All posts in the topic Central Plains Water Scheme
Summary
- There are 85 posts — by 26 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Trevor Owen at 2009 Aug 05 10:26 UTC
| From | File | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Eugenie Sage | E sage 1 MB.JPG | 2007 Sep 04 02:35 UTC |
What, two months discussing public issues for Canterbury and no talk
about water?
The Christchurch City Council has deferred its decision[1] on further
funding for the Central Plains Water scheme. When they do vote, how
should the vote? What does this scheme mean for Canterbury citizens,
both urban and rural? What are the benefits from this scheme and what
are the costs? Who incurs those benefits and costs? Is the Central
Plains scheme the best way of achieving the benefits? What are the
national and global implications of this scheme?
Of course, this is not the only water issue that is currently facing
Canterbury. Please feel free to open topics on any other water issues in
rural or urban Canterbury.
Dear Dan
My name is BJ Clark, Regional Facilities Manager and Access Advisor for
CCS Canterbury West Coast. I have been following with great interest
your Forum discussions and would like to suggest that Access would be a
great topic at some time.
We have a great city/country however those with disabilities, be they
permanent or temporary, have great difficulty accessing basic services
you and I take for granted.
If you want to know what access is like in Christchurch for example,
consider how you would get on if, for say one week, you were unable to
access a facility that had steps.
We have kneeling buses, not that they always work or in fact stop for a
person in a wheelchair. We have shops with stepped entrances, banks and
other public facilities still being built without accessible areas.
Those with disabilities have money they wish to spend but often are
unable to access the facility they want, so not only do they miss out
but so does the retailer.
We have accommodation in this city that professes to be accessible, only
to fail miserably when put to the test. People with disabilities,
including the aged, both visitors and local travel more and more these
days and enjoy that freedom of accessible accommodation.
When thinking about access, we must not only think of a person in a
wheelchair, it includes the young, elderly, hearing and sight impaired,
those with intellectual disabilities and those with temporary
disabilities i.e. broken limbs etc.
Hope this may fit into your Forum discussions at some time
Cheers
BJ Clark QSM JP
Regional Facilities Manager & Access Advisor
CCS Canterbury and West Coast
PO Box 8066
Riccarton
Christchurch
Ph (03) 348 8974
027 296 5505
Dan Randow, Forum Manager, Canterbury Online Public Issues Forum wrote:
> Of course, this is not the only water issue that is currently facing
> Canterbury. Please feel free to open topics on any other water issues in
> rural or urban Canterbury.
What water issues ? You turn on the tap, and out it comes, and it's
free. So why worry ? ;-)
Seriously, though, I think there is a point where people (in general)
start to care about water, in order of importance:
1. When you have to pay for it.
2. When it no longer comes out of the tap, or at least access to it is
restricted in some way, e.g., summer rationing.
3. When it starts to damage your health.
There are other points that affect a politically insignificant minority,
such as when you can't swim or fish in it. I suspect that most people in
Christchurch see free, clean, abundant water as a fundamental right,
which is usually what happens when something has been that way for so
long you can't remember anything different.
I believe user-pays is the simplest, most equitable way of making people
value water as a limited and essential resource rather than dismiss it
as a god-given right. It would probably be fair to say that Christchurch
people view free, clean water the same way as Americans view cheap
petrol - part of our non-negotiable way of life.
I imagine most people in the rest of NZ would say that it's time for
Christchurch people to wake up and smell the chlorine ...
Cheers, Andrew.
What do the CCC not really understand about "Global Warming" in relation to
Canterbury? Reduced snow melt, and rainfall are predicted .
Christchurch is one of only 2 cities in the world where the water does not
have to be treated. have we taken this a little for granted.
According to hydrologists who have studied the aquifers of CHCH and their
source waters,(one of whom was formally employed by Christchurch City
Council) there is much more to learn in relation to how the aquifers are
presently working, let alone what effect, this dubious project could have on
said aquifers.
Oh, and there is the small matter of reducing the water volume in the Rakaia
& Waimakariri by 50%
Whats that all about? not exactly a tonic for tourism....NZ's wonderful
braided rivers, clean and green,... if you count the run off
perhaps.Apparently 90% of farmers have fenced off their streams and
waterways, if this is so, then the remaining 10% are puching above their
wait in terms of water pollution.
Can some one out there please explain how we can advance with this project
whilst protecting our precious aquifers and rivers?
I remain at present unconvinced that this can be achieved.
Hi Bob,
I know I'm a candidate for one of those nasty "alligned" groupings that is
honest and open about its vision and policies and where our donations come from
:) Putting that to one side, I am genuinly interested to know why you did/did
not support the Central Plains Water loan?
You said in your previous post that if voters want clues about the thinking of
candidates then they simply have to ask. There are quite mixed views on the
CPW scheme. If you were in the position of deciding would you want to see
Central Plains Water scheme go ahead?
Hi Tony,
I was not part of the CCC in 2000 when the first steps were taken to involve
Council in the scheme. However a significant number of your 2021 colleagues
were and they can probably tell why they supported it then. Do I want to see it
go ahead? Read on, but first here are some of the key points from our (Council
by resolution) submission to the CPW consent hearings:
1) It (the CCC ) has concerns including environmental effects which may arise
from the CPWT scheme (they are outlined in the CCC submissions)
2) It (the CPW proposal) does not at this stage have sufficient information to
state categorically whether those effects are able to be avoided, remedied or
mitigated.
3) If those effects cannot be avoided, remedied, or mitigated, the application
should be declined.
4) Given the potential environmental impacts, the Council asks that a
precautionary approach be taken.
Should the Council permit CPW Limited to obtain extra non-ratepayer funding in
order to make it to the consent hearings where the above questions can be
addressed, and CPWL responses subject to challenge and further enquiry?
In our (council) view, only if the CPW Trust can give us assurances that they
have the will and the means to deliver on the original intentions for the
establishment of the Trust. Intentions that include:
5) Economic development for the Regions and Canterbury
6) Enhancement of the environment
7) Use, development and protection of the Region's water resources so as to
provide for the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of the inhabitants of
the Region
8) Enhancement of, or at least no damage to or a neutral effect on, the CCC
water supply aquifers
9) Protection of rural land productivity
And to deliver on the following post-consent (if any) goal:
“To provide and facilitate opportunities for agricultural and horticultural
diversity in the regions”.
So in answer to your question: The hearing process is the appropriate place for
these important questions 1 to 4 to be answered, but Council will only allow
CPW to continue (by agreeing to extra non-ratepayer funding) to the consents
process if it can demonstrate to Councils satisfaction that it has the will and
means to deliver the outcomes sought in 5 to 9.
And that was the resolution that I voted for at the recent Council meeting.
Applications for extraction of water from the Rakaia and the Waimakariri are
inevitable, but I am not convinced that CPW will necessarily get what they
want. However as a community we do need to test the arguments sooner or later.
If CPW don't get all that they want, and consent conditions are tight, then the
scheme may not fly on the economics (in my view anyway). Bad news perhaps for
them, but good news for the community as the arguments will be flushed out,
tested and some clearer baselines established.
The very scale of what is being proposed focuses everyone from Central Govt to
key environmental groups. It is big news, and will be very closely scrutinised.
The "system" needs to be threatened by the potential for bad outcomes on a
large scale to really get it focused on this vital issue, from river flows, to
potential contamination, or even positive effects on aquifers. I believe with
this level of scrutiny poor science will not survive the court of public or
legislative judgement. CPW's theories need to be tested, and tested to the max,
in the appropriate forum.
Regards,
Bob Parker.
The Central Plains Water scheme should NOT go ahead.
The proponents of the Central Plains Water (CPW) scheme put forward arguments
as to why the scheme should go ahead. As one of the councillors who voted
against the scheme I would like to counter these arguments.
One of the arguments is that, ‘”the scheme will stop the continued
proliferation of ever deeper wells sucking water from our underground
aquifers.” This is not a valid argument because, in the central plains area
where the scheme is going, the groundwater is not available for use and
therefore water for irrigation must be supplied from the rivers. Furthermore
CPW claim that those farmers at present using ground water will switch over
to the scheme water and save themselves pumping costs. CPW do not explain how
they will convince ALL farmers in the scheme area, to give up their wells.
Groundwater wells represent a considerable investment, and its more likely
that farmers will want to hold on to hard won consents. I believe they will
want BOTH sources of water so there goes the "pressure on the aquifers" theory.
Proponents of the scheme say that, “The resource consent process will sort out
any concerns and problems”. I don’t have that much faith in the Resource
consent Process. At the moment 48 % of farmers are not complying with their
resource consents. Furthermore the CPW people say that there will be a code of
sustainability that farmers will have to comply with before they are able to
take the water. If nearly 50% of farms are not complying with the consents
granted under the RMA what chance does a sustainability code, with no
legislative teeth have? In this Sustainability code there`s a clause that says
farm viability should not be affected. If this is the case this code is not
worth the paper its written on. The other huge problem with the RMA is that is
does NOT consider the cumulative effects and a very small number of consents
are ever declined. (something like 2%).
The process always advantages the best resourced, smaller groups opposing
cannot hope to match the resources of CPW, engage expert witnesses etc
The argument put forward that “ a rise in the groundwater across Canterbury is
beneficial” has no substance because there would be big problems for
Christchurch with increased ground water levels. It would impact on land use,
and construction and maintenance activities, including sewer replacement /
maintenance programmes and quarrying activities.
Raised groundwater would cause a release of microbial and chemical
contaminants from septic tank discharge areas, farm offal pits and disused
landfill sites. It can create faster pathways for contaminants to enter
groundwater resulting in the contamination of drinking water sources.
Another argument that I would like to refute is, “The CPW Scheme will have
great economic benefit to our community”. Any economic benefit will be short
term and will accrue to the private shareholders. Who will clean up the
nitrates and other pollutants in our water supply after all the dairy industry
has shifted to China.
Scheme funding costs, operating, maintenance and depreciation appear to have
been assessed but not verified.
What about the financial/economic inputs and outputs that may have been
identified but costs have not been attributed to any financial input or output.
Some of these are: Mitigating nitrate infiltration of the water table,
relocating Canterbury mudfish, ensuring there is no mixing of water from the
Waimakariri, Selwyn and Rakaia rivers, ensuring there is a low impact on Lake
Ellesmere.
No allowance has been made for administration or compliance costs, hydrology,
cultural, environmental and land owner related cost requirements. Embedded
costs are high and scheme uptake is critical to keeping “at gate per hectare
costs” down. It appears that scheme costs were conceived assuming no
restriction on construction or operation.
Furthermore I would like to counter the argument that, “The CPW scheme is a
community scheme and will provide water for a wide range of new initiatives on
the Canterbury Plains, not just dairy”.
The water can only be used by the private shareholders. The cost of building
the scheme will be huge. By the time the scheme is built how many shareholders
could afford to farm anything other than dairy cows. You only have to look out
on the plains now and see the growth of dairy farms. If loans are taken from
large dairy corporates, the consents could end up being owned by them.
