information on potential
effects which is needed as part of the consent and designation process. There
are likely to be many ecological values within the footprint area that have not
been identified that will be affected, such as along the river terrace risers.
2.5 Landscape
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, and an
assessment of the scheme’s effects on these. Again it is inadequate.
2.6 Sediment
The banks of the Waimakariri
and Rakaia rivers are steep in places. Here and on stream 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.
2.7 Gravel
and spoil
Gravel is required for
construction works, e.g. lining of canals and the core of the dam. The values of the source sites (e.g.
Waimakariri and Wainiwaniwa), the quantities required and the impacts of
extraction on gravel replenishment and river functioning, the values at these
sites, the impacts of extraction on other species and the landscape impacts of
large gravel dumps at construction 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.
The NOR notes that further
consents may be required from ECAN to take filter sand and gravel from the
Waimakariri River[6] . These
effects should be considered as part of these applications given the scale of
the scheme and the volumes of material likely to be required and needing on
site storage.
The effects of large 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 adequately assessed. These include landscape
impacts, and potential for sediment contaminated run-off.
2.8 Energy
demand
The assessment of effects[7]
has not calculated the energy demand of the scheme as a whole for moving and
pumping water, including the estimated power demand of individual landholders
to irrigate land. Dairying has caused a major increase in power demand which
has consequent adverse effects on the natural character of rivers, lakes, landscapes
from new proposed new hydro, wind, and thermal generation proposals (e.g.
Meridian’s proposed North Bank scheme on the Waitaki, various proposals on the
Stour, Ashburton and Hurunui Rivers, and Trustpower’s proposed hydro schemes
for the Wairau River). Increased energy demand is a clearly foreseeable direct
effect of this scheme and contributes to it not promoting sustainable
management.
Nor has the applicant
calculated or assessed the energy required for transporting and processing milk
generated by increased dairy production which scheme would promote. Milk often
has to be transported long distances for processing. Conversion of milk into
milk powder is enormously energy intensive.
2.9
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.
Cattle, sheep and other
domestic stock are the major single source of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas
emissions (producing about 40 percent of New Zealand’s total greenhouse gases,
principally methane in 1998) . Agricultural land use also produces nitrous
oxides. By increasing the number of farmed animals over the more than 60,000
ha. the scheme will increase emissions contributing to climate change and
obstruct New Zealand’s achievement of the Kyoto Protocol targets. This has not been calculated or assessed.
2.10 Economic
uses associated with rivers and natural landscapes
Non extractive use of the
rivers, riverbeds and lands around them generate substantial economic benefits
(e.g. through tourism, recreational outfitting, adventure events such as the
Coast-to Coast). The intake structures, riverbed disturbance and canal and
water race networks 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 would be substantial if
groundwater is compromised by the land use intensification).
The net present value of
these ecosystem services or how they will be affected has not been assessed.
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.
2.11 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. 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 are not
described. Nor is their any information on the contribution such uses make to
the regional economy (e.g. recreational outfitting, as part of the domestic
tourism sector).
The extent to which public
access to streams and rivers in the scheme area is reduced is not assessed.
2.12 Land use
effects on lowland streams and Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere
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)[8]
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.
2.13 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. South Bank
Rakaia part of scheme
The scheme involves either an
intake on the south bank of the Rakaia River for proposed abstraction by the
Ashburton Community Water Trust (ACWT) scheme or sharing the water from the
north bank intake between CPW and ACWT [9]. Water permits for the south bank intake have
been sought as part of CPW’s applications to Environment Canterbury.
No information is publicly
available on the infrastructure proposed to carry and distribute the south bank
water, or where or how it is proposed to be used. No land use consent applications or
designation application have been notified by Ashburton District Council. A new headrace and 50-60 m wide canal system
on lands south of the Rakaia would have significant adverse effects. It is good practice for all consent and
related applications for a project to be heard together. Unless the proposed
ACWT takes are severed from CPW’s applications to Environment Canterbury,
hearings on the CPW proposal should be delayed until the Rakaia south bank part
of the scheme has “caught up” with a full AEE, and notification of and public
submissions on the additional consents and designations sought.
Part II Resource Management
Act
4. Section 5 - Sustaining the potential of natural
resources
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.
The applications do 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, of the rivers, the reduction in habitat quality and its extent, and
the severe potential effects on ecological, landscape, amenity and intrinsic
values.
The applications do not allow
many people and many parts of the community to provide for their social,
economic and community wellbeing because of the extensive and unsustainable
land use intensification which the scheme will cause.
The Ritso Society’s Code of
Practice appears intended to promote emissions trading [10]which
suggests that the scheme will enable contaminant discharges through payment to
CPW Ltd or the Trust. This together with
the CPW Trust’s lack of independence 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.
4.1 Section
5(2)(c) Avoiding remedying and mitigating adverse effects
The applications do not
adequately avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of the 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 (e.g. dairying) which are driving the scheme are not adequately
examined.
