To:
Selwyn District Council
Private
Bag 1
Leeston
Name of Submitter:
Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu
Pursuant to section 15 of the Te
Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Act (TRoNT) 1996, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi
Tahu is the legal representative of Ngāi Tahu Whānui within the Ngai
Tahu Takiwā. For completeness,
section 15 provides:
Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu shall be recognised
for all purposes as the representative of Ngāi Tahu Whanui.
It is established practice for Te
Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to support Papatipu Rūnanga to effectively
and successfully carry out their role as kaitiaki of natural resources within
their respective rohe (runanga boundaries).
The submission is also lodged on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, Te
Taumutu Rūnanga Incorporated, Wairewa Rūnanga Incorporated, Te
Ngāi Tuahiriri Rūnanga Incorporated, Te Rūnanga o Arowhenua
Trust
Name of Applicant
Central Plains Water Trust (in
respect of the application for land use consents) and Central Plains Water
Limited (in respect of the Notice of Requirement for a Designation).
Application
This submission by Te
Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is made in respect of both:
·
The applications by Central
Plains Water Trust (CPW) to the Selwyn District Council (SDC) for land use
consents (numbers RO65214,
RO65215, RO65216, RO65217, RO65218 and RO65219); and
·
The
Notice of Requirement for a Designation (Over land for the purposes of the
establishment, construction, operation and maintenance of an irrigation scheme)
by Central Plains Water Limited (CPW).
In addition, the Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu submission
on the regional council consent applications (dated 18 August 2006) should be
considered to form a part of this submission and vice versa. The considerable
detail provided in the submission on the regional council consents may be
particularly relevant to the Notice of Requirement for a designation, which
will extend to a consideration of the consequential effects on both land and
water.
Te Rünanga o
Ngāi Tahu’s submission is:
Procedural Inadequacies
There are a
number of procedural aspects of the CPW applications that Te Rūnanga o
Ngāi Tahu considers to have been inadequate, especially for a project of
the scale and complexity as that of the Central Plains Water Enhancement
Scheme. In particular, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is
concerned about the following aspects of the process:
Consultation Curtailed
Since
the time of lodging its submission in opposition to the grant of the regional
council resource consents (on 18 August 2006), Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu
has had no further discussions with CPW.
This is in spite of earlier assurances made by CPW’s representatives
that the cultural consultation process was to be ongoing and that the Cultural
Impact Assessment (CIA) was merely a starting point for further discussion and
negotiation between the parties. This
experience is at odds with the following statement in the Assessment of Effects
on the Environment for the Notice of Requirement:
Consultation
will continue throughout the consent process and there will be ongoing
opportunities for Central Plains Water to meet with stakeholders to address
issues and concerns prior to the hearing. (page 112)
As
a result of the curtailment of the consultation that was previously underway,
Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu has been unable to resolve any more of the
concerns it has about the cultural impacts of the water enhancement scheme
(outlined in the form of a series of recommendations in the CIA). In these circumstances, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is
left with little choice but to continue to vigorously oppose the CPW proposal
in its entirety (including the grant of the land use consents and designation
sought by CPW).
Te
Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu does not accept the statement by CPW (made by its
planning consultant Kim McCracken in a memorandum dated 8 September 2006) that:
Through
consultation with Ngāi Tahu the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi have
been taken into account. (page 7)
Te
Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu submits that this assertion represents a gross
misunderstanding by CPW of the essence of the principles of the Treaty. There are many iterations of the principles
of the Treaty of Waitangi including several that outline Ngāi Tahu
opinions on what the principles are and how they apply to resource management
situations. In Ngāi Tahu opinion, key issues include:
Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu
submits that, at best, CPW has only partially taken into account the principles
of the Treaty of`Waitangi (as required by section 8 of the RMA). Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu also submits
that an ongoing process of iwi consultation is necessary for CPW to satisfy the
following expectation in section 167 of the RMA:
(4) The Minister shall not issue a
notice under subsection (3) unless he or she is satisfied that—
(b) The
applicant is likely to satisfactorily carry out all the responsibilities
(including financial responsibilities) of a requiring authority under this Act
and will give proper regard to the interests of those affected and to the
interests of the environment. [Our emphasis]
Inadequate Information
If consultation
between the parties had
carried on, the key message Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu would have
continued to convey to CPW is that there is still not sufficient information
contained in the application and assessment of environmental effects for it to
properly assess the cultural impacts of the proposal. This concern was clearly identified in both
the CIA and the Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu submission in opposition to
the regional council consents.