A further argument that proponents of the scheme put forward is: ‘If this
scheme doesn’t go ahead, other people are waiting to get the water and/or do a
scheme like this.
This is not valid because other organisations like Ngai Tahu and Synlait have
already applied for water takes from the same rivers and been granted them.
My biggest concern is contamination of our drinking water. Intensive dairying
on our very light Canterbury soils is not sustainable and we, the rate payers
will be left with the huge clean up bill and no drinkable water. If there was a
proposal to put a city of 60 million people out on the plains with no sewerage
system there would be an uproar. However the amount of excrement produced by
the number of cows that the the CPW scheme will allow for, is the same as 60
million people. Apart from the excrement there is also the problem of tonnes
of nitrogen fertilisers working their way down into our aquifers.
Our most precious resource is fresh water. We need a moratorium on all water
takes to wait for the results of several studies, the most important being the
Integrated Research for Aquifer Protection (IRAP), Sustainable Water Programme
of Action (SWPOA) and the NRRP.
Quote Andrew Groom from "CPW scheme" thread: "This is the right place to do it,
i.e., a reply to this post would be
fine. So how has CPW affected you ? Let's hear your story.
Cheers, Andrew."
Hi Andrew I found this thread four pages back and decided to bump it and keep
it going.
I am one of the farmers in the Sheffield Valley that has had land designated in
this 'state sanctioned land grab' for the finacial benefit of a private
company. For the past six years and more to come, I am a caretaker on my own
land for CPW. I can't carry out my development plans for the property, I can't
improve it (Works Act). If I want to do anything that requires resource
consent, I have to get permission from CPW!
There is a huge amount to be said about this and I am a bit knackered, so I'll
leave it at that for the moment.
I'll be back.
Sally, it's wonderful to see the view of a councilor that's not sucked in by
the 'spin'.
Hi Marty
Thank you for recognising my opposition to CPW. I wrote the following
two letters to the press several days ago but unfortunately they were
not published.
Regards
Sally Buck
Sir
The Central Plains Water Scheme has 'requiring authority status' which
means it can use the public works act to acquire private land even if
the owners do not want to sell. My understanding of this status is that
compulsory purchase of land can only happen if it can be clearly
demonstrated that profound and unambiguous public good would result from
it. For Central Plains Water to use this status they would have to show
that the public good is greater than private profit. This would be very
hard for them to do, given that the company is a private group of
shareholders with the two councils having one share each. I cannot
understand how Mr Benson Pope was able to grant this status to CPW
knowing that the benefits of it only accrue to a small number of private
shareholders.
Sincerely
Sally Buck
........................................................................
..........................
Sir
The Lincoln Hot Science Lectures with Kim Hill have been excellent. At
the last one on Monday 7th August, Andy MacFarlane, a rural consultant
and winner of a farm award told the audience that in the 6 years since
he had converted his own farm to dairy - the nitrate levels on his farm
had risen by only about 2 parts per million. At this rate it will be
only another 8/9 years before he reaches the World Health Organisation
danger levels. Another speaker said that dairying was only short term -
about 40 years - then we would see diversification of land use. Another
40 years of dairying on our thin Canterbury soils, which cover our fresh
water aquifers, will be the end of our untreated pure water supply. The
cost to the community and the environment is too great.
Sally Buck
From: Sally Buck
The Central Plains Water Scheme has 'requiring authority status' which means it
can use the public works act to acquire private land even if the owners do not
want to sell. My understanding of this status is that
compulsory purchase of land can only happen if it can be clearly demonstrated
that profound and unambiguous public good would result from it. For Central
Plains Water to use this status they would have to showthat the public good is
greater than private profit. This would be very
hard for them to do, given that the company is a private group of shareholders
with the two councils having one share each. I cannot understand how Mr Benson
Pope was able to grant this status to CPW knowing that the benefits of it only
accrue to a small number of private
shareholders.
Sincerely Sally Buck
I concur with this opinion. There are difficult timres ahead.
paul scott wrote: > From: Sally Buck > The Central Plains Water Scheme has 'requiring authority status' which means it can use the public works act to acquire private land even if the owners do not want to sell. My understanding of this status is that > compulsory purchase of land can only happen if it can be clearly demonstrated that profound and unambiguous public good would result from it. For Central Plains Water to use this status they would have to showthat the public good is greater than private profit. This would be very > hard for them to do, given that the company is a private group of shareholders with the two councils having one share each. I cannot understand how Mr Benson Pope was able to grant this status to CPW knowing that the benefits of it only accrue to a small number of private > shareholders. I think the reason is that the myth of trickle-down economics is alive and well in the heads of too many powerful people, i.e, what's good for the farmers is good for everyone. The funniest / saddest thing I read in the papers this weekend was: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4178312a6619.html My favourite line: "You have to be able to afford to be kind to an environment." (fade to the sound of my bloodied forehead repeatedly smacking into a brick wall ...) Cheers, Andrew.
Dear *****,
I received an email from ***** the other day, asking that I contact you and
explain how the CPW scheme affects me personally. I’m sorry it’s taken a
couple of days, but my keyboard went on the fritz and I’ve only just got
another one!
As you know, Minister For The Environment, David Bondage-Pope ‘rubber stamped’
CPW’s application for Acquiring Authority to TAKE land for their irrigation
scheme. At the beginning of this month there was an Environment Court Hearing
held where the Malvern Hills Protection Society, of which I am a member,
contested the validity of this Acquiring Authority. The week before the
hearing, Gary Moore had a very timely article in the press, “Moore queries
motives of Malvern group”, where he tried to cast doubt on the society and
suspicion about the integrity of it’s members. He had ‘suspicions’ we may have
a vested interest in stopping the scheme. I say the article was timely as it
seemed to work in Moore’s favour, when the judge summed up the hearing by
saying we were “frivolous and vexatious”.
I don’t know what planet Moore is from when tells people that the scheme is
public and he’s going to keep it that way. Central Plains Water Ltd, as far as
I can see is a private company with 350 paid up shareholders. There are
approximately 346,000 shares, of which Christchurch City Council has one (1)
and Selwyn District Council have one (1). I can’t for the life of me, see how
he can think this makes it a public scheme and that he may have any control of
it! As Gary Moore is so into transparency, maybe he could enlighten us on
that.
And while he is being transparent, maybe he could tell us how CPW, who are
borrowing money to cover their shortfall in financing the resource consent
process, are going to finance what many now believe to be a billion dollar
scheme. Another thing he could be transparent about; what has been put up for
security for this loan from dairy corporation tycoon Hubbard, the resource
consents perhaps?
However, I was asked to write to you and tell you how the scheme affects us
personally, so read on. I’ll let you be the judge as to whether or not I am
“frivolous and vexatious” and see if you can spot what my ‘vested interest’ may
be!
My wife Annette and I have a 300 acre farm in the Sheffield/Waianiwaniwa
Valley. About 1/3rd of our property is designated for the CPW scheme. All of
our flat land that hosts the engine room of the farm, i.e. deer shed and yards,
implement sheds, sheep yards, cattle yards, hay storage area, grain silo and
lambing paddocks will go under water. Although the house will be above the
water by about 30 metres, it will have to be destroyed/moved because of
slippage that will be caused by the water. The public access road for the
valley will go under water and according to CPW’s maps, will be relocated to
run right through the middle of the land we are left with; about 300 metres
above the house. With the loss of our flat land and a public road through the
guts of what’s left, our farm will become inoperable.
Not once since this scheme was mooted, has any CPW representative communicated
with us about the scheme or where we stand. We have no idea whether we get
compensated for the whole property and move on, or if we just get compensated
for what we lose and have to make do with what’s left. Pat Morrison (the same
Pat Morrison that went absolutely ballistic when he thought he was going to
lose three acres of land as a transfer station for the mega dump) seems to
think we will all quite happily take our compensation and cheer as this grand
scheme, for the good of all, goes ahead.
From what I understand, according to the ‘Works Act’, land taken for a public
scheme will be compensated for at market value plus 10%. There is no way to
establish market value for the land up here as none has traded for several
years and as long as the threat of the scheme is hanging over us, it never
will. If we got compensated on our G.V., our 300 acres here wouldn’t buy us 50
acres out on the flats. That’s if it was a public scheme … CPW is a private
scheme with no money, so I surmise it will be a battle to get even a half fair
deal from these arrogant sods!
Last winter we decided that we’d had enough and looked at a farm that was for
sale at Russell’s Flat. We then brought the land agent home to assess our
place. After driving him around he said that if we wanted to get out we would
have to put our place on the market for HALF of what we thought it was worth.
At that price someone might take the gamble with the scheme.
We bought this farm in 1992, initially with the idea of developing it and on
selling it to realize my dream of getting back into the high country.
Unfortunately New Zealand high country became flavour of the month for foreign
celebrities and prices rapidly increased into la la land, no longer viable or
even possible for mere peasants such as ourselves to contemplate. For me to
achieve my ultimate ambition, to go back home to Cecil Peak at Queenstown, I
would need, at a guess, 40 million dollars!
We leased the property out for a couple of years, then in 1995 we left Mount
Cook where we’d lived for ten years while I flew ski planes, shifted out here
and got stuck in. Over the next five years I worked five week rotations in
Algeria and then eight week rotations in China, flying oil rig support for
Swiss based ZIMEX Aviation, then later drove a deer transport truck for Central
Deer Freighters; all to help fund development of our farm. Development
consisted of: bull dozing fence lines/fire breaks, burning gorse, deer fencing
several blocks on the hills, spraying gorse by hand and helicopter, top
dressing, sowing grass seed, built an implement shed and deer shed. We trebled
the stock carrying capacity of the property. Then it all came to an end.
We are not GOING to lose our farm to CPW, regardless of how this turns out,
whether the scheme goes ahead or not, we ALREADY lost our farm to CPW in 2000
when we first heard about the scheme. With the threat of having our property
taken off us in this state sanctioned land grab, there is very little sense in
pouring money into development that wont be compensated for. All other
development plans I had for the place went on hold and for the last six years
and more to come, I am just a caretaker on my own land for CPW. I am so gutted
and disheartened by this whole deal, I’ve gone back to flying ski planes four
days a week at Mount Cook for the summer seasons. During the winter I can
barely pluck up the will to go out the door in the mornings to feed the animals
and do the required maintenance work.
A while ago I said to a shareholder cocky, “Where’s our bloody democracy when a
group of farmers can take land off another group of farmers for their own
financial benefit?”
He replied, “I hear where you’re coming from Marty, but if everyone thought
that way, we’d still be driving round with a horse and cart.”
What this cocky and most other people don’t seem to understand is the political
ramifications of this land theft. The precedent is now set where any private
group can spin a bit of yarn to the government about ‘for the public good’ and
‘Acquire’ anyone’s land or private property. The ‘Public Access’ row that went
on a couple of years ago pales in comparison to this erosion of private
property rights.
Another point I try get through is this. Environmentalists in New Zealand go
ballistic if someone chops down a native tree, builds a shed on the skyline,
paints a house the wrong colour, etc. Look at what happened over the Manapouri
project … bumper stickers …. protest marches. CPW are proposing, apart from
flooding 4000 acres of perfectly good farm land, a 30 metre wide, open canal
all the way from the Rakaia River to the Waimak River. They are going to put
475 kilometres of 16 to 26 metre wide, open canals all over the Central Plains.
