The response in Canterbury to the gutting of Environment Canterbury – Ecan and allied Water Conservation Orders – is gathering in intensity. The Press is full of genuine letters of outrage at the loss of local democracy to a govt-installed set of commissioners – the first such bowling of a council even in NZ’s history.
Today, the chair of the Water Rights Trust, Murray Rodgers, sent me a copy of a letter he’d earlier sent to Nick Smith. Murray and the trust represent established Canterbury interests with genuine interests in improving water quality (one member is Richard Ballentyne, scion of the famous Chch department store.) Murray challenges Dr Smith to explain why his Ecan bill, without prior advice to anyone, included the gutting of the well-established consultation and court process for establishing (or dis-establishing) Water Conservation Orders on our major rivers (now handed to ECan Commissioners). He says on top of ending democratic processes, this risks civil disorder and challenges Smith to remove the WCO provisions immediately.
This confirms challenges we made to Smith during last week’s urgency that his bill put at risk the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, a once in a lifetime chance to get the economic/enviromental balance right. People like Murray Rodgers put years of effort into bringing it together, as did Fed Farmers, iwi, Fish and Game, Irrigation NZ, Forest and Bird reps… Some of these groups are now at high risk of walking away, because even though the Strategy is included as a schedule to the new Act, it is worthless in the face of a determined Govt agenda to kick-start new water allocation from next year, without new environmental rules in place – and in part, delivered by weakened WCO processes. A dam of anger is now building in Canterbury; it might not rapidly sweep away the new rushed laws but it is already eroding the Government’s credibility.
Oooooh no,
The unprecedented political muscle used to overturn ECan seems likely to backfire on this government badly. Democracy will rebound, better than ever. ‘One Council for Canterbury’ will be the result.
Smith said he had to move because the impending ECan elections would produce an unfavourable result. Surprising candour! The ECan rural gerrymander was winding down, and the move to user pays was infuriating irrigators.
Also, ECan was actually doing quite a good job – the Creech report said so! But it was not delivering more irrigated dairying.
The Hurunui scheme (primarily for dairying) must have serious flaws, not yet exposed. After all, the Opuha dam got the OK from ECan – why not Hurunui? So the consent process, already well under way, has been overturned, and real public examination stalled.
This comes from the top. John Key has pledged more irrigation for Canterbury. Under this government, Cantabrians are going to get it, regardless.
It does seem, to the uninformed (me) that this is about irrigating dairy farms which are in high drought possibility areas. Am I over simplifying? Dairying in partsof Canterbury has always been a stupid proposition becaus eof the dryness. Southland dairying makes absolute sense. IF farmers choose to begin dairying in a high risk area isn’t that their risk to bear? There is plenty of land to dairy elsewhere in NZ.
What about the Mokuhanui (sp) river being dammed? I will be driving through there again next week and it is a place of jaw dropping beauty. I also understand the eco system is complex. I was not surprised but disappointed to hear the Buller Mayor proclaim how good it would be for jobs AND tourism would gain (visitors to the dam)!!!!!
Yeah, a dude on Breakfast this morning was talking about how dry it is in Canterbury.
I am gobsmacked at how undemocratic this govt is – it really makes my blood boil. Who the heck do they think they are? TO take away (as someone living in this area) my right to vote for people to represent this area – big, big, big mistake, and I hope that this comes back to bite Key on the butt (and his greedy little cronies) – and its not like this is an isolated case either. EG: the min of education makes a national statement last year that she will not close any school that the community wants to keep -THEN, in the next breath closes Aorangi despite overwhelming public support to not do so – (thats not the only school I might add) – then theres the mess with the supercity structures, the mining issues, the nat stds mess, adult ed cuts – and on and on…
BUT, to take away an entire areas right to vote – could someone remind me which country we actually live in? Perhaps someone should go and recount the last elections votes, and double check the medias so called polls, because I am beginning to get very distrustful of both the govt and those that claim to support it. A reminder that the Hollow Man was most revealing and we keep forgetting the silent (but not so benign) backers of the nats.
