Submission on a Public Notice of
Requirement and land use consents for Central Plains Water Irrigation scheme –
proposed Selwyn District Plan
Resource Management Act 1991
Selwyn District Council
Private Bag 1
Leeston
Name of Submitter: The
Malvern Hills Protection Society Inc.
This
submission is in relation to:
Land use consents in relation to the
water distribution race network for the construction, use and maintenance of
pipelines, open channels or waterways to convey water. Land use consents for the construction, use
and maintenance of utility buildings and structures along and adjacent to the
routes of the water distribution network.
Six land use consents have been applied for, each covering a different
geographical area of the Central Plains, as identified below:
RO65219
– Windwhistle
RO65218
– Te Pirita
RO65217
– Springfield
RO65216
– Sheffield
RO65215
– Darfield
RO65214
– Central
Notice of Requirement for a Designation
of land for the Central Plains Water irrigation Scheme
Introduction
The Malvern Hills Protection Society Inc. (MHPS) aims to support, protect and enhance the environmental, social and historical values of the Malvern Hills Region. The Society believes that the unique ecological and environmental values of the Malvern Hills area need to be promoted and protected for the health, enjoyment and well-being of future generations.
The Society represents some of the residents and landowners most seriously affected by the Central Plains Water (CPW) irrigation scheme. Our membership includes residents of: Kowai Bush, Springfield, Sheffield, Waddington, Homebush, Coalgate, Waianiwaniwa Valley, Wairiri Valley, Glentunnel, Whitecliffs, Hororata, Windwhistle, Glenroy, Darfield and the wider Community including Christchurch.
The Society is making this submission because the scheme is inconsistent with the objects and aims of the Society. The scheme will have an adverse effect on the Malvern Hills Area, which the Society strives to protect from inappropriate development. Accordingly, the Society opposes the proposed CPW irrigation scheme in its entirety.
This submission should be read in conjunction with the attached Malvern Hills Protection Society Inc. submission to the applications lodged by Central Plains Water Trust and jointly Central Plains Water Trust and Ashburton Community Water Trust to Environment Canterbury.
The Society`s opposes the above applications for the following reasons:
Designation Process
The Society objects to the use of the designation process by the applicant. Central Plains Water Limited is a shareholder owned company. The right to purchase the water transported, stored and sold, by the company being limited to its shareholders. That is, the public has no right or opportunity to access the services of the company, without becoming a shareholder. Therefore the company should not have the privilege of using the designation process.
Section 171c (is the work and designation is reasonably
necessary)
The applicant must demonstrate the reasonable need for the project and the reasonable need to use designation as a planning tool. The MHPS considers that CPW has failed in both of these requirements.
While the Society acknowledges that water is necessary for successful agriculture, and that periods of drought are detrimental to production, the scheme is predicated on “land transformation” rather than “drought alleviation”. The society can find no evidence provided by the applicant that the scheme applied for demonstrates any more reasonable need than the alternatives of a drought protection scheme or the status quo.
Inadequate explanation has been given as to why the designation process is required. The applicant has repeatedly publicly stated that all land purchases will be by fair and open negotiation and that use of the public works act would be as a last resort. The Society considers that the aims of CPW could be achieved through the more normal Resource Consent process.
Section 167(4) (b) “give proper regard to the
interests of those affected and to the interests of the environment”
The Society believes that as a requiring authority the applicant has failed to “give proper regard to the interests of those affected and to the interests of the environment” as required under of the RMA.
Consultation with affected landowners and Communities has been inadequate. Consideration of the need for businesses and families to continue to function has been deficient. The entire process has been divisive for our Community, pitting families, friends and neighbours against each other. Questions asked of the applicant have not been answered adequately or in many instances, not answered at all.
The Society is concerned that CPW appears to treat the environment as something to be used and traded off against the financial gain of its shareholders. We consider that evidence of regard for the intrinsic value of the environment has been scant to non-existent. The publicly expressed view that any water in the rivers that reaches the sea is “wasted” is indicative of the applicant’s lack of regard for the environment.
Section 171b (Failure to
properly consider alternatives)
CPW’s restriction of the scope of investigation of alternatives to other large storage sites is too narrow. Alternatives that could have been considered include demand reduction and management, drought proofing (as opposed to land transformation) and on-farm storage, all of which are practised economically in other areas.