Looking down from 10,000 feet, the Central Plains will look like a string
singlet with these canals all over the place. I look around in vain, wondering
where all the marchers are protesting the prospect of this gross disfigurement
of the Canterbury Plains.
I know there are going to be numerous detrimental consequences associated with
this scheme, such as river health, habitats, polluted aquifers, Canterbury
becoming the biggest factory farm in the Southern Hemisphere, but …….
In my opinion those two points; the erosion of property rights and the eyesore
of the canals, those two points alone, if people thought about them, should
stop the scheme dead in it’s tracks.
Well that’s me ****, I hope I haven’t bored you to death and this is not too
much of a muddle.
Cheers
Marty Lucas
Dear Marty,
Thank you for your heartfelt posting on how the proposed CPW scheme has and
will affect you. It must be incredibly frustrating to feel helpless with
decisions being made by other people which so obviously affect your welfare.
In regard to the two issues you raised, "the erosion of property rights and
the eyesore of the canals" - I would be interested to know...
1. If you were now consulted properly and paid what you viewed as fair
compensation for your property or offered a replacement farm of similar
value in a position acceptable to you, would you accept this?
2. There are canals running through the Ashburton county similar to what CPW
is proposing which have been in place for many years. Have you seen these,
and do you see them as an eyesore too?
Thanks again for presenting this issue so clearly.
Best wishes
Helen McLeod
Candidate for Environment Canterbury, Christchurch North
Business Development Manager
Medlab South Ltd
Standing for Canterbury DHB
<email obscured>
Ph. (03) 363 0824
Mob. 027 5622 772
Hi Helen
Thanks for your response.
The reason I reluctantly posted this story about myself is that I thought it
was important for a least one of us up here in the valley to put a human face
to those that are adversely affected by the scheme.
As you can see by my avatar, I am just a man with my dog, leaning on my hill
stick, totally bemused by the revelation that a private group of people can
take my land and wreck my life. I'm not a politician, rocket scientist, nor an
orator, so I am ill-equipped to debate the scheme with any great success.
I'd like to point out that I am not the only one to be coerced into sacrificing
land. In the Waianiwaniwa Valley and out on the flats there is purported to be
in excess of 400 land titles that will be adversely affected by the scheme, for
the benefit of 350 shareholders in CPW.
What do you think of that Helen? Do you think that is fair and just?
Coming from a farming background yourself, I am sure you will appreciate the
position we are in.
To answer your questions:
"1. If you were now consulted properly and paid what you viewed as fair
compensation for your property or offered a replacement farm of similar
value in a position acceptable to you, would you accept this?"
The issue is that a private group has been given Acquiring Authority to take
land off another group for their own financial gain. That this is also
supported by both Councils, even to the tune of giving them my rates to assist,
I find obscene.
If pigs could fly and CPW ever chose to communicate with me as an equal in this
democratic? society of ours, I would be very surprised indeed.
"2. There are canals running through the Ashburton county similar to what CPW
is proposing which have been in place for many years. Have you seen these,
and do you see them as an eyesore too?"
The Rangitata Diversion Race is a fraction the size of the canals that CPW
propose. There is really not much similarity at all, the whole system is
smaller, less intrusive, you would have to go out of your way to see it and it
was built at a time when people were far less environmentally aware.
The CPW scheme by comparison is huge with the main canals more akin in size to
the McKenzie Basin ones. The proposal is for hundreds of kilometres of large,
open canals all over the Central Plains. The scheme will impose on you
wherever you go on all the main roads in the central area: Bealy, Bangor,
Deans, West Coast and all the roads between. Don't forget, all international
flights will go right over the top of it as well.
Eyesore? Definitely.
Dear Marty,
Thanks for answering my questions. As before it really helps "townies" like
me to understand what is going on for you and your neighbours.
I understand your anger. My forebears farmed at Yaldhurst. When my great
great grandfather, William Savill died, the owner wanted to cancel the
long-term lease and take over the farm with all its improvements including
the house. My great great grandmother Eliza travelled by ship back to
England to fight it successfully in the High Court.
Later, the Government appropriated this farm during the second world war as
it was owned by a female (my great aunt) who was leasing it to a local
farmer until her young nephews grew up.
I know that this is history and it doesn't help your predicament, but the
frustration over these injustices lives on in my family - you would think
that we would learn from the past.
In summary, I support sustainable progress but not unfairness or injustice.
Business Development Manager
Medlab South Ltd
<email obscured>
Ph. (03) 363 0824
Mob. 027 5622 772
Hi,
I'd like to share my situation, which is very similar to Marty's.
The SDC are prepared to steal private land for unsupported regional financial
gain, through CPW.
I support sustainable progress but this scheme unfortunately, is nothing more
than unfairness and injustice to everyone in the area.
Our, the victims or 'host' community, will suffer first...
My wife and I been living with the fear of being evicted from our home and land
for about 7 years now. This is something that we don't seem to be able to shake
and on a daily basis we've given this prospect some time by way of thought or
expression.
The fact that we've had to go to meetings, read articles, try to find facts,
dwell on any information we've gleaned and write letters like this one itself
is so stressful and a complete waste of our time, if any of their company had
to personally put up with what they're forcing on us, they would have been
compensating us all everyday for the oppression of the whole 7 year onslaught.
.CPW's project has affected our whole lives right from the beginning, when we
held back on doing things to make our little bit of heaven better, from instead
of planting flowers or shrubs choosing to buy pot plants so that we could take
them with us when they finally stole our land, to holding back on routine
maintenance to our wonderful historic homestead.
As they prolonged their attack, we've learnt to be more adaptable and now can
see ourselves digging plants out again when they kick us out. Home maintenance
is a forgone conclusion for a 125 year old 2 story historic homestead over such
a long period, but renovations have been and still are 'on hold', what's the
point if their just going to bulldoze it?
There's quite a few things about their big 'land grab' that don't make sense to
us, but even though we've owned, cared for and developed our paradise here for
34 years, we'd be willing to listen to any realistic suggestions they had to
make.
Unfortunately we've heard nothing realistic from them.
Right from the beginning they appear to have lied and cheated to get to where
they are now, all with council backing and to a large extent rate-payer funded!
Most of their antics have been so misleading we've even wondered if their whole
plan was to launder public money, I understand that they have borrowed well
over $1.5M from our councils with no need to pay it back. Who knows how much or
where any interest on this money goes, how much the council administration
costs are for this 'gift' or how much more rate-payers money will lost to this
private project.
Their initial plan was to take water from the two big rivers when they were in
flood, to fill their reservoir 1 km above the Glentunnel township in the
Wairiri Valley. Now they've decided not to take any flood waters at all but
instead will take from the normal river flow of each river to fill a different
reservoir with 290 Million tons of water, just 100 meters above the Coalgate
township .
This aspect alone means they won't be taking excess water that is ordinarily
wasted out to sea (a point they initially pressed as being one of the main
benefits of their scheme) to depleting our rivers on a daily basis to what is
likely be a trickle in summer. We can only wonder if the fish will survive
this.
They said that requiring authority would not be sought or used, this turned out
to be an outright lie.
They said affected land-owners would be fully compensated.
Before they gained requiring authority we were confused about how they would
proceed with few landowners willing to give up their properties for any amount,
but they carried on and later got the requiring authority merely saying they'd
changed their minds.
We then called upon CPW to clarify how we would be affected and about their
compensation offer. An employee of the American owned company URS, who won the
contract to engineerand design the structures, came to explain. He was able to
tell us that because our property will be immediately beneath their dam, our
house would have to be demolished and now with requiring authority they were
under no legal obligation to compensate us at all, but instead said if we went
quietly without fuss, that they might compensate us somewhere up to 10% above
market value!
They now say of their totally misleading and untrue information of their
activities, that their project is evolving, which we now know to mean that we
cannot rely or trust anything they say or do. Infact it bewilders us how they
can call any part of their administration a 'trust'.
Their totally unethical offer of no compensation is farcical, we don't want to
move from our home of 35 years that we love, where our children were brought up
and our grandchildren now enjoy visiting, or have the trauma or expense of
moving. We don't want to search for a new house to live in, find new jobs or
make new friends. We are in fact quite happy living here, where we chose and
still choose to live.
We thought we were safe in our own home, but have found now that our safety
could be undermined by our own council who would like to suggest our sacrifice
will be for the greater good.
Next we look at how 650 adversely affected landowners would get compensation
between 0 to 10% above market value for all or part of their land, whilst Pat
Morrison of CPW can bribe 350 farmers into becoming shareholders with the
promise that their land will be worth 300% more, this seems to me to be nothing
more than outright theft. These 350 farmers were also threatened at that time,
with 'if they didn't buy shares now', they wouldn't be able to buy the scheme
water later.
This indicates a discrepancy in support and overall suggests the total opposite
to 'the greater good' when only a few people will benefit at a greater amounts
loss.
We, the victims, will literally be the biggest contributors to CPW's profit
driven plan by having to give up our whole lives for it and what's worse is
they needn't compensate us at all!
I might point out here that we don't want to be thinking about any of this,
even though others recently have dubbed our lives, thoughts and concerns as
'frivolous' and would much prefer to be enjoying a normal stress free life in
the country as we were before all of this harassment was put upon us!
With all this (and more) in mind, I took my concerns to our council (SDC) only
to be told that the final decision will be the councils. Even if all four
commissioners at the upcoming hearing, where submitters for or against the
scheme can air their views, were to be unanimously against the proposal, the
SDC needn't accept their recommendations and could come to any decision they
chose. Since the council was one of the instigators and have invested so much
public money, this could seem to be a forgone conclusion of support for CPW.
My wife at this point wrote to Helen Clark to look into how CPW could be
granted requiring authority by environment minister Mr Benson-Pope, only for
her letter to be handed on to Mr Benson-Pope with his answer being that the SDC
resource consent process will address the situation.
We might try writing again now Mr Benson-Pope has had more negative exposure.
This whole thing seems to us, to be revolving around the proposal for a few
farmers to waste water.
Anyone driving on the Canterbury Plains in summer will have seen massive
irrigators spraying huge amounts of water into hot Norwester winds, across
verges and gorse hedges and onto roads, all with no regard of draining the
aquifers and all purely profit driven.
These few farmers not only waste our aquifer water, deplete our rivers, spray
toxic chemical on to and over nitrate our land, but also with this scheme show
no respect for their fellow countrymen and neighbours lives and are also
prepared to escalate their contamination of the Canterbury Plains land and
water.
Would this abuse stop if Selwyn's or Christchurch's water were to become so
toxic that it'd be undrinkable? would it be too late??
This multifacetid project has no nice side, instead involving siphoning of vast
amounts of natural river water for a few farmers to waste, stealing large
amounts of private land to service these few farms, risking 100's of people
lives, living downstream of the dam, for the lifespan of the dam, taking public
money to fund the floored scheme with the probability of contaminating more
than 300,000's peoples drinking water.