The
concern about the lack of information also mirrors that of the independent
consultants engaged by SDC to review the CPW applications. By way of illustration, the following
comments are drawn from the reports of the independent consultants:
·
“The
social impact assessment is far from thorough. It lacks any analysis of the
affected community – its structures, systems, institutions, values etc. Without
the data a clear indication of the nature and scale of social effects arising
from the proposed development is not possible. This inevitably impedes the
development of appropriate strategies to mitigate social effects.” (Croydon
Consultants Ltd)
·
“The
ecological information and assessment of effects is very inadequate. This needs
to be rectified to enable the consent authority and potential submitters to
understand the possible effects of the proposal.” (Mark Davis Environmental
Consultant)
·
“…as
a general comment the information supplied is too conceptual and inadequate to
provide the reviewer with a clearly defined and detailed scheme proposal.
Sufficient study, design and investigation should have been done by now to
allow a clearly defined scheme to be proposed and the evidence of this is
needed. The applicant should allow a clear understanding of the scheme by any
third party such that issues, effects and the like can be appreciated.” (Tonkin
& Taylor Ltd)
·
“Generally
there is insufficient information in the application at present to facilitate a
detailed analysis of the traffic implications of the project.” (Streets in
Sync)
Te
Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is concerned that CPW has done the bare minimum
necessary to respond to the well intentioned section 92 request issued by
SDC. In order to justify its approach,
CPW’s solicitor (in a letter to SDC’s solicitor dated 20 September 2006) has
referred to a little known distinction (referred to only by the authors of
Brookers Resource Management) between the information required for notification
and that required for the officer’s
report. Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu
submits that such a distinction is not supported by any judicial authority and
that, even if it did have a valid legal basis, it does nothing to alleviate the
widespread public confusion about the effects of the water enhancement
proposal.
In
the context of section 88 of the RMA, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is
dubious as to whether the application and assessment satisfies the requirement
to be:
…in such
detail as corresponds with the scale and significance of the effects that the
activity may have on the environment.
Reliance upon Management Plans
Closely
associated with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu’s concern about the quality of
the CPW assessment is its concern about the heavy reliance CPW is seeking to
place upon the use of management plans as a mechanism not only to manage the
effects of its proposal, but also to identify the effects in the first
place. For example, in respect of the
Notice of Requirement for a Designation, CPW propose, once consents are granted
and before construction commences to develop the following management plans:
·
Land
Rehabilitation Plan
·
Significant
Indigenous Vegetation Plan – This has as one of its functions the compiling of
information on the location of significant indigenous vegetation; a matter Te
Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu submits is integral to the assessment of effects
itself.
·
Remedial
Action Plan (for contaminated areas)
·
Hazardous
Substances Management and Contingency Plan
·
Heritage
Management Plan
·
Dust
Management Plan
·
Noise
Management Plan
·
Traffic
Management Plan
·
Accidental
Discover Protocol
·
Health
and Safety Plan
Te
Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu submits that it is inappropriate for CPW to rely
upon management plans in order to avoid providing information that is relevant
to the assessment of the effects of the water enhancement proposal.
Disjointed Application & Notification Process
Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu
wishes to express its concern about the six month time lag that has occurred
since the notification of the regional council resource consent applications;
and wonders whether it might not have been more appropriate to have deferred
the notification of the regional council consents until such time as the land
use consents and notice of requirement were also ready for notification. Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu believes
that a delay of this nature significantly hampers the public’s ability
(including members of Ngāi Tahu whanui) to participate effectively in the
already complex resource management process.