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.
4.2 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.”[11]
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, well beyond the Central
Plains area.
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 canals and races would
cause a dramatic surge in intensification and conversion to dairying, effluent
spreading, stock access to waterways, damage to riparian vegetation and
margins, and soil compaction. 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 applications, and
is not publicly available. There is no certainty that it will avoid, remedy or
mitigate effects on water quality or achieve water efficiency, or restrict
stock access to waterways, or avoid soil erosion, or that if developed it will
be enforced. While fertiliser application may be controlled to reduce nitrate
contamination, animal urine is a major source of nitrate contamination. No
measures are proposed to avoid , remedy or mitigate these effects.
5. Section 6(a) Natural
character of the coast, lakes, rivers, wetlands and their margins
The extensive earthworks,
blasting, rock protection, groynes and riverbed disturbance caused by
construction and maintenance of intakes, canals, river crossing and training
works 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
kilometres at each of the four intake locations.
5.1 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.
5.2 Wetlands
The effects of discharge of
surplus water and bywash from the races and emergency discharges to at least
nine wetlands and ephemeral streams have not been assessed. 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.
The flooding of a flax
wetland and other indigenous vegetation in the Waianiwaniwa valley is a
significant impact.
6. Section 6(b) Outstanding
natural features and landscapes
The Canterbury Regional
Landscape Study (1993)[12]
identified both the upper Rakaia and Waimakariri Basin and the lower rivers as
outstanding natural features and landscapes.
The scale of the works
proposed would dominate the existing natural landscape with obvious human
structures.
The 50-60 m wide cleared
corridor for the headrace and canals and their embankments where all vegetation
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.
The Waimakariri 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 will destroy these values, while the canal
will restrict public access to the river.
The river terraces and their
risers on the Waimakariri and Rakaia Rivers are outstanding natural features
and part of an outstanding landscape. They have taken thousands of years to
form and are physical evidence of the river’s history, fluvial processes and
their influence on the landscape.
Carving a 50-60 m wide canal (including embankments from which all
vegetation is cleared) across the terrace faces would cause major permanent
scarring visible for kilometres. The
infrastructure would affect both the integrity of the terraces and people’s
enjoyment of them.
The 400 km of canals will
have major landscape impacts and are inconsistent with the scale and intimate
character of the Malvern Hills and plains landscape.
7. 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. The intake structures, training and protection works and canals are
likely to fragment and destroy areas of indigenous riverbed and riparian
vegetation and habitat. Inadequate information makes any robust assessment of
effects impossible.
The lack of information
provided by the applicant on both terrestrial and aquatic ecological values
means any claims that effects are minor are unsubstantiated.
The
applicant’s attempt to understate the significant of remnant indigenous
biodiversity on the Plains[13]
by emphasising the extent of modification rather than the value of what remains
ignores basic principles of ecological assessment.
Significant indigenous
vegetation and habitats will be destroyed and degraded by the scheme.
Construction works and access
roads may increase access by 4WD vehicles onto the Waimakariri and Rakaia
riverbed with consequent disturbance to wildlife including crushing of eggs and
nests
7.1 Land
rehabilitation and replanting
Given that the applicant has
failed to identify, describe, map or assess
any indigenous vegetation and habitats, it is unlikely that any future
Significant Indigenous Vegetation Plan or Land Rehabilitation Plan would
recognise and provide for their protection or that mitigation measures would be
appropriate or adequate.
The canals cannot enhance
indigenous biodiversity on the plains because they would not provide
appropriate habitat. The embankments would simply be grassed. No indigenous
plantings are proposed because this would compromise their “watertightness”.
The planting scheme around the reservoir appear predominantly exotic though
what is proposed is unclear.
8. Section 6(d) Maintenance
and enhancement of public access
The applicant only proposes to provide alternative access where the
construction works[14],
rather than the scheme itself (e.g. permanent canals) restricts access to a
river. The “as near as practicable to the existing access points” further
qualifies this.
Unformed legal roads are an
important resource for present and future generations in providing public
access. Their proposed use as routes for canals and other infrastructure
destroys their ability to be part of a transport or recreational network for
walking, cycling or mountainbiking. The
effects of this are not assessed and no mitigation measures are proposed.
The construction works will
potentially affect public safety (because of heavy machinery) resulting in the
public being denied access for several years and potentially permanently to
areas of river bed and parts of the scheme works.
9. 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 of
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[15]
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 notes 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[16].
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.
10. 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, e.g. walkers,
fishers, kayakers, birdwatchers, picnickers and other users. Reduced flows, the concrete intake
structures, diversionary works and groynes by degrading natural character,
impact on the recreational experience of users over extensive areas.
The heavy machinery and major
construction works proposed risk a significant noise and dust nuisance.
Maintenance of river training works and scheme structures, and noise from
pumping stations would result in ongoing degradation of natural character and
amenity values.
