FORM 13

SUBMISSION ON PUBLICLY NOTIFIED APPLICATION CONCERNING A RESOURCE CONSENT

UNDER SECTIONS 96, 127(3), 136(4) AND 234(4) OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991

Selwyn District Plan – Ellesmere/Malvern/Paparua Sections

Proposed Selwyn District Plan

To Selwyn District Council, Private Bag 1, Leeston

1. Full name of submitter: Murray James Rodgers ………………………………………………………………….…………………...…….

2. This is a submission on an application from: Central Plains Water Trust ………………………………………….……………....………..….

for a resource consent OR for a change or cancellation of a condition of a resource consent.

3. The application number(s) is/are RO 65214 – RO 65219………………………………………..…..……………………………….

4. The type of consent is:

Land use consent

5. The location of the consent:

Selwyn District

6. The proposed activity/change is:

Construction, use and maintenance of network canals

………………………………………………………………………………...………....……………

……………………………………………………………..………….…………………………………………… ……………..……………….....………………………………

7. *My submission in OPPOSITION is detailed in the following submission ………………………...………………………………………………………………………………………………...….………………...………

*Include whether you SUPPORT, OPPOSE (or are NEUTRAL to) the application, or specific parts of it, and the reasons for your view. Continue on a separate sheet if necessary.

8. †I seek the following decision from Selwyn District Council:

Reject all applications……………..………….………………………………………

†Give precise details, including the general nature of any conditions sought. Continue on a separate sheet if necessary.

9. I WISH to be heard in support of my submission (delete as applicable)

10. If others make a similar submission, I will consider presenting a joint case with them at a hearing (delete if you would not consider presenting a joint case)

11. ………29 January 2007 Murray Rodgers

Date Signature of submitter (or person authorised to sign on their behalf) A signature is not required if you make your submission by electronic means

12. Address for service of submitter:

20 Guinness Crescent Christchurch………...…………………………...……………………………….………….

Telephone: 3585203…………….……..………….……………….

Fax: 3585203………….….………...……...….………...…..

Email: …murrayrodgers@xtra.co.nz…………………………………………………………………………..…...…………………………..

Contact person: ………………………………………….… Designation: …Murray Rodgers, Chairman, Water Rights trust…..………….……………………..

NOTE TO SUBMITTER: You must serve the second page of this submission on the applicant as soon as reasonably practicable after you have served your submission on Selwyn District Council.

Some of the issues relative to Form 13 - Consents sought to build network canals

· Loss of land for network canals

· Visual impact of canals – approx. 400km canal network across the central plains area

· Issues of access to riverbeds, farms, private property

· Impacts of siphons, culverts, bridges across rivers and streams

· Public safety – water safety issues – network canals will be 7 – 22m water width

· Loss of historical, environmental, cultural and archaeological values and heritage items

· Inadequate assessment of impacts on reserves, cemeteries, trees, shelter belts

· Change of traditional land use i.e. increase in intensive dairying

· Inadequate assessment of potential raising of groundwater levels downstream of the proposed scheme area

· Resulting social changes to the area – transient communities, loss of established farming families

· Possible impacts on township water supplies and stockwater races

· Upheaval and inconvenience during prolonged construction period

· Possibility of excessive noise and vibration caused by machinery, vehicles, generators, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Dust and wind-born debris

SUBMISSION ON PUBLICLY NOTIFIED REQUIREMENT FOR DESIGNATION

UNDER SECTIONS 168, 169, 181, 189, 190 AND 192(f) OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991

Selwyn District Plan – Ellesmere/Malvern/Paparua Sections

Proposed Selwyn District Plan

To: Selwyn District Council, Private Bag 1, Leeston

Full name of submitter Murray James Rodgers

…………………………………………………………….…………………...…….

This is a submission on a notice of requirement from ………………………………………………………….....

Central Plains Water Limited

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...