More specifically, the staggering
of the notification periods creates a possibility that members of the public
(once again including members of Ngāi Tahu whanui) may overlook the need
to submit on all three aspects of the CPW proposal, thereby creating a
possibility that they will subsequently be jurisdictionally prevented from
participating in all aspects of the consent hearing.
In addition, the disjointed
nature of the CPW process is likely to make it considerably more difficult for
people to identify what types of effects they should be addressing under each
submission. By way of explanation, it is
the impression of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu that many lay people may not
adequately understand the sometimes subtle distinctions between land use and
regional council resource consents – and where the effects of such consent
applications begin and end. Accordingly,
it is quite likely that people may address the effects of the regional council
consents in their land use consent submission, and vice versa.
The spasmodic nature of the CPW
process will also create a considerable amount more work for people wishing to
lodge submissions (in that they have to prepare two or three submissions
instead of just one).
Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu
submits that the two consent authorities responsible for processing the CPW
applications should adopt a flexible and user friendly approach to their
assessment of the scope of submissions. Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu does
not consider that a flexible approach such as this will in any way prejudice
CPW. In these circumstances and for the avoidance of
doubt, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu reiterates that its own two submissions
are to be read collectively and that they are to be treated as forming a
component of each other.
Uncertain Impact of Priority Debate
Finally in relation to process Te
Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu refers to the confusion that has surrounded the
effect upon the proposal of CPW’s loss of access to the A allocation block
water in the Waimakariri River (as a result of losing the priority debate to
Ngāi Tahu Property Limited in both the Environment and High Court’s). Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu submits that
this is an additional feature of the CPW proposal that has resulted in the
public feeling perplexed and puzzled about what is going to happen (or not
happen) next. In particular, Te
Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is concerned by the lack of information having
been provided from CPW about how the priority decision affects the design and
scale of the proposed Water Enhancement Scheme.
Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu
submits that further information about the impact of the priority debate upon
the scheme be provided at the earliest possible instance by CPW. Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu acknowledges
the outstanding appeal to the Court of Appeal by CPW.
Effects of Particular Concern to Ngāi Tahu
Many of the
effects of the CPW Water Enhancement Scheme that are of concern to Ngāi
Tahu are already set out in detail in the submission in opposition to the
regional council resource consents. In
addition to these effects, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu also provides the
following non-exhaustive outline of the effects it is specifically concerned
about in respect of the grant/approval of the land use consents and/or
designation. The reason the list is
non-exhaustive (or inclusive only) in nature is because of the potential for
additional concerns to come to light as new information (possibly as a result
of additional section 92 further information requests) comes to hand.
Adverse Archaeological Effects
By way of
background, Ngāi Tahu place significant value upon the preservation of
sites of cultural significance including waahi tapu and urupa sites. Wähi
tapu is a term applied to all sacred sites associated with tapu (sacredness) or
areas held in reverence according to tribal custom and history. Some wähi tapu sites are important to Ngäi
Tahu as a whole, while others are important to individual hapü or whänau. Of all wähi tapu, urupä (burial sites) are
the most significant.
Wähi
tapu areas may be associated with creation stories of tangata whenua or a
particular event such as a battle or ceremony.
It may also be a place where whenua (placenta) is buried or a place
where a certain valued resource is found.
In order to be
able to accurately assess the impact that a large scale and invasive proposal
such as that being proposed by CPW might have on sites of cultural significance
it is essential that a detailed archaeological survey of all potentially
affected areas be carried out. This
survey should then be followed up with an assessment by the consent applicant
of the ways in which it proposes to avoid, remedy or mitigate and actual and
potential adverse effects on the sites of significance identified in the
archaeological survey.