See the latest ‘auction’ on trademe for the selling off of our democracy called “Democracy in The people’s Republic of Christchurch”
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=281829361
Here’s the thing paul. This country has a history of putting farmers into a seperate category from the rest of us.
Sure we (urban, non farming types) have to pay taxes toward their roads into remote areas, their power lines, their telephone and internet connections etc etc and at times we have subsidised their businesses, where other businesses fail through attirition and bad choices farmers were protected.
Forestry which assists carbon emmission rates (until chopped down) is neck-deep in emmission tradings but farms are exempt, and so on.
It only stands to reason that dumb urbanites and non farmers (us) couldn’t possibly be trusted to have a say over irrigation that might not be what the farmers, who have CHOSEN to dairy in drought suceptible areas, want.
I hope this clarifies it for you.
I have been lead to believe that the new Council will not be issuing water rights for irrigation. Is that so or not?
I know that there is serious concern that Christchurch’s famed water supply has been at increasing risk for some years. It is dependent on aquifiers being fed from up country. When too much water is extracted (irrigation)the aquafiers have diminished supply but more importantly they suck in pollutants, which will need in the future very expensive filtration plants at Taxpayers expense.
I believe that the previous state of the play had shown that the limit for water extraction by irrigation, had already been reached and even passed.
Can the new set of Commisioners increase the water take or not?
The other problem is the build up of Nitrates in the Acquifier that supplys Christchurch, Which is very damaging to Human health, particularly young children.
I have family in Christchurch, and my partner is from there. They all claim the water (drinking) is not as good as it was even ten years ago… anecdotal I know.
Tracey. My brother-in-law is a very worried expert on Christchurch water/drainage. He will tell you how not many years ago crystal clear water would leap up from underground pressure, 3-4 metres high especially on the North East side of town. Now it has to be pumped up and is reaching a need for purification. If a full purification plant is needed for the 400,000 people of Christchurch, and if it is caused by the draw off of water so the dairy farmer can flourish, it will be your rates to pay for it while the dairy farmer heads to the bank. And Canterbury will lose its character. Cess pit!
IanMac I never knew how good CHCH water was until I lived there for six months, returned to Auckland and have NEVER drunk straight from an Auckland tap since. Water quality is paramount, and water in Canterbury was certainly not “broken” until recently, seemingly in direct corrolation with increased dairying.
Tracey, the Onehunga water would be the best in Auckland as it still comes from their own supply, in aptly named Spring Street…You are correct about the CHC water, still better than some of the AKL supply.
Good points Tracey, Ianmac, Peter. We have the best water quality in the world in Chch – only Evian comes close and they charge $5 a bottle. While overall Chch has a high quality rating, our northwest corner is D rated – not particularly from dairying but industrial activity. However that nor’west frontier is most vulnerable to any increase in intensification around the Waimak. If you have access to particular data/info on this, fire it to me.
It’s a ridiculous situation here in Canterbury. Farmers get water allocation but no monitoring. There are irrigators going in the heat of the day and even during periods of heavy rain they just carry on because there are no consequences for them.
I am with linda – pretty stupid idea to set up diarying in a place known for drought – and to not regulate useage is also stupid.
I grew up in a rural background (and no, unlike other family members – am not a NACT supporter) and so I get the issues, but some common sense seems to be missing.
I agree that chch water is good – its the only water I will drink from the tap – lived in Dunners for a long time and that water is worse than 3rd world.
Brendon: Can you tell me if the new Commissioners can (bypass the system and) allocate water for irrigation? Please.
Linda, I must say that has annoye dme for years in Canterbury – driving at the hottest time of the day and seeing irrigators blasting their mists which must be almost completely evaporated before hitting the ground. I assume they are on time mechanisms… everyone in the garden city knows you water in the evening, or around dawn… not inbetween and not in summer.