2. The designation involves

Land for purposes of the establishment, construction, operation and maintenance of an irrigation scheme

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The site or place to which the designation applies

The central plains area between the Waimakariri River and the Rakaia River North West of SH1

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The specific part(s) of the application that my submission relates to are: All the land being designated…………………………………..……………….....………………………………

*My submission in OPPOSITION IS DETAILED in the following submission……………………………...…………………………………………………

5. †I seek the following decision from Selwyn District Council: …………

Reject the notice of requirement………………………………………..

Give precise details, including the general nature of any conditions sought. Continue on a separate sheet if necessary.

6. I WISH /to be heard in support of my submission

7. If others make a similar submission, I will consider presenting a joint case with them at a hearing (delete if you would not consider presenting a joint case)

8. Murray Rodgers, 29 January, 2007

Signature of submitter (or person authorised to sign on their behalf) Date

9. Address for service of submitter: ………...………………20 Guinness Crescent, Christchurch…………...……………………………….………….

…………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………

Telephone: 3585 203…………….……..………….………………. Fax: 3585203………….….………...……...….………...…..

Email: ……murrayrodgers@xtra.co.nz………………………………………………………………………..…...…………………………..

Contact person:Murray Rodgers ………………………………………….… Designation: Chairman, Water Rights Trust ……..………….……………………..

Some of the issues relevant to Form 21 - Notice of Requirement to designate land for the major components of the scheme ie storage reservoir, dam, headrace and gravity canals, tunnel, intake structures

Water Rights Trust opposes the use of the designations process – the taking of private land needed for the scheme for the benefit of other private individuals, without a full cost/benefit analysis that takes account of the interests of the wider community. We have concerns over the following:

Not sufficient detail in the AEE for submitters to assess the environmental effects.
Lack of cost/benefit analysis that examines economic, cultural, social and environmental ramifications, including opportunity costs regarding impact on other sectors such as tourism, marine farming, productive land removed by the scheme, and potential impacts of inadequate environmental practices on international markets for New Zealand produce.
Loss of historical, ecological, community, cultural and archaeological values.
Proximity of a large, intrusive dam structure so close to Coalgate
No assessment of the social affects of the construction stage (especially noise, dust, vibration from blasting and compactors, heavy traffic movement 24/7 )
Visual impacts of the dam
Earthquake risk- dam collapse, overspilling and flooding of downstream communities
Lack of information regarding the ecological values of the area
Loss of heritage items, sites and trees, landscape values
No archaeological surveys of the areas to be designated
Impacts of changing landuse ie intensive dairying on soils, groundwater, rivers, lakes springs and streams
Inadequate assessment of the impacts on Te Waihora/ Lake Ellesmere
Loss of intrinsic river values – desecration of New Zealand’s iconic rivers by disturbance in riverbed and riverbanks - construction of intakes and canals
No information on how recreational users of the Waimakariri and Rakaia will be affected by a reduction in water levels
No recreational benefits because of fluctuating water levels in the reservoir
Loss of river access points for recreational and commercial use by the construction and operation of the water intakes, associated canals and headrace canal
Potential adverse affects on public safety of river users during construction and operation of the scheme
Bio-security risks associated with didymo.

SUBMISSION

The key question of concern to Water Rights Trust:

Is the totality of the risks understood such that there is confidence that the proposed actions of Central Plains Water (CPW) are the right ones, at the right level, in the right order, to ensure the economic objectives for the scheme are achieved while protecting and enhancing associated rivers and streams, groundwaters and Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere?

1/ The understanding of Canterbury’s water resources, and the impact of our interventions (science based information and regulation for use of water) is still developing.

2/ The Governments Sustainable Water Programme of Action (SWPoA) talks about the need for more strategic assessments of water, and the National Policy Statement (NPS) on water is currently being developed. Under the current timeframes, hearings on the CPW scheme will precede the establishment of the NPS on water, and also the development of science based knowledge necessary to adequately inform and regulate the scheme concerning the use of water for intensive farming.

3/ The CPW scheme has not been assessed in the context of an overall development strategy for the region, because such strategy does not exist. The Canterbury Strategic Water Study (CSWS) currently in progress excludes consideration of CPW because the statutory process for the scheme is underway.