We would love to see more responsibility from our councils and if they could
put any 'spare' money they felt they had into water conservation, that would be
far better.
I can imagine the millions of dollars that CPW's scheme will cost would easily
cover the cost of developing a strategy where irrigating is done in the right
amounts at night, when the water will not evaporate and why not put money into
some sun shading and wind-sheltering strategy where plant life and stock will
have an advantage?
Regards
Trevor Owen
Greetings
By establishing the Sustainable Water Programme of Action in 2003, Government
recognised that new tools and thinking were needed for water management, which
the Ministry for the Environment and MAF have yet to deliver. At the regional
level, ECAN initiated the Canterbury Strategic Water Study (CSWS) in 2000 to
assess the region’s ability to meet long term requirements for water.
ECAN’s Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP) allocates $355,400 for the
Strategic Water Study. For that to be a useful investment, wide public input to
the Strategy is needed with the aim of achieving some community consensus on
water management in the region. Integrating the final CSWS conclusions into
the regional policy statement and plans would ensure this consensus guided
Council decision making.
Allowing the current gold rush for water to continue unchecked is not
sustainable. The costs in terms of environmental degradation are likely to be
high. We need better policy tools and economic instruments, and some broad
scale agreement on how our water commons should be cared for before large
proposals such as Central Plains Water (CPW) and Ashburton Community Water
Trust (ACWT) are considered.
A moratorium on major new water takes in Canterbury’s at risk areas is urgently
needed. A moratorium should apply to new takes in zones where water resources
are over allocated or under pressure (such as Rakaia/Selwyn Red Zone), where
there are significant gaps in scientific knowledge (e.g. on the effects of more
intensive land use and dairying across the 65,000 ha. of the Plains); where
takes could affect strategic assets (e.g. community drinking water supplies),
and/or where regional plans are inadequate because they did not consider
cumulative effects (e.g. Waimakariri River Plan).
Continuing with business as usual and allowing the CPW applications to proceed
to resource consent hearings in February is a recipe for deeply divided
communities and huge costs to all parties, including councils.
With a booming economy, there is no urgent need to proceed with CPW. In its
AEE and associated reports, CPW Ltd has substantially understated the scheme’s
impacts on landholders (so eloquently described by Marty Lucas and Trevor
Owen), rural landscapes, recreation, and the healthy functioning of the
Waimakariri and Rakaia rivers.
Giant canals would block public access to the rivers, the region’s best
whitebait fishery may decline, as could the Waimakariri’s recharge of the
aquifers which provide Christchurch’s drinking water. Increased faecal
contamination and pollution of waterways risks more work days lost through
sickness.
The time, energy and financial costs to landholders, community organisations
and others who seek to defend their land, rivers, aquifers and Te Waihora
through the RMA consent hearings and inevitable Environment Court and other
appeals will be enormous. Competent scientific and technical staff in councils
and other agencies will be deflected from more strategic long term thinking
about sustainable land and water management, and increasing water efficiency,
to the consent process.
A moratorium for at risk catchments would avoid this and allow time for the
Canterbury Strategic Water Study to be completed. To date, the CSW study has
focused on water availability and potential storage options, with a
disappointing lack of transparency and accountability.
Public consultation is now promised for Stage 4 including on “the community
values and priorities to be considered in formulating an overall strategy for
water in Canterbury” and on the related issues such as the ecological effects
of water storage, the cumulative effects of land use intensification on water
quality in streams and groundwater, and the controls needed here to improve
sustainability. Public input needs to be widespread and influence the strategy
outcomes.
Achieving a moratorium for at risk catchments and groundwater requires letters
and representations to Canterbury MPs, and Government Ministers including
Acting Environment Minister, David Parker. Such a moratorium would help put
long term environmental health ahead of a short term irrigation boom.
Regards,
Eugenie Sage
Candidate for Environment Canterbury
Selwyn/Banks Peninsula
The following file was added to this topic:
Eugenie Sage wrote:
> Allowing the current gold rush for water to continue unchecked is not
> sustainable. The costs in terms of environmental degradation are
> likely to be high. We need better policy tools and economic
> instruments, and some broad scale agreement on how our water commons
> should be cared for before large proposals such as Central Plains
> Water (CPW) and Ashburton Community Water Trust (ACWT) are
> considered.
Wow, Eugenie, thankyou for those responsible, sensible words. Taking a
leaf from Paul Scott's book, I now pronounce you the Benevolent Dictator
in charge of Canterbury's water :-)
And thank you for inspiring a new name for ECan - BCan = Business (as
Usual) Canterbury :-) Hopefully, if enough Councillors with your views
are elected, such a re-branding will be unnecessary.
I read a story a while back (lost the reference) about an oil family
back in the boom times in Texas who, while all about them were pumping
oil out of their wells as fast as they could, had the foresight to
restrain their pumping to what they considered to be a sustainable
level. As a result, while their neighbours tapped out their wells
decades ago, this family is still making a tidy living out of their
reserves ...
No one is going to come up with a way of making milk from thin air, and
with a growing world population, diminishing arable land, and increasing
cost of inputs, e.g, natural gas-based fertiliser, agricultural
commodities are only going to become more valuable - this is *not* a
short-term boom, just the start of a sustained trend of increasing
commodity prices. So, why rush to strip-mine our soil when we can plan
for a *sustainable*, *long*-term economic future for our great-great
grandchildren ?
Oh, that's right, I forgot - because we want it *all*, and we want it
*now* ...
Cheers, Andrew.
Surely a dangerous legal precedent has been set by David Benson-Pope's
granting Requiring Authority status to the CPW scheme. The Labour Government
should be challenged to revisit this decision. I wrote a letter to The Press a
few weeks ago on this topic but it wasn't published. Yet I think it's a very
important point.
Lois Griffith
SAVE OUR WATER Candidate
Canterbury Regional council
Christchurch West
Lois I think you have hit the nail on the head with
your email. A large proportion of the disastrous
nature of this whole idea stems from this decision.
Hard to believe isn't it that a private concern has
Council money, backing and the Governments say so to
grab land.
Regards
Joy Bishop
More questions and few answers from CPW
CPW project manager and GHD director, Derek Crombie claims in The Press (7
September) that the scheme involves “no threat to Christchurch drinking water”.
The opinion piece includes no references to any independent scientific reports
to support the claims made. It would be helpful if the public could access the
actual technical reports on which “the most up-to date summary of the scheme’s
environmental effects,” is based.
To date, there have been major information gaps in technical information about
the scheme and its impacts. For example, the original Assessment of
Environment Effects did not include any independent ecological surveys or other
field research on the Rakaia and Waimakariri Rivers describing their
international importance for indigenous wildlife, particularly braided river
birds and native fish.
Nor was any scientific evidence available which substantiated the company’s
claims that only minor effects would occur from significantly reducing flows in
the Waimakariri and holding the river at the same flow for long periods. If
such research has now been done, then in the interests of transparency, CPW
should make it publicly available on its website.
The City Council’s submission to ECan on CPW’s resource consent applications
describes the seepage from the Waimakariri River bed as a “key component of the
recharge into the Christchurch aquifer system.” Changes in the flow regime
could directly affect the amount of drinking water available from the city’s
groundwater supply. CPW continues to avoid addressing this issue.
In his book “When the Rivers Run Dry - Water the Defining Crisis of the 21st
century” (Beacon Press, 2006), Fred Pearce writes of the tragedy of the Aral
Sea. What was once the fourth largest inland body of water in the world with
“plentiful fish, stunning beaches and bustling fishing ports” and “one of the
most prized areas of the Soviet empire” he describes now as a “landscape of
poison, disease and death” where “even drinking water is hard to come by”.
And why? Because Soviet engineers diverted almost all of the flow of the two
great rivers which sustained the Aral Sea (Amu Darya (Oxus) and Syr Darya to
irrigate cotton fields.
Are we risking something similar with our great underground lakes - the Plains
aquifers - by diverting the Waimakariri and Rakaia to irrigate dairy pasture?
Eugenie Sage
ECan candidate
Average total annual combined flow of Rakaia and Waimakariri:
10,800 million cubic metres per year
Take sought by Central Plains Water from Rakaia and Waimakariri
410 million cubic metres per year.
That equals 3.8% of combined rivers flow.
Doesn't sound like total diversion to me.
Re the major information gaps, if they exist then that is exactly the purpose
of the hearings. Do pass the info on Eugenie, it will be invaluable to the
submitters.
Best regards,
Bob
Reading from the CPW site;-
The median flow of both of these rivers is 248 cubic meters per second.
CPW want to take up to 60 cubic meters per second.
CPW could take this amount of water to a minimum flow of 130 cubic meters per
second.
which equals nearly 50% take
as we haven't been able to trust CPW to date, we can imagine that this is
exactly what they'll do.
Of course on top of this there are other company's already taking water from
these two rivers to irrigate..
It'd be great to know what their answers to all the questions are before the
hearing, surly if they believe their plan will benefit the area so much, then
this is a great chance to advertise that benefit.
Trevor Owen wrote:
> Reading from the CPW site;-
>
> The median flow of both of these rivers is 248 cubic meters per second.
> CPW want to take up to 60 cubic meters per second.
>
> CPW could take this amount of water to a minimum flow of 130 cubic meters per
second.
>
> which equals nearly 50% take
Hmmm, Trevor says 50%, Bob says 3.8%. I'm confused ...
Bob, in the event that there is no agreement on the effects of the CPW
scheme, do you think it would be better to:
a) err on the side of short-term economic benefit and press ahead with
the scheme, knowing that it would be very unlikely to be undone (once
the investment in infrastructure had been made and the big screen TVs
and Holden utes start to disappear from Christchurch retailers apace) if
the effects of the scheme were found to be negative.
OR
b) err on the side of caution and wait until we have better information
before proceeding with the scheme. After all, the rivers and the plains
are still going to be there tomorrow, so what's the rush, eh ?
The good thing about the "we need more information" argument is that it
reveals the true desires of the decision makers.
Cheers, Andrew.
In response to Trevor Owen,
If only it were so simple...
We need to be very careful in analysing figures such as these.
The statistics you quote only tell that when you rank the water flow from
lowest to highest during the year, on the middle day (approx 182nd day) the
water flow is 248 cu meters per sec. There is no indication about how many
days the river is in flood with too much debris to be suitable for CPW.
There is no indication of how many times the river is at or below 130 cu
m/sec.
This is why we need the clever scientists at Ecan and water modelling
software which is tested and is as accurate as possible to evaluate the CPW
proposal.
However it is great to have debates like this so we can get discussion on
the issues.
Helen McLeod
Candidate, Environment Canterbury, Christchurch North
<email obscured>
Ph. (03) 363 0837
Mob. 027 5622 772
"In the Interest of preserving our forests, please consider carefully before
printing this email"
Notice of confidential information: The information contained in this e-mail
message is confidential information and may also be legally privileged,
intended only for the individual or entity named above. If you are not the
intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, review, dissemination,
distribution or copying of this document is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this document in error, please immediately notify the sender by either
email or telephone and destroy the message. Thank you.