Use of the designation
process (Summary)
The Society considers it unacceptable that CPWL would use the designations process as a matter of first choice, rather than a matter of last resort after full consultation, discussion and negotiation with landowners has occurred. The designations process is not a reasonable tool to use against landowners, residents and ratepayers of the Selwyn District to acquire land for the proposed irrigation scheme, which will primarily benefit CPW shareholders. Accordingly the Society requests that the notice of requirement be withdrawn immediately.
Insufficient information
The description of the land subject to the Notice of requirement, the
nature of the activities and the location of the works proposed are not defined
at a level that allows submitters to assess the nature and intensity of likely
effects on the environment and on their properties. From the information
provided in the AEE, affected landowners have found it difficult to assess the
nature and level of likely impacts on their properties.
Of particular concern to the MHPS is the confusion created by the
presentation of conflicting information and different options. Information
crucial to an understanding of the likely effects of the scheme is left out by
using terms such as “left to the design
phase” and covered by the “sustainable
code of practice” (Notice of Requirement, June 2006). For example in the
Transport statement (URS 26th October 2006), it says that
“…. there are numerous single
lane bridges required for access to farms and recreational facilities. The
locations of these will be decided in consultation with affected land owners
and interest groups during detailed design”.
The MHPS considers this level of information inadequate as the location
and design of these, and other structures, will have a major bearing on the
impact of the scheme for individual landowners and other affected groups.
It is also unclear who will be responsible for the ongoing maintenance
of and liability for these bridges. Landowners should not be liable if these
bridges and/or water races on their property collapse or fail in any way.
The Transport statement (URS 26th October 2006) also fails to
outline what effects there will be on public access to all the riverbeds of
affected by construction within the scheme area.
The MHPS reserves the right to comment or submit on any new information
provided by CPW, after the closing of submissions date.
The application provides no information regarding the effects of the proposed ACWT scheme 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 or discharged and the effects of this and its relationship to the north bank intake.
Economics
The MHPS is extremely concerned that the economic benefits of the scheme appear to be overstated. The reports presented by CPW are based on a number of assumptions which are not clearly stated and could be contentious. It is critical to any fair economic assessment of the scheme that the benefits claimed are based on sound assumptions, which should be reasonably considered valid for at least the next 30 years.
Increased economic activity is not in itself a positive outcome of the scheme if there is no need for the increased activity or if the Community or the environment is detrimentally affected. The MHPS does not consider that such a need has been demonstrated; in fact the reverse appears to be the case. The Selwyn District Council is struggling to provide the infrastructure necessary for the current level of economic growth. Further increasing economic growth will only exacerbate this problem.
The flooding of the valley will remove productive farmland and approximately 12- 14,000 stock units from the local area, which will have an immediate negative impact locally. The increased production down on the plains will not be a compensation for the loss of this productive land.
There is inadequate assessment of the economic costs and benefits of the proposed scheme and the Society requests that the following independent analyses are provided:
· A Cost Benefit Analysis
· A Financial Analysis
· An Assessment of Net Cost Implications
· An Economic Impact Analysis
· A report explaining how the balance of social/environmental/economic costs and benefits has been achieved
The economic information the applicant has provided to the public is scant, dated and incomplete. The Society has been unable to secure a copy of the Donnelly report on economics, which CPW refers to in their application and claim is publicly available. Requests for copies of the report have been met with promises of delivery, which have not materialised.
Social Impacts
The MHPS considers that the information provided by CPW on the likely social impact of the scheme to be inadequate and misleading.
In particular there has been inadequate profiling of affected communities to determine their existing values, needs and hopes. There is a need to assess how construction of the dam and scheme will affect these values, and to determine whether there is a need for a land intensification scheme of the scale and nature proposed by CPW.
The fact that the scheme may create more jobs is not necessarily a positive social impact. The region currently enjoys low unemployment and many local people would not want to work on dairy farms, indeed at a national level the dairy industry is known to be struggling to attract employees largely because of poor working conditions. It is likely that the area will see a large number of transient residents moving into the area who will work for a few years before moving on. This will create social instability and stress on the existing health, education and social infrastructure.
Furthermore, there has been inadequate assessment of the different regional social subgroups and the specific impact that the scheme will have on these groups.
Of particular concern to the MHPS, is the effect of the scheme on the Waianiwaniwa Valley. The inundation of the Valley will displace families from their homes, many of whom are important and valued contributors to the local social, agricultural and historical fabric of the area.