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 NOR notes that access
will be limited during December to August irrigation season. The Opuha dam has
failed to provide the recreational amenities promised.
There is no commitment to
establish any additional recreational amenities or facilities as mitigation,
rather a reliance on others to do this if they choose. This is not mitigation.
The claimed opportunities are
overstated. Other irrigation schemes actively discourage swimming in canals for
example.
11. Section
7(d) Intrinsic values of ecosystems
The scheme does not protect
the intrinsic values of the rivers, wetlands, shrublands aquatic or terrestrial
habitats and ecosystems.
12. Section
7(f) Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment
The canals and races and
large irrigators will degrade the current landscape and result in loss of
shelterbelts and other vegetation which contributes to landscape and ecological
diversity.
13. 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.
14. PLANNING
INSTRUMENTS
14.1 The New
Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
The applications are
inconsistent with the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, in particular
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.
14.2 Canterbury
Regional Policy Statement
The applications are 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.
14.3 Natural
Resources Regional Plan (NRRP)
The applications are
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.
14.4 Selwyn
District Plan
The applications are
inconsistent with Plan objectives, policies, methods and anticipated environmental
results, including Volume 2 Rural Parts 1 Natural Resources, 2. Physical
Resources, and 3 People’s Health Safety and Values.
14.5 Canterbury
Conservation Management Strategy
The
applications give 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.
14.6 Te
Waihora Joint Management Plan/Mahere Tukutahi o Te Waihora
The
applications fail 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.
15. OTHER
MATTERS
15.1 Lack of
consultation
The AEE and the NOR[17]
assert 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. Recommendations and
decisions sought from Council
Forest and Bird requests that
Selwyn District Council:
a) decline the applications under s92A(3) RMA because it
considers it has insufficient information to enable it to determine the
applications, given the limited further information provided in response to
Council’s August 2006 s92 request.
b) if it does not decline the applications under s92A(3)
make further requests for information under section 92 of the RM Act on the
issues highlighted in section in this submission (particularly section 2) and
other submissions.
c) Ensure that this information is provided to submitters
at least three months before any hearing.
d) Decline the applications.
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.
Given the scheme’s
complexity, its extensive impacts, and the large number of submitters, the
Councils should clearly structure the process from here (e.g. by requiring applicant to circulate
evidence in advance and to provide and adhere to a witness timetable, and/or
focusing hearing weeks on particular topics). It should consider organising
part of the hearing timetable to focus on different aspects of the proposal,
and having hearings in both Christchurch, and close to Coalgate.
Eugenie Sage
South Island Field
Co-ordinator
On behalf of Royal Forest and
Bird Protection Society Inc.
28 January 2007
Address for service
Regional office
Royal Forest and Bird
Protection Society
PO Box 2516
Christchurch Mail Centre
Christchurch.
ph (03) 3666 317
fax (03) 365 0788
[1] E.g.
Kingett Mitchell, (September 2006) CPW Enhancement Scheme: Effects of
Construction, Damming, Diversion and Water Use on Terrestrial Ecology and Effects of Construction Damming,
Diversion and Water Use on Instream Habitat.
[2] Boyes N
(August 2006) Notice of Requirement and Six Applications for Resource Consent –
Selwyn District Council Request for Further Information, and Letter Paul Rogers to Rachel Dunningham
25 August 2006.
[3] Kingett
Mitchell (Sept 2006) Intsream Habitat p 46.
[4] Kingett
Mitchell (Sept 2006) CPW Enhancement Scheme Effects of construction, damming
and diversion and water use on instream habitat.
[5] Kingett
Mitchell (Sept 2006) CPW Enhancement Scheme Effects of construction, damming
and diversion and water use on terrestrial ecology.
[6] Urbis (June 2006) Notice of Requirement, Ref 171001 p 48
[7] Urbis (June 2006) Notice of Requirement, Ref 171001 p 59 & following
[8] AEE 2006
s6.3.7
[9] Urbis (June 2006) Notice of Requirement, Ref 171001 NOR, section 4.2 Water Takes p 17
[10] AEE 2005,
s9.2.3
[11] Ministry
for the Environment (1997) “Reducing the
impacts of agricultural un-off on water quality.” MFE, Wellington
[12] Boffa
Miskell and Lucas Associated (Oct 1993) “Canterbury Regional Landscape Study”
Vol. 2. Prepared for Canterbury Regional Council.
[13] Kingett
Mitchell, (Sept 2006) Terrestrial ecology
[14] Urbis (June 2006) Notice of Requirement, Ref 171001 p 7.
[15] AEE 2006
p3.-28, 3-75, 3-76 and8-23.
[16] AEE 2005 s
3.14.6
[17] Urbis (June 2006) Notice of Requirement, Ref 171001 NOR, section 7 Consultation.
[17] AEE 2005,
s9.2.3