I believe that unless the scheme can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is
safe and environmentally sustainable then it should not go ahead. That is the
challenge that CPW have in front of them. The law of the land says CPW have
that right. CPW clearly think that they can show the scheme can pass such
tests. Time will tell.
I agree with the "we need more information debate", and think that the
structure of consent process with appeal to the Environment court and perhaps
even higher authority is the best process we have to bring that information out
into the public arena. I don't expect everyone to agree with the outcome,
WHATEVER the outcome. That would be naive and certainly a unique moment in
history should it happen. Total agreement of every single party in any judicial
process is unlikely. That is the essence of human nature and diversity.
This debate, and the science, is a crucial one for the future wellbeing of the
Province.
Both the Waimak and the Rakaia have legislation surrounding protecting minimum
flows and environmental issues. I cannot see why this should not be revisited
in the future if the current "rules" are found to be inadequate. That could
also be a by-product of the consent process WHATEVER the outcome.
Bob Parker wrote:
> I believe that unless the scheme can prove beyond reasonable doubt
> that it is safe and environmentally sustainable then it should not go
> ahead.
Thanks, Bob, that's good to know. Would any other candidates care to
answer this question as to which way they would lean (for or against the
scheme) in the case of reasonable doubt as to the environmental impacts
of the scheme ?
Cheers, Andrew.
Andrew
The recent post by Mr Parker seems more like a fence sitting position than a
for or against..as I understand he suggests the legal process will determine
the best and only real solutions as the irrigation company will have to supply
all the answers.
The ECan and Science position was explained at the recent Hot Science lectures
and it is disturbing to note that the academics, bureaucrats and practical
based forum members all agreed there were fundamental flaws in either the
interpretation or the application of the Resource Management Act which means
the current law may not be the complete solution.
Russell Whyte
RW Agritech wrote: > Andrew > > The recent post by Mr Parker seems more like a fence sitting position > than a for or against..as I understand he suggests the legal process > will determine the best and only real solutions as the irrigation > company will have to supply all the answers. Hi Russell, The significant thing to me was that Bob sees it as CPW's responsibility to conclusively prove that the scheme will *not* have any adverse effects, as opposed to other parties having to prove that it will. This cautious approach seems to me to be appropriate for elected officials to be taking to safeguard precious resources (our soil as well, not just our water) for many generations to come. Cheers, Andrew. PS. Russell, can I ask where your interest in CPW lies ? Are you a representative of NZ Agritech Inc. (http://www.agritech.org.nz/), described as: "NZ Agritech Inc is a New Zealand group of diverse agricultural technology companies including suppliers of dairy and milking equipment, livestock feed for raising cattle and sheep, to animal health remedies, farm machinery, pasture grass intake and performance data, and a lot more; all of whom distribute around the world."
Andrew
You were calling for an emotive expression of support or non-support from
councillors but then also supported Mr Parker weakly deferring his
responsibility to a legal judgement position only.
My issue is that the RMA is not a total answer and cannot be totally relied on
to promote total sustainability as is shown by recent turnovers in the
environment court preventing ECan from implementing its own judgements.
My career background is science and technology based with an Agricultural
Science degree from Lincoln then 30 years of land based sustainable management
consultancy including Sustainable Farming Projects involving Riparian planting
and stream restoration projects in the nutrient challenged Rotorua Lakes
Catchment - not connected with NZAgritech Inc.
My personal interest is in the water quality of our artesian bore at Marshlands
that provides my household and livestock drinking water so I have a vested
interest in local aquifers - not sure how deep or where they are and who might
disturb them - yet!
Russell Whyte
[ECAN]
Paul Scott Veterinarian
WATER,
and for now, CPW, is the issue.
I have asked Bob Parker to join my signs at Belfast to say to all people that
this issue will be settled properly, and with Nature as our guide.
This will not be settled here and now, in this or that column or even at these
elections.
Bob Parker our next Mayor says
"I believe that unless the scheme can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is
safe and environmentally sustainable then it should not go ahead. That is the
challenge that CPW have in front of them. The law of the land says CPW have
that right. CPW clearly think that they can show the scheme can pass such
tests. Time will tell"
I invite all Ecan candidates to my site at Belfast if you agree,
that is if you agree that Water is our major issue,
you can get great advertising at my sign.
Paul Scott.
[03] 9605-605
Paul,
Your summary of the reality of the current situation is fully endorsed
by me.
Those of us who will be challenged with the task of managing all the
issues relating to CPW and the many other challenges to our water
resource will need to be able to separate the responsibilities and
accountabilities of ECan from other jurisdictions such as the
Environment Court.
It appears to me that some of the contributors to the forum have no idea
how the legal process works and they are pleading for support while
riding an imaginary donkey under some illusion that if they get elected
the world will do what they say.
I'm an optimist (a very experienced one) and believe that all the
players in the CPW triangle will require any development to fully meet
the environmental expectations of the community.
I can't help being astounded at the conclusions being drawn by some
contributors before the scheme is even designed.
We must all be guardians of the very valuable natural resources we have
available - for the benefit of the whole community and our sacred
environment.
I am a graduate of Lincoln (College in those days), a farm adviser for
30+ years and now National Manager for Biosecurity with AgriQuality.
During my career I have worked with communities to develop many rural
stock and domestic water schemes in North and South Canterbury. In
recent years (apart from my responsibilities controlling the regular
incursions of exotic pests and diseases) I have been privileged to be a
judge for the Ballance /ECan Environmental awards for several years. WE
have many outstanding farmers but some need to be educated in their
responsibilities to us all!
Some things I know! First, that as we intensify any activity there will
be downside affects and in the past we (OUR COMMUNITY) have not always
managed these well. I believe that the message is clear - from the
majority of the community and those professionals working in the water
and environment field that all future developments will have more
stringent environmental expectations placed on them.
Second, Those who have an expectation of being elected to ECan or the
CCC should at least understand that they have to work within the legal
framework of the laws of this land - or take action to change the NZ
Law!
It is becoming more and more obvious to me that our future must be
decided based on sound science not mass hysteria driven by political
dogma!
Together we can have a progressive city and province without damaging
our environment but extremist views - from either end may result in a
lose- lose for all rather than the win - win outcome that we deserve!
I do know that without the sustainable development of our water
resources in Canterbury we will wither and die as global warming grips
this already dry coastal plain.
Good luck to you all in your decisions.
Terry Donaldson Fellow NZIPIM
Hi again,
I have to admit I have no idea about our laws and all I want to do is carry on
with my life from my own home. But, from what I've been told by the SDC in
this case is that..
even if the 4 (supposed) independent commissioners that the SDC have employed
to judge the CPW bad joke, come to the obvious conclusion that it should have
been dropped years ago, the SDC still have the power to say 'it's going ahead
anyway'.
Then if the next step is ECan to tell it how it is(with modeling or whatever),
we'll be off to the Environment Court, just to lose again for whatever reason
they were turned over for before with even more revenue down the drain. Is
that a possibility?
Just because the plains are flat, doesn't mean to say irrigators will work
better... after all it is a river bed! Global warming isn't a phrase to promote
the plunder of natural resource. What ever happened to conservation?
Old files on CPW,
There is nothing like going through old files to see what is what, and to see
if there are any jokes., and there are,
check this out by Helen.
“This is why we need the clever scientists at Ecan and water modelling
software which is tested and is as accurate as possible to evaluate the CPW
proposal.”
Helen, that’s what Ecan Councillors have been doing for years, if you follow
the Scientists at Ecan you will end up in love with Richard Budd.
Have you seen their new roading program for the City , its from experts Helen,
and it is insane. More following later.
and on the so called apparent fence post position by Bob
“I believe that unless the scheme can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is
safe and environmentally sustainable then it should not go ahead”
Have I learned anything, yes I have, the water is turning to steam.
Look from Bob again
“Average total annual combined flow of Rakaia and Waimakariri:
10,800 million cubic metres per year
Take sought by Central Plains Water from Rakaia and Waimakariri
410 million cubic metres per year.
That equals 3.8% of combined rivers flow.
Doesn't sound like total diversion to me.”
Anyway dudes I’ve got a thousand dollars , no make that ten thousand that says
the CPW as is, is shagged . Anyone want to take me on?
The roading program Kerry Burke slipped into the news the other day, while we
were all steaming away is pathetic,
as was his criticism of Bill Woods.
His experts Roading schemes are anti family motorist;
they are designed to make family motorists and workers life to the North
hell,because he wants you to live in the East ,
and I mean to tear that Road program, and his taxes, and 2021 to shreds.
Watch me I will.
It should be easy, Burke is a labour party hack, and Richard Budd is a double
dip .
Paul Scott
Dear Paul,
Thanks for the opportunity to debate this issue of the value of scientific
method in providing information for the CPW debate.
I am extremely concerned about the number of people who are arguing issues
based on emotional mis-information. I do not pretend that all scientific
information is valid and should be accepted at face value. In fact most
literature searches of scientific research will show evidence both for and
against a particular hypothesis.
Such scientific research does however provide a basis to start analysis on
what is really happening and give information to start questioning ..."what
if" and "why". But it is very important to understand the actual methodology
behind such research. This is why I cautioned earlier against knee-jerk
responses to statistics regarding the MEDIAN flow of our rivers. The
measurement quoted give no indication of what is happening on other days eg
all other days could be either peak flood which is unsuitable for storage or
below minimum recommended flows. Despite this, people in this group were
using this "evidence" to support their views on what should be happening.
Also seeing as we are discussing CPW. Although I am not convinced that CPW
is the way to go, we do need some form of water storage for the years of low
rainfall which we will probably experience in years to come. Wearing my
governance hat, I see that it is imperative to plan to mitigate for the
effects of a drought in the near future. Imagine low rainfall and water
restrictions in Chch in 5 years time - the public would rightly want to know
why the ample water in our rivers had not been managed to provide for times
of need. HOWEVER while there is doubt over the ability to maintain the
drinking water for Halswell and surrounding areas, I cannot support CPW as
the way of providing water storage.
Re Dairy Farming... again there is a lot of emotive clap-trap! I do not
support the industialisation of our farmland as I think that the dairy-farm
factories damage the picturesque nature of the Plains which lets face it
Tourism is also important to our economy and Tourists like to see and
photograph our beautiful countryside. I would prefer to see farmers
including plantings of trees and plants on their farms to encourage
biodiversity, provide food and shelter for native birds and detract from
some of the high tech installations that are mushrooming close to our main
highways. However, if Lincoln Dairy Farm can operate with best practice
farming methods and Lysimeters demonstrating that the water travelling down
to the aquifers from their farm is of drinking water quality, then other
farmers can too. They must be encouraged to do this. Dairying shouldn't
blind us to what other pollution is happening either. As I understand it, a
paddock of clover left over winter without grazing is a greater nitrate
polluter than a dairy farm! And what about the pollution of our waterways by
wild birds?