There will also be a serious impact on the remaining residents of the Waianiwaniwa Valley who will experience profound and lasting disruption to their lives through the removal of sections of the Malvern Hills road, and other local roads. Alternative routes may be neither practical nor economically feasible and will in themselves cause significant disruption to existing residential and farm operations.
Environmental/Social Well
being Concerns
Other concerns relating to the impact of the construction of the dam, tunnel, intake structures, network canals and level headrace, include:
· Noise levels,
· Increased heavy traffic movements in the area (especially along Homebush road and through Sheffield and Coalgate),
· Vibration from blasting and compactors,
· Glare from lights,
· Smell from stagnant waters and mud flats,
· Problems with increased dust, including dust storms,
· Loss of woodland,
· Impact on scenic and landscape values,
· Loss of intrinsic values with the building of intake structures and canals in the beds and on the banks of the Waimakariri and Rakaia rivers
· Public safety of recreational river users, especially at the lower Waimakariri intake, the outlet canal from the Waianiwaniwa reservoir and below the discharge points,
· Loss of access to rivers, farms and private property,
· Negative impact on existing tourist ventures,
· Public health issues from impacts of increased dairying,
· Possible impact on community and private water supplies,
· Discharge of waters of degraded quality into the environment.
Water supply
The MHPS also notes that batch production of concrete is proposed for the dam site. We request that the local water supply should not be used for this operation or other construction needs as the water supply is designed to supply the villages and will not be adequate to cope with the volumes required by CPW. It is requested that CPW source any water needed for construction or concrete production or dust control from an alternative source that is not the Selwyn River.
Traffic
According to the Transport statement (URS 26th October 2006), during the construction of the dam, between 4-6 million m3 of fill material will be carted across SH77 at a site close to Coalgate village, in 350,000 dump truck movements (with in excess of 60 tonne capacity). In addition, 3000 truck and trailer movements are expected to transport aggregate from the Waimakariri River. Furthermore, the dam site may be used to batch concrete for other aspects of the project and be redistributed from the dam site. Clearly there will be other traffic movements not explicitly covered in the report. No figures for the total level of dump truck, truck and trailer and other machinery movements in the vicinity of the dam site can be found.
Regardless of the technical ability or otherwise of SH 77 to cope with the expected level of increased heavy traffic movement, the MHPS considers that the cumulative impact of all these different heavy traffic movements on the existing rural character of the area will be huge. The effect of the increased noise, vibration and heavy traffic in the area will have a very negative social impact on both Coalgate and Glentunnel villages as well as on people further away. Local people drive past the construction site on a daily basis as they travel to school, work and in to Darfield or Christchurch and will find the nature of their travel much changed. Post construction change of land use will likely result in increased heavy traffic movements. This will negatively impact on road safety, increased noise, vibration, etc
Noise/vibration
Noise and vibration from the construction activities will have a significant adverse effect on the local environment – particularly for people residing locally. The impact of continuous exposure to noise and/ or vibration from construction activities including transportation, excavation, blasting and compacting machinery will be severe.
Of concern to the MHPS are
1) The fact that CPW seek approval for continuous construction activity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This will have a severe impact on local residents, and is considered by the MHPS to be completely unacceptable and does not comply with the proposed district plans.
2) The fact that CPW proposes to restrict construction activities within 200 m of a residential building to between 6.30am – 8pm Monday to Saturday. These are still very long periods of time for the nature and intensity of the proposed construction activities. The impact of the resulting noise levels on residents who live and/or work from home during these ‘normal hours of operation’ will still be severe. Most people will not appreciate disturbed sleep or being woken to a dawn chorus of blasting and rumbling noises.
It is also unclear whether CPW proposes to limit hours of construction activities at the dam site itself as the report by Ubris (8 September 2006) says that the ‘construction activity is likely to be long-term and continuous.’
It is noted that residents of Coalgate will experience the most negative and severe impact from noise levels for the longest period of time. The MHPS considers that living with long periods of severe noise for to be totally destructive to residents’ quality of life. Noise mitigation measures are extremely difficult to implement and monitor.
While it is accepted that the most severe effects of construction will be in the Coalgate area, residents living in close proximity to any construction relating to the scheme will be adversely affected.
Dust
The MHPS is particularly concerned about the likely impact of dust from bulk earth moving and construction activities on residents downwind, particularly during windy conditions such as occurs frequently during a Nor’wester. Most local people have witnessed dust storms from paddocks that have been ploughed.