4/ As an example of the basis for our concerns, we refer to the conclusions from a paper titled “Managing leaching of nitrates to groundwater: an emerging issue for Canterbury”, by ECan scientists Ken Taylor and Raymond Ford, Feb 2006.

QUOTE:

7. Conclusions

Water quality monitoring has shown that groundwater in Canterbury is vulnerable to nitrate contamination and it is now recognised that management intervention is necessary if the high values of the groundwater resource are to be maintained in the long term. In the face of increasing intensification of land use, and upward trending nitrate concentrations in both the aquifers and coastal spring fed streams, it is also becoming clear that the assimilative capacity of the groundwater system is limited. There are still significant knowledge gaps – much needs to be understood about the transport and fate of inputs of nitrogen at the land surface, particularly in terms of the distribution of those inputs across both space and time within a heterogeneous hydrogeological system. Such knowledge will be critical in determining how the limited assimilative capacity is to be allocated.

More fundamentally, we need to improve our understanding of the nutrient fluxes and to acknowledge the linkages between groundwater, spring-fed streams and near-shore coastal waters. Future nitrate policy development will be required to encompass a more integrated or “whole hydrological systems” approach. High groundwater nitrate concentrations are not just a problem for groundwater users. Future management will need to consider the linkages between the different types of water bodies, and to identify those water bodies or values that are the most vulnerable to nitrate inputs. It may be that nitrate management will require the establishment and implementation of maximum loadings for particular catchments, and the allocation of discharge permits in a way that is analogous to the current allocation of water for abstractive use.

What may be particularly challenging to our thinking in this regard, is the prospect that such allocation limits may be determined not on the basis of the potential impacts of land-based activities on other groundwater users or the values in coastal spring-fed streams, but on the implications of those activities for the uses and values of waters overlying the continental shelf, and beyond. END QUOTE

This paper is available in full on our web-site, www.waterrightstrust.org.nz

5/ The CPW scheme does not propose a catchment-wide nutrient budget. Instead, a sustainability code is proposed for farmers whereby:

“Central Plains Water Limited will adhere to and uphold best practice environmental standards of such type and to such levels of performance as shall be agreed by the parties.(ie Central Plains Water Limited and Central Plains Water Trust) Such standards:

- must be reasonable and appropriate

- must be financially viable to implement

- must not affect the financial viability of water users use of water from the scheme”

Under such an agreement, there is no assurance that investors in the scheme would reduce stocking levels and fertiliser input to levels that would ensure our waterways are satisfactorily protected, if emerging science indicates this is necessary. If ‘best practice’ farming standards were found to be contributing to build-up of contaminants in lowland waterways and groundwaters, there would be no incentive or requirement for farmers to critically examine other farming options that were environmentally sustainable. Proposed on-farm management procedures remain unknown, especially the basis for establishing, reviewing and allocating among individual farms a catchment-wide nutrient budget. Critical resource management decisions would have to be made on the many farms associated with this scheme. The applicant does not provide details on how farms will be monitored and held accountable for correct implementation. The applicant must also be absolutely clear in intent, content, and control of farmer best practice management codes, taking account of an overall nutrient budget for the catchment, if environmentally sustainable economic returns are to be maximised.

6/ Ford and Taylor also highlight the potential damage to our off-shore waters arising from nutrients being transported from intensively farmed land. Such an effect would potentially foreclose economic development prospects in marine farming. Such potential opportunity cost should be included in a full cost/benefit analysis of the scheme.

7/ There are no exit criteria and strategies for the scheme, if after construction has commenced there are unforseen natural events, economic or social changes that affect the basis on which the scheme was approved.

Summary

Water Right Trust holds that these are critical areas requiring further research, debate, consultation and agreement before the scheme is approved. The scheme should be fully evaluated from a cost/benefit perspective, and the risks and causal relationships properly quantified for expert and public scrutiny in terms of seriousness of adverse consequences, should they materialise. Areas where ‘no risk’ outcomes are appropriate should be identified, plus the associated strategies necessary to achieve these.

Water Rights Trust requests that the consent authority declines the application, pending

resolution of these matters.

Murray Rodgers

Chairman

Water Rights Trust