Best wishes
Helen McLeod
Candidate ECAN Christchurch North and Health Board
<email obscured>
Ph. (03) 363 0824
Mob. 027 5622 772
Hi Helen, I'm interested in debate,
So, unfortunately 'mis-information' is all that's been offered by our councils
and CPW and since we're the principle givers, it's left us feeling rather
'emotional'.
CPW has changed it's mind so many times and so dramatically over the whole 7
years, ordinary (giving) folk haven't a clue what you people are doing, we can
just guess that this was your plan. What is really happening? and please give
us information to start questioning ..."what if" and "why".
why not try, what if this was happening to any of you councillors and why
isn't it? but wait, why doesn't it start to happen now but drag on for 10years
and then happen??
Richard Budd was their front man telling us lie after lie and here we are, down
the track, knowing nothing but lies!
Why doesn't ECan do some modeling on how their crumby, self-serving decisions
adversely affect the people they're suppose to be looking after, for an 8th of
their lives?
Of course we can see both sides, anyone can. We can see for instance that a few
motorheads can have a ball going to the racetrack when they feel like it, with
their head up their exhaust pipes, racing around in circles, while the whole
surrounding area gets to put their fingers in their ears everyday.
we can see a village like Hororata needs a glider club in the center of it,
with their 'quiet' tow-plane spoiling the lives of everyone in the village, so
a few people can circle over their property's.
We can see that 650 people can live in fear of loosing all or part of their
properties, 3 villages can live in the near vicinity of a smelly irrigation
reservoir and 5000 people can live in fear or a dam break all to 'enhance' 350
shareholders and a few businessmen's pockets. If you're imagining all
Cantabrians driving about in limos with dollars swishing in the breeze after
us, then you've got to be dreaming!
>This is why I cautioned earlier against knee-jerk
responses to statistics regarding the MEDIAN flow of our rivers. The
measurement quoted give no indication of what is happening on other days eg
all other days could be either peak flood which is unsuitable for storage or
below minimum recommended flows. Despite this, people in this group were
using this "evidence" to support their views on what should be happening.<
this 'evidence' is their information, if they didn't do the research themselves
then I imagine they got it from ECan..?
all other days couldn't be peak flood, it wouldn't be 'peak flood' then, but it
can be below the 'minimum recommended flow' for a much longer period.
The 'evidence' we can glean from this is that propaganda is being used on a
daily basis by councillors to sway support where it should never be.
>Although I am not convinced that CPW is the way to go< and
>I cannot support CPW as the way of providing water storage.<
I'm glad you've come to that for whatever reason, but sorry, like R Budd, still
no-vote!
> Dairying shouldn't
blind us to what other pollution is happening either. As I understand it, a
paddock of clover left over winter without grazing is a greater nitrate
polluter than a dairy farm! And what about the pollution of our waterways by
wild birds?<
you forgot to mention the 'dangerous kitchen' here..!
thanks for giving your views...
Trev
Dear Trevor,
Just a quick response to your comment
"CPW has changed it's mind so many times and so dramatically over the whole
7 years, ordinary (giving) folk haven't a clue what you people are doing, we
can just guess that this was your plan. What is really happening? and
please give us information to start questioning ..."what if" and "why"."
Trevor - changing a resource application is good if it addresses problems
that concern us all. This should be encouraged but in a more constructive
way.
At present there is a problem in our process - I believe that there should
be room for change and improvement and that applications for major
developments could go through a mediated process where issues can be
discussed and applications can be changed easily in response to public
opinion (such as we see on this forum) and to reflect additional information
received.
Unfortunately what seems to happen at present is that the resource consent
process makes it extremely expensive and delays the process if changes are
made to a proposal after submission and during the months that it is sitting
waiting on a hearing.
Best wishes
Helen McLeod
<email obscured>
Ph. (03) 363 0824
Mob. 027 5622 772
Hi Helen,
The problem that concerns me and maybe others, is that anyone can say 'I want
more money and to get more money, I'm going to need to steal someone else's
land.
To do this businessmen only have to whisper the words 'greater good' to be on
the board and then they can try to fulfill it later.
We here have been accused of being NIMBY's, when all the time it's the
shareholders who don't want storage water on their properties! they could have
turkey ponds or holes/tanks or whatever, but somehow it's better to put it on
someone else's land, they are the NIMBY's, we are the victims.
The other problem is that right from the beginning there has been no way for
anyone here to express our disapproval. The 'feasibility study' took 5 years,
when asked how the council could even contemplate this idea without gaining any
perception of support, Richard Budd could tell us "we're your elected council"!
and all the time there was nothing that we could fight, as our councils called
it a 'feasibility' study.
Then CPW was formed and decided it was all on, we had 40 days to submit to ECan
against it (40 days out of 5 years!) and then later to the SDC twice(due to
them changing their minds again) (20 days each). Something that most of us out
here have never done before or ever wanted to do...but to have a total of 60
days out of 7 years, to object to losing our property has to be said to be
ridicules
I'd like to think this could never happen to anyone, but but on the other hand,
could it be a good learning experience for some councillors to experience?
either way, I could certainly do without the stress and I wouldn't wish it on
anyone!
thanks
Trev
Proposed hostile-takeover victim (oops I mean donator!)
Coalgate
Here's some more debatable news, http://www.farmersweekly.co.nz/article/7182.html Ryan Garland of Save our Water points out a few dodgy aspects of gravity, water and NZ law and a normal plains farmer would like to say that it's all “Misinformation” ,as if they can say that! after all the lies from them....! lookin a little deeper we find out that this farmers is not any old farmer, but also a shareholder and also a board member on the CPW Limited team and also the vice president of CPW Trust! I guess a property increase of up to 300% has nothing to do with science (even if you can buy an American company's expert opinion with hundreds of thousands of public dollars) We'd have to wonder whether farming is as profitable as taking public money? He also mentions here how, "irrigators had no interest in putting the boot into anyone." well booting 600 people from their own property IS putting the boot in. If they were keen to negotiate, they should have at least told us individually what land they planned to take and how OUR land is worth MORE than the 300% land value increase they're keen to experience from having irrigated land. At this media release http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK0606/S00117.htm Pat Morrison said.. “Even though we have lodged our land use consents we are continuing our extensive consultation process. One of the consequences of our lodging with Selwyn District Council is that landowners, whose land we have identified as being required for the scheme, will have information on their LIM stating there is a land use consent and/or designation application in place..” “It is therefore essential that affected landowners are fully aware of our plans. We have written to them this week encouraging them to attend one of a series of drop in meetings we will be running for the next two months to enable people to get further information.” Well 5 meetings in 7 years doesn't come close to "extensive consultation" and generic letters with a tiny map of Canterbury mean nothing to anyone. As for those elusive "drop in meetings"... yea right! Anyone still think it could be a public asset, check out the Auditor-General site http://www.oag.govt.nz/whats-new/2006/central-plains-water-scheme/ where the Auditor-General explains how public it is... 'When it was first established, CPW Ltd was a public entity. However, once its shares were sold to landowners within the scheme's area, CPW Ltd ceased to be a public entity' Can CPW tell us it's safe for Chch drinking water? at their own site here http://www.cpwl.co.nz/home/facts-fictions.html they say... 'The scheme is not expected to affect the quality of Christchurch’s drinking water supplies. That’s because most of the city’s water is drawn from aquifers that are ‘recharged’ from an area well outside the scheme area (north of Christchurch), from rainwater and drainage from the lower reaches of the Waimakariri River. The slope of the central Canterbury plains means that any excess irrigated water will tend to flow underground to the southeast, towards Lake Ellesmere / Te Waihora, rather than east towards Christchurch.' What with the dwindling Waimak at it's lowest allowable level for 6 months of the year, 'not expected' doesn't sound too re-assuring to me and does no-one care about Lake Ellesmere and surroundin areas?
The Central Plains Water Scheme hearings are under way. ECan has the timetable on their website. http://www.ecan.govt.nz/Resource+Consents/Central+Plains+Water/HearingTimetable.htm If any forum members are attending the sessions, or have any comments on this process, it would be great to hear from you here. I've found at least 8 topics in the forum that relate to CPW (there's a list below), but this one, "Central Plains Water Scheme", seems the best named. If you know people who are interesting in the CPW hearings, please let them know about this forum. Let's engage the community in the debate here. Dan . . . CPW-Related Topics in this Forum CPW scheme (31 posts) http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5LGAV5jtJcSTCNtSkRn5vN Stopping CPW (34 posts) http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/74zDBe0jC3pFfdvLvcgVgU Water usage for dairying (13 posts) http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2WWnjeL3ZBtmL6phdXAzl4 Water, governance, and CPW (5 posts) http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6bjufOoloJj1Q21vEmDmo9 Dairying and water quality (3 posts) http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1AGLsRbYlUtFEXVOCnNjOW Wasteful farm irrigation ? (5 posts) http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3oFChedG0xvCGfYtqyM0W5 Council opinion on Central Plains Water changes (4 posts) http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/I0757Kqwm1Rw4kRlkk2NA
An article in this week's 'Listener', [not online yet],
has the CPW scheme proponents arguing that one of the main effects of scheme,
is, will be,
the raising of the Aquifer levels.
This is because the farmers in CPW will no longer have to use wells.
This scheme won't be approved.
It relies on transferring equity from a large group of people to a very small
group.
lets say North Canterbury farmers
form a Regional Council,
Canterbury will be divided by three.
You have
1. South Canterbury [they can afford separate Council]
2. North Canterbury [impending they can afford it ]
3. ECAN hahahah
Can someone come in and tell me what the results will be
with regards to power over water.
The Press reports of more empty promises by CPW here http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4424188a6009.html as they try and sneek past the resource consent process and their overwhelming, canterbury wide opposition..
On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 10:51 +1300, Trevor Owen wrote: > The Press reports of more empty promises by CPW here > > http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4424188a6009.html > > as they try and sneek past the resource consent process and their overwhelming, canterbury wide opposition.. I love this bit: "The commissioners are being asked to give consent for the overall scheme while some specifics relating to the engineering and the location of key infrastructure are still undetermined." So, CPW are saying, "Heeeeyyy, just trust us !" and the commissioners, the most readily identifiable culprits if it all turns to custard (do we know who they all are, btw ? Can anyone list them ?) are understandably not very keen on that approach. It seems to me that noone wants to make this decision, a decision that will be an albatross around their neck forever if they get it wrong. Shouldn't that tell us at least something about the risks involved here, not to mention that the associated benefits are far from compelling ?
The four commissioners names are mentioned on the stopthedam website here http://www.stopthedam.org.nz/Submissionprocess.htm and some info on the chair can be found here http://www.simpsongrierson.com/our-people/partners/wellington/philip-milne.html?p=1 info on the process here http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4416606a19753.html and CPW disclose how unethical and ruthless it's members are and have been here http://www.rugbyheaven.co.nz/thepress/4415243a24035.html their lawyer, >Wylie said the "emotional response" of those who questioned the compulsory acquisition powers was understandable but said the four independent commissioners should ignore submissions on the matter because they did not have the authority to overturn the power granted to CPW. He argued the commissioners also had no authority to rule on whether the scheme was affordable, moral or whether an alternative site would be more suitable. The CPW lawyer also argued commissioners were not entitled to consider the effect the scheme would have on property values in the area.