In Te
Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu’s submission, it is only reasonable that such a
survey and accompanying assessment be completed, not only prior to a decision
being made on the consent applications, but also prior to public notification
of the application. In this way, iwi
organisations such as Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu are provided with a
reasonable opportunity to determine how they should respond.
In light of
this background, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu considers the refusal of CPW
to commission an archaeological survey (and in turn to provide a detailed
description of how it will avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse archaeological
effects of the proposal) to be most disappointing. Such an attitude has prevented Ngāi Tahu
from being able to assess the acceptability (or otherwise) of the
archaeological impacts of the CPW proposal.
Te Rūnanga
o Ngāi Tahu submits that, as it presently stands, the CPW Water
Enhancement Scheme fails to recognise and provide for the
relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral
lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga. (as required by section
6(e)) and the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate use and
development (section 6(f)).
Impacts upon Water Quality
The activities
associated with the land use consents and the designation (including
excavation, earthworks, quarrying, gravel crushing, the provision of power
supply, effluent and waste management and disposal, and (for all of these
aspects of the proposal) the employment of a work force and the use of heavy
machinery) are likely to bring about a significant deterioration in water
quality. In particular, the above
activities are likely to lead to the following (more than minor) effects:
·
Increased sedimentation;
·
Introduction of toxic contaminants and/or pathogens;
·
Increased nutrient (nitrate and phosphate) levels;
·
As a result of these and other effects, more than
minor adverse effects on traditional mahinga kai species (including but not
limited to gamebird, fish, aquatic and riparian invertebrates and plants, and
periphyton communities); and
·
As a result of these and other effects, a loss of
cultural and amenity values.
Te Rūnanga
o Ngāi Tahu submits that CPW’s assessment of the actual and potential
effects of its proposal upon water quality is superficial and inadequate. In particular, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi
Tahu submits that CPW has not satisfactorily assessed the baseline water
quality conditions in the affected waterbodies; or carried out a sufficiently
detailed forecast of the duration and extent of the effects of construction on
water quality; or adequately assessed the water quality impacts of the use and
maintenance of the scheme.
A specific
discussion of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu’s significant concerns about the
increased eutrophication (and subsequent further reduction in water quality) of
the lowland catchment (particularly Te Waihora) is contained in the submission
in opposition to the regional council consents.
This discussion, however, should also be regarded as forming a part of the
present submission.
Te Rūnanga
o Ngāi Tahu submits that the actual and potential adverse effects of the
CPW proposal upon water quality will fail to:
·
Promote the sustainable management of natural
resources (section 5(1) of the RMA);
·
Fail to enable Ngāi Tahu whanui to provide for
their cultural wellbeing (section 5(2));
·
Sustain the potential of Canterbury’s waterways to
meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations (section 5(2)(a));
·
Safeguard the life-supporting capacity of water and
ecosystems (section 5(2)(b));
·
Recognise and provide for the natural character of the
coastal environment, wetlands, lakes and rivers (section 6(a));
·
Recognise and provide for the
relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral
lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga (section 6(e)); and
·
Have particular regard to kaitiakitanga
(section 7(a), the intrinsic values of ecosystems (section 7(d)), the
maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment (section 7(f)),
and the finite characteristics of natural resources (section 7(g)).
Impacts upon Public Access – Especially for Ngāi Tahu Whanui
Unimpeded
access to waterways is central to Ngāi Tahu culture and traditions. The ability to access waterways enables
Ngāi Tahu whanui to exercise kaitiakitanga and to gather mahinga kai. Accordingly, much emphasis is placed by
Ngāi Tahu upon maintaining and enhancing its ability to obtain unimpeded
access to waterways, especially in areas of traditional food gathering
importance.
As can be seen
in the following table (contained in the CIA), a vital aspect of access lies in
the recognition of the relationship that exists between flow and water
quality/quantity.