These dust storms can severely reduce visibility on roads and have serious consequences. Increased levels of dust can also have adverse effects on asthmatics and is generally unpleasant to live with. Coalgate village, which is immediately downwind of the main construction area, is likely to suffer from the most severe and persistent effects of dust. The applicant proposes mitigation measures but it is not proven how effective these measures will be in practise. Dust will be an ongoing, adverse effect for the life of the scheme and will not be restricted to the construction phase. This is completely unacceptable.
Ecological Concerns
Canterbury Mudfish (Neochanna burrowsius) are an acutely threatened species of freshwater fish, endemic to the Canterbury region and classified as “nationally endangered”.
The loss of wetlands has severely impacted on the habitat and distribution of Canterbury mudfish throughout the Canterbury plains.
The species is now restricted to small relict populations in fragile wetland remnants.
There are at least 10 sites in the Waianiwaniwa Valley where mudfish have been recorded. The discovery of a large population of mudfish associated with the Duck Pond in Cairn Hill stream in the Waianiwaniwa Valley, may be among the most significant populations of Canterbury mudfish discovered so far. A report commissioned by the Selwyn Plantation Board concludes that the flooding of streams and the lower reaches of the Waianiwaniwa River would certainly result in the extinction of mudfish in this location.
The flooding of mudfish habitat in the Waianiwaniwa Valley would be inconsistent with the objectives of the Dept.of Conservation’s Recovery Plan
for Canterbury mudfish.
DoC. objectives are:
Protect and manage habitats with key mudfish populations.
Monitor key mudfish population trends.
Identify and advocate for the protection and sustainable management of all mudfish habitat.
Involve Iwi in the implementation of this recovery plan.
The Malvern Hills Protection Society Inc. is also concerned about other native fauna including important species of rare invertebrates, frogs, fish, birds, lizards and skinks that may exist in the Waianiwaniwa Valley and in the wider environment affected by the CPW irrigation scheme.
Cultural Concerns
The Society is concerned about the potential effects of the scheme on cultural sites, items, values, and practices of Tangata whenua. The Society is aware that parts of the scheme area were used extensively by early Maori and that the associated values continues to this day. The cultural assessment provided by the applicant appears superficial and repetitive and related to a different scheme design. The applicant appears to make no effort to avoid, remedy or mitigate the likely impacts of the scheme on cultural sites, items, values, and practices of Maori. The Society asks that the applicant commission local Tangata whenua to prepare a current report on their cultural concerns, and that the applicant prepare a report detailing how they will avoid, remedy or mitigate any negative effects to the satisfaction of the Tangata whenua.
Sustainability
The Society would not like to see a voluntary sustainability code replaced with a mandatory minimum environmental standard.
The society is concerned about the sustainability of the scheme. This concern covers most aspects of the scheme from water takes through to contamination of the aquifers and ultimately the seabed. Efficiency of water use is not adequately promoted.
It is worrying to see that the “Best practice environmental standards” which the water users will be required to adhere to and uphold, are not stated anywhere in the application. Furthermore, these standards will be agreed by “the parties “ (CPWL & CPWT) with no input from any consenting authority and no audit process or public input. This together with the lack of independence of the CPW Trust, and its ability to be directed by the CPW Ltd does not bode well for the environment. The Society notes that the agreement states that environmental best practice standards must be; “Financially viable to implement” and “must not affect the financial viability of water users’ use of water from the scheme”. This is completely unacceptable. These land use standards should be set, reviewed, monitored and enforced by the relevant Territorial Authorities.
Landscape values
Outstanding Landscapes & Natural
Features
Objective 1
The
Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes of the District are recognised and
protected from inappropriate use and development while still enabling people to
provide for their economic and social well-being.
Policy 2
Recognise
that landscapes will change over time and allow changes to landscapes provided
that they complement the landscape and retain its core values.
CPW acknowledge that “the works will form a prominent part of the landscape,’ (Ubris September 2006) and mention the fact
that ‘water
races have formed a part of the landscape of the Canterbury Plains for a
significant period of time. They use this example to say that
the proposed headrace canal will therefore fit in with the existing landscape.
The existing water races cannot be compared to the proposed headrace and
network canals as they are of a significantly different scale of magnitude. The
report completely ignores the fact that nothing of the scale and nature of the
proposed dam and canals system currently exists within the Malvern hills area.
The existing site of the proposed dam wall is characterised by woodland and rolling hills. The proposed dam wall will feature a straight 2km-dam wall composed of bare gravel. The MHPS considers that the nature and extent of the proposed dam wall will not complement the existing landscape and will be completely contrary to the existing core landscape values. Hence the proposed dam wall will not comply with the proposed district plan.