Hi All,
Andrew asked who the commissioners are. Here's the list:
Philip Milne (Chair)
Andrew Fenemor
Raymond (Ray) O'Callaghan
Robert (Bob) Dixon
My favourite throw away line in the Press report was "add more storage". I
got the same when I asked at one of CPW's presentation in 2006 about what
would they do if (when) droughts become more frequent in Canterbury - add
more storage. More storage means a higher dam - maybe 60 or 70m instead of
their current proposals - and higher costs.
If you have access to them also read the independent s42A reports by Brown
and Butcher commissioned by Selwyn DC. They're not so glowing on the
endless wealth CPW reckon will flow from the scheme. Such is the Dismal
Science. I wonder what happens if you factor in the increase fuel and
resource costs as well.
I wish real science worked the same way as economics - I could leap
buildings with a single bound and fly to London just by flapping my arms!
dudes you have to get real,
this scheme is attached to and part of Christchurch City Council.
the fourth Commissioner is Bob Nixon, not Bob Dixon,
Google up, read associations,
hello Bob Parker, where do you stand if anywhere,
http://www.ecan.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/06C98947-362C-442D-B427-292486A57BA5/0/20Claire_Mulcock.pdf is a submission from a CPW consultant. She prescribes an environmental management system, but not, it seems, one which measures ground water nitrate levels, since if they were high it would be difficult to attribute them to a particular farm or action. And it would not be possible to attribute them to the scheme as a whole since it could be from other interspersed properties which are not connected to the scheme. She refers to ISO 14001 but does not recommend water scheme managers become ISO 14001 registered. She seems to recommend a do-your-best management scheme with action guidelines but without linking to the real environmental accounting. Because we cannot pin trouble down onto any specific entity we will just have to let it happen? She says other witnesses will cover water monitoring. Has anyone come across their submissions? Brian Sandle
I have great difficulty not grinding my teeth over this whole issue. Where the hell has democracy gone? Why do I feel more and more NZ is becoming like the US where power and money overrule common sense and democracy. This whole process to date has been amazing when you consider how we all believe things are done in NZ. Have I been naive thinking this would never happen. That a private concern can come along and demand to purchase land and the opportunity to wreck the acquifers and not be responsible to any great degree. Joy Bishop Trevor Owen <email obscured>> wrote: The four commissioners names are mentioned on the stopthedam website here http://www.stopthedam.org.nz/Submissionprocess.htm and some info on the chair can be found here http://www.simpsongrierson.com/our-people/partners/wellington/philip-milne.html?p=1 info on the process here http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4416606a19753.html and CPW disclose how unethical and ruthless it's members are and have been here http://www.rugbyheaven.co.nz/thepress/4415243a24035.html their lawyer, >Wylie said the "emotional response" of those who questioned the compulsory acquisition powers was understandable but said the four independent commissioners should ignore submissions on the matter because they did not have the authority to overturn the power granted to CPW. He argued the commissioners also had no authority to rule on whether the scheme was affordable, moral or whether an alternative site would be more suitable. The CPW lawyer also argued commissioners were not entitled to consider the effect the scheme would have on property values in the area. Trevor Owen Info about Trevor Owen: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/trevorowen This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/Y06JLtiVK2NjrDpAlBsaP
Brian, The Ritso Society might put forward some made up positives about water monitoring they jump started CPW in the very first place with a $30,000 loan. The Selwyn councilors who promoted CPW and who I think are members of the Ritso soc. took ratepayers money to pay this loan back, when they took at least $1.5 from the Selwyn council coffers and later a similar amount from the CCC (with an option to not pay this back!) the Ritso site is here http://www.ritso.org.nz/irrigation-information-project.html they got a MAF subsidy later ($317,000) to look into finding something positive about their baby CPW... details here http://www.maf.govt.nz/sff/about-projects/search/03-027/index.htm wikipedia on the CPW has missed the convoluted ins and outs of what seemed to be so corrupt at the time, but is still an interesting read about what looks like corruption.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Plains_Water
How can our council let a defective project get this far with such widespread opposition?? scratching the surface uncovers this... Coast to Coast athletes against the Central Plains Water scheme.. here http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4403267a6530.html The Canterbury District Health Board.. here http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200803051902/1cbcdc77 and the Christchurch Library has some interesting links here http://library.christchurch.org.nz/Reference/SustainableLiving/Water/CentralPlains/ The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's view on sustainability http://www.pce.govt.nz/projects/topic4.shtml and from the enviromentaly unfriendly side we have... Irrigation nz and cpw's approch to un-democraticaly 'changing land ownership' from nz homeowner to large intensive dairy farmer here (ecan, small PDF) (hold on to your head!!) http://www.ecan.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/03BA2294-57FD-45AB-8FC5-616F9B307F5A/0/05John_Donkers.PDF lots more spin to defend the abuse of our system, documented and updated at ecan, here http://www.ecan.govt.nz/Resource+Consents/Central+Plains+Water/ResponseToEvidence.htm
Trevor, which council is your council? Ecan or Selwyn District?
Under the RMA the correct place to decide the merits of proposal is firstly in
a hearing. In this case a joint Selwyn District and Ecan hearing in front of
independent commissioners.
The second place will almost surely be in the Environment Court when the
decision - whatever it will be - will be appealed by both winning and losing
parties.
The hearing has to hear evidence. Emotive opinions don't count as evidence.
Despite what some people seem to believe the RMA is about effects not emotions.
Both sides have spent up big on (so called) expert witnesses. It seems that
money can buy a "expert" who will present your point of view. The more money
you spend the more or better experts you can buy.
The commissioners have to weigh (give the volume of evidence they might well
weigh the submissions) the evidence and decide the proposal on its merits. To
do otherwise would be yet another ground for appeal.
This proposal has a very long way to go yet & it is too late for any council to
prevent the process.
All those who campaigned last year and were elected are now conspicuous by
their silence as they will have now learnt that if they express an opinion now
then they can be accussed of pre-judging the issues and be unable to debate the
issue around their council table.
Mark Alexander
neither a CPW proponent nor opponent
RD 5 Chch 7675
Hi Mark, I live in the SDC, further up is a very long post I made about my situation. You'd be right in thinking I don't know too much about procedure, so thank you for outlining how little I'm able do about a minority group using money I paid to the council to steal my house and land in order to make personal profit. however I also think that information can be a good thing and there is a vast amount of information online that may be of use to anyone who has time or gets paid to defend ordinary peoples rights (or lack of) in what should still be a democratic country. Since being put in the horrible position of property limbo for 7 years, if that info is of any help to anyone who is in a position to use as technical evidence in the submission process then that's good. If any of this overwhelming opposition is taken on by any members of CPW or supporters or shareholders then that's good too.. >Both sides have spent up big on (so called) expert witnesses. It seems that money can buy a "expert" who will present your point of view. The more money you spend the more or better experts you can buy< Yes it's a sad thing in this case that dairy farmers can get huge government funding under any guise, to write a report or two that will favor their personal circumstance and then call it 'scientific evidence'. check these MAF funded projects that 'expert witnesses' may use as 'scientific evidence' for CPW here http://www.maf.govt.nz/sff/about-projects/search/index.htm?setup_file=sff.setup.cgi&session_file=&grant_no=&project_title=&status=®ion=Canterbury§or=Water&sub_sector=&topic=&submit_search=Search >This proposal has a very long way to go yet & it is too late for any council to prevent the process< here on the SDC site http://www.selwyn.govt.nz/cpw/cpw_faq.htm it says >Trustees are appointed by the two councils, in some instances following recommendations made by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu. Once appointed, trustees act independently of the two councils and run the affairs of the trust according to its deed, the objectives of which are, within the respective geographical boundaries of the two councils: - To operate for charitable purposes for the benefit of present and future inhabitants. - To encourage, support and facilitate sustainable development of water resources. - To provide and facilitate opportunities for agricultural and horticultural diversity. - To provide and facilitate education in relation to water issues. - To appropriately balance enhancement of economic benefits with enhancement of ecological, social and recreational values.< apart from the 600 or so 'present inhabitants' who will lose all or part of their land and the uncertainty of future domestic water, river and land quality for all 'present and future inhabitants', the rest sounds much better than a huge cow farm! ...could there be room to pull the plug here?? >if they express an opinion now then they can be accussed of pre-judging the issues and be unable to debate the issue around their council table< The front page of the 'Selwyn Times' paper has an artical about a councillor who sold his 1200 shares (back to CPW) so he could have his say in council discussions, I suppose he might have pre-judged the scheme?
i feel sad some of our best voices are not here,
where is Richard Tindall,
or Jane Demeter,
maybe even David Sutherland,
and especially Eugenie Sage
that is what happens when you join 2021.
you dont say nothing,
Paul,
None of them have 'joined' 2021. You may recall that Eugenie ousted Bill
Woods, Rik and David replaced 2021's Richard Budd and Elizabeth Cunningham
and Jane Demeter replaced a 2021 councillor in Chch North.
If you are thinking of the election of the Chair of Ecan - the alternative
to Kerry Burke was Alec Neill, ex-National Party MP. The National Party's
policy is to gut the RMA so schemes like Central Plains Water would go
through on the nod. Is that what you want?
BTW, check out what a councillor can do and also National's website before
you leap to your keyboard to hammer out a thunderous denunciation!
Cheers.
Tom Taylor.
What Tom said.
paul scott wrote:
> i feel sad some of our best voices are not here,
> where is Richard Tindall,
> or Jane Demeter,
> maybe even David Sutherland,
> and especially Eugenie Sage
> that is what happens when you join 2021.
> you dont say nothing,
>
While Paul was off overseas, we had our noses down :)
Now he wants his playmates back.
Maybe you'll join us in 2010, if you want more work?
It goes like this..
Hearing panelists are chosen for their lack of preset positions.
That is local governance under the RMA.
Cheers, Rik
Info on the CPW hearings can be obtained on the Ecan site.. there's plenty of links and info.. Here http://www.ecan.govt.nz/Resource+Consents/Central+Plains+Water/PlansAndReports.htm An interesting 2006 hearing chaired by Philip Milne, who is also chairman for the CPW hearing, decides about the Ngai Tahu irrigation scheme, with water from the Wamak.. here on the ecan site (small PDF 227kbs) http://ecan.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/52E318FC-A5A8-4DBB-A178-6FFCEB4EF5C8/0/ngaidecision.pdf conditions on the Ngai Tahu consent here (pdf 57kbs) http://ecan.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/4FC853F1-F7A7-47D9-B64C-6EDB39D190F4/0/ngaiconditions.pdf an index with loads more hearing outcomes here, take your pick! (the Nagi Tahu decision was made in 2006, link at bottom of page) http://www.ecan.govt.nz/Resource+Consents/Hearing+Decisions/
Springston residents have domestic water supply problems thought to be caused by Dairy here http://www.stuff.co.nz/4436748a24035.html CPW told to revisit their plans after loosing Rakaia water take here http://www.nzherald.co.nz/metro/story.cfm?l_id=121&objectid=10498166 Upcoming easter weekend held in the Waianiwaniwa valley 'Malvern Hills Protection Society and Massive have joined together to raise awareness and money for the protection of and awareness for the Canterbury plains and water, together they have a weekend of entertainment organised for all the family' here http://www.massivenz.com/
hope to be at the celebration trevor
Disclaimer : Currently, I am extremely naive regarding the Canterbury Planes Water Project. The Christchurch Ocean Outfall project was recently given the go ahead. The resource consent did not enforce any water recycling requirements. If there is a shortage of water for the industry which supports the Christchruch economy, then please consider recycling some of the water which is being pumped out to sea. Japan is a developed country and they have the advanced sewage processing technology available of the shelf. The link below has images of a countryside home with a water purification system built under the garden. This off the shelf system provides bathing quailty water. In addition, the solid waste is provided to farms. http://connect.homeunix.com/outfall/News/82CEF04A-A570-461B-803D-D44E9E84BA3B.html Lets get smart and start and recycle our water for irrigation rather than piping it into the ocean.