Table 1:
Relationships between Ngāi Tahu values and river flows.
|
VALUE RELATIONSHIP TO FLOW AND WATER QUALITY |
|
|
Ngā wai
/ Mauri/Wairua |
Flow must
ensure life supporting capacity and spiritual essence is maintained. Natural
character and flow variability is part of the life essence of the river. The river is
more than a source of water flow for abstraction. Maintaining
water quality is part of respecting the river. Point and
non-point source discharges impact erode mauri values. Excessive
abstractions adversely impact mauri and wairua values. Link between
water quality and water quantity. Mixing of
waters adversely impacts mauri and wairua values. |
|
Wāhi
ingoa / Place names |
Place names
often describe the physical environment, such as specific characteristics or
uses associated with a waterway. Such characteristics or use may be dependent
on particular flow and water quality. |
|
Ara tawhito
/ Historical
trails |
Historically,
flow may have determined safe river crossings. How the
river flows, looks, behaves is all part of the environment experienced by
travellers, and would have determined to some extent the location of nohoanga
(camping and food gathering sites) and other culturally important sites along
the river. |
|
Repo
raupō / Wetlands |
Reduced
flows, land use and drainage have reduced the number of wetlands associated
with rivers and tributaries. Adequate flows are needed to maintain any
remnant wetlands. Wetlands are linked to water quality in their functions as
filtering water; they are the “kidneys” of the land. |
|
Waipuna /
Springs |
In some
places, river flows are directly linked to waipuna. The flow of waipuna (or
lack of) may be used as an indicator river health. High water
quality can sustain valued waipuna, or conversely, poor quality can degrade
them. |
|
Parenga /
Riparian areas |
Healthy
riparian areas, and the indigenous species associated with them, require good
water quality and sufficient flow. Reduced flows result in encroachment of
introduced plants (invasion) into a riverbed. |
|
Mahinga kai
/ Native biodiversity |
Certain fish
species will require certain levels of flow for migration and spawning.
Temperature and water quality (and other ecological conditions) create
distinctive habitats for species. Flood events
as part of a natural hydrologic regime are necessary to maintain vegetation
free gravel bars in river channel for nesting birds. When water
demand is highest is often when fish need the water the most. |
|
Wāhi
tapu me te wāhi taonga |
Change in
flow can either flood or expose wāhi tapu such as pā sites,
middens, ovens, urupā, or water burial sites. Rivers and
their tributaries are considered wāhi taonga and thus sufficient flow
and water quality must be maintained. |
|
River mouth
environment |
Flow
conditions are directly related to the nature and extent of river flows into
the sea; and to maintaining the balance of freshwater saltwater mix. Water
quality is important to maintaining the nature of the estuary / lagoon
environment. |
|
Kaitiakitanga |
Ensuring
that values associated with the river are protected is a key aspect of
kaitiakitanga and the rights and responsibilities that characterise the
relationship between tangata whenua and rivers. Restoration
of the ability of tangata whenua to effectively participate in freshwater
resources management (in partnership with other agencies), is part of
recognising and providing for kaitiakitanga. |
Adapted from: Jolly,
D. 2004.
Te Rūnanga
o Ngāi Tahu does not accept the assurances by CPW that the impacts of the
proposed Water Enhancement Scheme upon public access to waterways will be only
temporary and less than minor. From Ngāi
Tahu’s perspective, any loss of access to a culturally significant waterway is
more than minor.
Aspects of the
proposal that Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu considers have a particular
ability to affect access to waterways are:
·
The construction and operation of the river intakes,
headrace, intake canal and distribution network, all of which have the
potential to obstruct access to culturally significant waterways, and to reduce
the health and safety of Ngāi Tahu whanui seeking to gain access; and
·
The likelihood that the increased eutrophication of
the lowland waterways, which is expected to result from the use of the CPW
water, will lead to a proliferation of exotic plant and week growth, and
thereby restrict access.
Te Rūnanga
o Ngāi Tahu is also concerned that the Water Enhancement proposal will
fail to maintain current
public access over formed and unformed roads or to avoid further restricting
potential access along paper roads which for various reasons do not provide
access at present.