IanMac
“Brendon: Can you tell me if the new Commissioners can (bypass the system and) allocate water for irrigation? Please.”
Great question
Two sides to this story (like all)
On the one side, the political liability called Nick Smith (who is being sued again for shooting his mouth off over something or other) and knee jerk reaction in rushing this law through. Nick must be thinking about shoring up votes for the 2011 election.
On the other side, the political liability called Michael Bassett, Labour Party local government minister who foisted Regional Councils onto the electorate in 1989 as an extra and unprecedented second tier of local government political bureacracy. Cue 20 years of political bickering which is why it has taken so long to create this Canterbury Water Plan that you speak of. Considering that the Waitaki Plan formulated without Ecan’s involvement took only one year to produce, why is anyone defending the regional council?
Labour had nine years to address what was and is well known conflict between regional and territorial councils all around NZ. It is now being addressed in Auckland and Canterbury by National because Labour doesn’t believe in reducing political bureacracy. Why anyone has faith in Ecan to come up with the goods considering their record over the last 20 years, I have no idea.
National proposes to abolish regional councils and split their functions between government agencies and territorial councils. Hopefully the regional council experiment of the Labour Party will soon come to an end.
Regional Councils are indeed overdue for a long hard look. In 20 years they have grown from the old Catchment Boards into essentially land-use authorities, with functions now overlapping or competing with city and district councils.
This is wasteful and expensive.
The new Auckland SuperCity may have its faults, but a unitary authority of 1.5m people will dominate the TA scene in NZ to the extent of farce. The smallest are less than 5000 population, and most are 50k or fewer.
Soon, one TA will cover 40% of the population, and 70-odd TA’s the other 60%!
There is a good case for establishing four unitary TA’s for the whole South Island – Canterbury, ‘Tasman’ (Nelson/Marlborough), West Coast and ‘Otago’(Otago/Southland). Even then, there would be massive disparities in population, with Canterbury roughly ten times the population of the West Coast.
But it would bring some sense into the current haphazard mix.
These authorities would take over all the functions of the present TA’s. There seems little to be said for some sort of Environmental Agency. After all, what is the Ministry of the Environment supposed to do?
Some serious work should be done on this.
Good points swampy. I still cringe whenever I see or hear Mr Bassett.
Yes, before you ask, I’m an irrigation farmer, and yes, I’m involved in Fed Farmers. There, got that out in the open.
So many conspiracy theories, so much misinformation and misconceptions.
The reason the councillors are gone is plain and simple.
Under Kerry Burkes leadership they behaved like a bunch of schoolchildren and the public on both sides of the water debate got heartily sick of it. So , they are gone. where to from here? There is no guarantee that more water will be granted in the short term or that the process of getting that water will become easier. What we hope will happen is that Dame Margaret and a team of Commissioners with some very specific skill sets will get on with the job of genuinely implementing some of the key aspects of the CWMS. And despite being a water enhancement advocate and a long time endorser of Irrigation on the Canterbury Plains I have a genuine belief that this can be done with all the environmental aspirations carried out in parallel with development. Those who have worked alongside the environmental groups throughout the various stages of the CWMS know that this is a key ingredient to the strategy working and the farming community DOES buy into that ideal!! For these groups to now be throwing their toys over the fact that WCOs may now be handled differently is prove that many of them were focused on Environmental protection alone all the way through.The bottom line with WCOs is that as before the final decision will still lie with the Minister. Like it or not.
WE have had a regional council with an appalling culture and only those who have had dealings with the council can truly comment on that culture and how destructive it has been to all sorts of relationships in the canterbury region.
I know many staff at Ecan who have felt restricted by that culture and I can tell you , mnay of them are now excited by the possibility of changing Ecan into an organisation that can really serve Canterbury on all levels. Canterbury is not short of water, never has been , never will be. We just have to use it wisely , store some, and do it in an equitable way that benefits all. Its actually not that hard, its just that Ecan never really looked for the answer, or if they did, they certainly didn’t want to implement it. Happy to take questions.