Archaeology
The society is concerned about the potential loss of heritage sites, items and trees and archaeological sites and items. The applicant has not undertaken an archaeological assessment to determine the effects of the proposed works on archaeological sites. The society requests that the applicant commissions a professionally qualified archaeologist to undertake a comprehensive archaeological assessment of the area identified in the Notice of Requirement including the dam, reservoir, headrace, intake structures and canals to determine the effects of the proposed scheme on archaeological sites.
The applicant has also not provided an assessment of the historic heritage values within the proposed scheme area. The Society requests that the applicant commissions a suitably qualified heritage professional to undertake a comprehensive historic heritage assessment of the area identified in the notice of requirement application including the dam, reservoir, headrace, intake structures and canals to determine the effects of the proposed scheme on historic heritage values.
The society requests that CPW has a management plan prepared to avoid, remedy or mitigate any damage to any of the archaeological and historical or heritage sites identified above, by a suitably qualified professional. This management must be acceptable to the Historic Places Trust.
Governance Issues
In a “normal” case there would be one applicant applying to the Regional Council for a water take / use consent and the same applicant applying to the District Council for land use consent and using the water. The current application is far from “normal”, with joint applicants for the Regional Council consents (Central Plains Water Trust & Ashburton Community Water Trust) and three applicants to two District Councils for land use consents (Central Plains Water Trust, Central Plains Water Limited and Ashburton Community Water Trust (ACWT application for land use consents yet to be notified)) and the Notice of Requirement / Designation process being used. The final users of the water at the farm level (the company shareholders) are not the holders of the land use consent. To further compound matters, one of the consenting authorities (Selwyn District Council) has actively funded and promoted the proposed irrigation scheme. The settlors of the Central Plains Water Trust are Selwyn District Council and Christchurch City Council.
The Society is extremely concerned about the complex interrelationship (web) between these three applicants, the Company shareholders and the four Councils involved.
The Society is mystified as to how the public are expected to understand these complex relationships and their impact on the various applications and make meaningful submissions.
The society is also concerned about how monitoring and enforcement of the consent conditions will be conducted given the complex web of interrelationships between the various bodies. Of particular concern is any monitoring and enforcement that occurs solely between these interrelated bodies.
Coalgate Village
The social and psychological impact of the dam on Coalgate residents living under the shadow of the dam will be considerable. The effects do not relate to just the concern about dam collapse, but include anxiety about loss of life and property and uncertainty about evacuation procedures in the event of any technical mishap. Who will be responsible for this ongoing anxiety and uncertainty? Who will be financially liable for any loss of earnings or associated costs of residing elsewhere should evacuation of the village prove necessary at any stage? We are still unclear about this situation. Will it be Selwyn District Council, Christchurch City Council, Environment Canterbury. CPWL or CPWT who is held responsible?
The Society would like to see a comprehensive impact report which details the social and psychological effects of living beneath of a 55 m high dam. There appears to be no report detailing the social effects of the construction phase (especially noise, dust, vibration from blasting, compactors, heavy traffic movement ) and farming operations, other local industries, households and communities.
There is also major concern that not all the fault lines which could potentially affect dam stability in the area have yet been mapped. The geology of the Malvern Hills area is extremely complex. While some fault lines are well surveyed it is likely that others have yet to be discovered. Anecdotal evidence from local miners supports this probability. CPW claim that they have not discovered any fault lines in the immediate region of the dam wall but that does not mean that they do not exist. The MHPS is aware that recently other scientists have undertaken a more in-depth geological survey of the valley and surrounding area. The MHPS has not had time to confirm the results of these surveys, but reserves the right to comment on this issue at the hearings, should evidence of other fault lines or other relevant geological facts come to light.
Summary
While the Society acknowledges the benefits that irrigation can bring to an agriculturally based District, we are of the firm conviction that the Central Plains Water Scheme is inappropriate, completely unsustainable and not in the best interests of the District or Region as a whole. Accordingly we request that the Consenting Authority withdraws the Notice of Requirement and declines all land use applications.
The MHPSociety Inc. wishes
to be heard in support of this submission and will
consider presenting a joint case with others at a
hearing.
The MHPSociety Inc. requests a Joint Hearing by both Consenting Authorities.
As most of the seriously affected land owners live in the Malvern Hills Area, the Society requests that local submitters be heard locally either at Darfield or Glentunnel.