Te Rūnanga
o Ngāi Tahu submits that the grant of consent and approval of the Notice
of Requirement would fail to recognise and provide for the maintenance and
enhancement of public access to and along lakes and rivers (a matter of
national importance identified in section 6(d)).
Impact upon Amenity Values
The following
definition of “amenity values” contained in section 2 of the RMA confirms that
they have a cultural component:
Amenity
values
means those natural or physical qualities and characteristics of an area that
contribute to people's appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence,
and cultural and recreational attributes.
It is the
submission of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu that the activities associated
with the construction and operation of the proposed water enhancement scheme
(including the clearance of vegetation (much of which may be significant),
abstraction of water from the Waimakariri and Rakaia Rivers, the distribution
of the water via a complex network of headraces and canals, and the ultimate
use of that water in order to intensify farming operations) will result in a
significant and enduring reduction in the amenity values of Canterbury’s
central plains region.
Effects on
amenity values that will be more than minor include:
·
Direct loss or degradation of opportunities to carry
out traditional cultural activities;
·
Adverse effects on braided river character and other natural
character attributes as a result of river training and other works in the
riverbed and river margins;
·
Loss or degradation of visual landscape values
particularly in, adjacent to and viewable from riverbeds; and
·
Increased noise, dust or odour disrupting the
‘experience’ for Ngāi Tahu whanui; and
·
Degradation of water quality in waterbodies used by
Ngāi Tahu whanui.
In this
context, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu submits that the CPW proposal fails
to have particular regard to the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values
(section 7(c)).
Impact upon a Significant Cultural Landscape
Te Rūnanga
o Ngāi Tahu is concerned that the CPW water enhancement scheme fails to
recognise that the central plains of Canterbury are an outstanding cultural
landscape (albeit modified). In order to appreciate the cultural
significance of the central plains landscape, it is necessary to reiterate that
from Ngāi Tahu’s perspective,
there is no distinction between the animate and the inanimate or between biotic
and abiotic. To the contrary, Ngāi
Tahu whanui feel a strong sense of indivisibility between humanity and nature,
and between themselves and the central plains.
Traditional
western beliefs based upon anthropocentric views of the natural world are at
odds with Ngāi Tahu’s belief that tangata whenua whakapapa back to
Papatuanuku (the earth mother) and Rakanui (the sky father). When viewed in this light, it can be seen
that it is simply not possible to interpret a landscape from a cultural
perspective without first having an appreciation of the legendary stories,
traditions, waiata, customs and values of which the landscape is comprised.
To Ngāi
Tahu, the central plains
landscape is not only characterised by its natural and physical aspects, but
also by its significant cultural sites, whakapapa, stories and mahinga kai that
are all comprised within it.
Safety Risks
Te Rūnanga
o Ngāi Tahu’s interest in safety matters stems out of its concern to
protect the wellbeing of members of Ngāi Tahu whanui carrying out cultural
activities in Canterbury’s central plains region (including the lowland
catchment). It is considered that there
is potential for serious risk to the health of Ngāi Tahu whanui resulting
from the construction, operation and maintenance which the applicant seeks to
undertake as part of the proposal.
Potential risks
may arise from
·
Sluicing/emergency discharges
·
Structures or operations in or adjacent to water
bodies
·
Structures or operations in or adjacent to existing
public access routes to and along rivers
·
The storage and use of materials including hazardous
substances.
Proposed
measures to avoid adverse effects on the health and safety of people proposed
by CPW are insufficient to give Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu any confidence
that its members will be suitably protected from harm. Accordingly, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu
submits that the CPW proposal will fail to enable people and communities to
provide for their health and safety (as required by the purpose of the Act
(section 5(2))).
Additional adverse Effects
In addition to
the impacts discussed above, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is also concerned
about the following actual and potential effects of the CPW proposal:
·
Loss of Indigenous Biodiversity
Having
lost the vast majority of the indigenous vegetation that once adorned the
Canterbury Plains, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is eager to ensure that, as
far as possible, further clearance is avoided, especially alongside the banks
of lakes and rivers. CPW’s failure to
carry out a detailed ecological assessment causes Te Rūnanga o Ngāi
Tahu concern that it has overlooked this aspect of its proposal.
·
Inefficiency
Te
Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu does not consider that the CPW irrigation scheme
represents an efficient use of a scarce resource. Water wastage will occur through canal
leakage/seepage and evapotranspiration of water transported via an open canal
network. For example, it is acknowledged
in the applications that some 7m3/s will be lost within the
headrace/distribution system alone. This
represents lost opportunities for other users and lost flow from the rivers for
fish and bird habitat. There is also
insufficient information detailing the way in which water will be used, which
raises serious concerns about the overall efficiency of the scheme.
·
Failure to mitigate cultural effects
Despite
setting out a series of recommendation in the CIA, CPW has thus far failed to
even attempt to reach an agreement with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu about
how, in the event that the scheme proceeds, it will go about mitigating the
actual and potential impacts upon cultural values. In addition, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu
is concerned about the extent to which CPW is seeking to rely upon the supposed
benefits of the scheme to offset (rather than avoid, remedy or mitigate) the
adverse effects.
Relevant Legislative and Planning
Provisions
Te Rūnanga
o Ngāi Tahu submits that the
CPW water enhancement proposal will struggle to find favour (or even to be not
inconsistent with) key objectives and policies contained in all of the relevant
planning instruments, including the operative Canterbury Regional Policy
Statement, the Waimakariri River Regional Plan, the proposed Natural Resources
Regional Plan, and the proposed Selwyn District Plan are the planning documents
that affect this Notice of Requirement.
The Notice is potentially contrary to or inconsistent with the
provisions of these planning documents.
There are also a number of other plans that Te
Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu believes the CPW
proposal is at odds with including the Rakaia Water Conservation Order,
Canterbury Conservation Management Strategy, North Canterbury Fish and Game
Management Plan, Ngai Tahu Freshwater Policy, Te Taumutu Runanga Natural
Resources Plan and Te Waihora Joint Management Plan.
Te Rūnanga
o Ngāi Tahu submits that the CPW proposal (including the application for
land use consents and the Notice of Requirement for a Designation) will also
fail to recognise and provide for a number of matters of national importance
contained in section 6 (which are identified throughout the submission), have
particular regard to a series of other important considerations set out in
section 7 (also listed in the body of the submission), and to take into account
the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (as required by section 8 of the RMA.
In terms of the
Notice of Requirement for a Designation, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu also
submits that the CPW proposal does not give adequate consideration to
alternative methods of undertaking the work (as required by section 171). CPW has also failed to provide sufficient
detail about the alternatives considered, for example, the net cost of these
alternatives. Te Rūnanga o
Ngāi Tahu is also far from satisfied that the work and designation are
reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of CPW.
In short, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu
submits that the CPW water enhancement proposal will fail to promote the
sustainable management of natural and physical resources.
Relief Sought
That before the matter proceeds to a hearing, SDC
issue CPW with a further detailed section 92 further information request,
covering the type of information deficiencies identified in this submission.
If the land use consent applications and Notice of
Requirement are considered only on the basis of the information already
provided at the date of this submission, then Te Rūnanga
o Ngāi Tahu submits that the Selwyn
District Council decline the consents and recommend that the Requirement be
withdrawn.
Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu wish to be heard in support of its submission
and would be prepared to consider presenting a joint case with any other
submitter at the hearing.
Dated this 29th day of January 2007
___________________________________
Paul Horgan
Environmental Advisor
Toitū Te Whenua
Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu
Address for Service
Level 6
Te Waipounamu House
PO Box 13-046
Address for Service:
Christchurch
Phone (03) 365 4434
Fax (03) 365 4244