First thanks for all the great support we've all had, it's wonderful to know that democracy and compassion isn't dead in the hearts of most normal people. In my crash course of the RMA process (at the hearings going on now), some interesting info for anyone living on the plains in the scheme area has come up... The 'distribution canal network' hasn't had much publicity yet as the canals have moved a few times for whatever reason and apparently are still not set. CPW can move these canals to anywhere within the scheme area, or put another way, if you haven't got a canal going through your property at the moment, you might have at a later date! You may think you have negotiating powers as it's your land... but CPW has recently said it has obtained requiring authority status for the whole area and it will use it if necessary. You may also think that someone from CPW will come round and tell you of your loss... but no, CPW legally need only tell you that you may be affected. They did this a couple of years ago with a generic letter that everyone in the scheme area received, supposedly anyway. This letter started off with 'Dear Landowner..' It's up to you to find out if and how much you're affected. Here's the CPW website with the areas of land CPW will seize for it's 300 shareholders canals http://www.cpw.org.nz/maps.htm maps are marked 1 to 9, about 500 land owners will be adversely affected by these canals. The canals can and already have been moved onto neighboring property's, so don't feel safe if it looks like any close canal misses your property! Large maps of these canals are available free from your council office
Hi folks, Just an update for this thread, it's all still right up there in the minds of us oppressed landowners and families. check out ex-councilor and ex-CPW front man Richard Budd's submission here http://www.ecan.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5F9DCC27-566F-48B5-A4F2-A5D8BE771A44/0/1Richard_Budd__BOE.pdf He refers to CPW's consultation process and amongst other things suggests (at para 6) that landowners directly affected by their scheme "were afforded the highest status"! Well I know I'm not the only landowner able to dispute that! In fact there's over 600 landowners plus their families able to dispute it. Erin Jamieson's evidence at para 44 here http://www.ecan.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/9DD48758-2517-43C3-94DA-68803058F63F/0/07Erin_Jamieson.PDF acknowledges they know how many landowners might be affected. Budd's suggestion that Canterbury citizens ring a phone number, on a Junk-mail letter, to attempt to find out if CPW might require anyone to forfeit their property doesn't sound anything like "highest status" nor does having to guess when and where an unpublicized "woolshed" meeting was. I'd have thought a visit to each of the 600+ landowners, to discuss how and why our land is worth SO MUCH TO THEM that they'd happily go to any lengths to appease our many concerns, would be a minimum... ICOLD (International Commission of Large Dams) suggest this to be the right thing to do here. http://www.icold-cigb.net/pagearticle.aspx?ssmenu=350&numarticle=2038&codeouverture=2&urlrubrique=&taille=420 where at (f) they say;- 'For the [affected] population involved, resettlement must result in a clear improvement of their living standard, because the people directly affected by a project should always be the first to benefit instead of suffering for the benefit of others' Unfortunately this is not the case. not only has their consultation been totally lacking, but also their proposed compensation offer to ensure our forced eviction and sacrifice has now been described on this page here http://www.ecan.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/6C83246A-6165-4A26-914A-CBB23EE67936/0/AmendedMemorandumofCousel.pdf which suggests that 25% on top of market value is an appropriate amount for compensation. Meanwhile these 'thieves in suits' many of which are shareholders continue to try to dupe the public into believing their plains 'enhancement' proposal will be of greater good, not only by making themselves and each of their few shareholders instantly 300% richer (by owning land with irrigation rights) but also by supposedly bringing billions of dollars to the whole of canterbury... Oddly the only way CPW can realize any economic benefits for Canterbury with their enhancement scheme is to take someone's land for as little as possible! It all sounds like land theft to me, rather than the "afforded the highest status" as is suggested!! anyway the privatization of public river water and theft of private land continues, supposedly on the publics behalf through our very own councils... the RMA hearings are expected to last for another month or so yet.
More info to add to the last post... When asked about their compensation fund CPW were forced to release the figure of $11.2M to cover the 2100ha needed for canals and reservoir. Land prices here are around $20,000 to $50,000 per ha, so their fund of $5300 per ha has to make one wonder if they've done any of their sums right! CPW's consultation records are available here http://www.crc.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/86551DDA-9706-4275-84AF-8A12F89664FF/0/img70416220001.pdf (5Mb download and not worth it, other than to see CPW's flyer, with tiny shaded in map, all affected landowners received to inform them their land can be taken). The record covers 150 meetings including shareholder meetings and duplicate meetings. So around 100 adversely affected landowners who had instigated a meeting out of the 600+ Did they think the other 500 didn't care or weren't interested that CPW plans to either take their land or take their land and replace it with a canal?? CPW also made around 60 individual notes... mostly with shareholders though. There is speculation of how much this consultation (mostly with shareholders) may have cost.. and Erin Jamieson (CPW communications and consultation) makes reference to part of it in her submission here http://www.ecan.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/9DD48758-2517-43C3-94DA-68803058F63F/0/07Erin_Jamieson.PDF She says CPW formed the Ritso society 'to develop confidence among farmers and enable them to take ownership of the scheme' meaning hoodwink farmers into become shareholders. CPW researched that 500 farmers in the area could be duped (p26) but only around 300 fell for it and bought shares. Of those 300 and after CPW released more damning information around half twigged how bad it was (some then submitting against CPW) and so only around 150 put in submissions of support at the hearings. Of these supporters some have said at the hearings that they can't afford CPW's water and so presumably, if the opportunity arose, will use their 'get rich quick shares' and sell up to their dairying neighbours.. Anyway MAF subsidised CPW through the Ritso Society who hired PR South. The Project, Titled 'Furthering the Development of an Effective Stakeholder Consultation and Decision Making Framework for Regional Scale Irrigation Investigation and Development' got a MAF grant of $116,349 and the total cost was $317,000 info here http://www.maf.govt.nz/sff/about-projects/search/03-027/index.htm The project is to assist irrigation companies into targeting how they can extend 'farm[ers] confidence into making major investment decisions' (read in this case, giving lots of unsecured money up front to CPW) and Ms Jamiesons evidence, all under the well used name of 'Best practice', goes further to say (p25) it helped 'Identifying Champions' to organize other farmers to put their money in. One would have to wonder which of CPW's 'Champions' where pulling whose strings? although I'd have to guess as long as the ratepayer and MAF and money's freely flowing non of them would care...
CPW are up to another tactic and have had the Ashburton Community Water Trust (ACWT) part apply for 35.5 cumics for hydro-electric... It was all very quietly done and had only 18 submissions against it. The press release here http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4693736a19753.html suggests it could make 16MW of electricity but if successful in gaining resource consent ACWT might look at irrigation afterwards! and why not looks some of the same people are or have been on the same boards as CPWL, CPWT, The Ritso Society, Irrigation NZ and the Dunsandel Ground Water Users Group.. and the list goes on! If anyone missed the big CPW press release at the end of August it's here http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4665605a19743.html cheers and well done Rik for putting up with what you have been! I hope you software weekend goes well
CPW have released their 'Annual Report' In it they claim that affected party's have had ample opportunity to contact them!! in relation to the personal loss of private land that they intend to seize for their financial benefit Then they focus on their many benefiting stakeholder meetings which they conclude to be consultation with the public... they also refer to how they're losing their 'Trust' status that hangs with CCC as 'trust' seems to be something very elusive to CPW... it's all here http://www.cpw.org.nz/ under '2008 annual report' from their timeline we'll all be waiting, in limbo, until December 2010 before they believe they can shove their criminal stealing of private land and waste of public natural resource on all of us...
As expected,
the Canterbury Plains Water scheme Commssioners
have announced an likjely and impending refusal of consent.
>As expected, the Canterbury Plains Water scheme Commssioners
>have announced a likely and impending refusal of consent.
There seems to be some substance to this rumour. If indeed that is the
decision, then it might be a battle won, but the war is far from over. There
are many in the queue, and they all seem to think that if they get their water
all will be happy in the land of nod. There are, however, some serious water
and land issues yet to be resolved, e.g. just off the top of my head:
how to let our aquifers recharge themselves,
how to clean up the rivers from nutrient run-off,
how to prevent further nitrates leaching into the aquifers,
how to minimise nutrient loss from our various soils,
how best to cope with the effects of climate change,
how best to increase biodiversity,
how best to minimise the risk of didymo spread,
how best to minimise fertiliser use
is dairying the best use of marginal land?
I'm sure there are others but these will suffice for kick-off. The trouble is
there are too many problems and too many vociferous clowns demanding this and
that. I suggest that we need to go through a consultation process, let people
become aware of the issues, so that we can all make an informed decision over
what needs to be done in Canterbury, and how best to get there. We cannot make
a rational decision with our heads in the sand. We need a 50 year plan, and in
order to do this we need to make some projections over the next 50 years. This
is precisely how smart economists think when it comes to long term budgeting,
they make projections, which are a platform on which you can then take steps to
reduce foreign debt. However, the same principles and objectives can and need
to be applied to water.
In short we are miles away from making anything resembling an informed decision
over how best to manage our water resources. There is also a risk central
government will intervene if we don't get our act together. Water should be a
regional issue, where the people make informed decisions over its future,
Tony
These are precisely the issues being addressed by the Canterbury Water
Management Strategy. You should look at www.canterburywater.org.nz and
get involved.
Bryan Jenkins
Regional Councils are about to be abolished friends.
I wish my Ecan Councillor Ross Little well,
who's gonna beat Bob Parker dudes?
Tony Raizis wrote: >> As expected, the Canterbury Plains Water scheme Commssioners >> have announced a likely and impending refusal of consent. >> > > There seems to be some substance to this rumour. If indeed that is the decision, then it might be a battle won, but the war is far from over. There are many in the queue, and they all seem to think that if they get their water all will be happy in the land of nod. There are, however, some serious water and land issues yet to be resolved, e.g. just off the top of my head: > > how to let our aquifers recharge themselves, > how to clean up the rivers from nutrient run-off, > how to prevent further nitrates leaching into the aquifers, > how to minimise nutrient loss from our various soils, > how best to cope with the effects of climate change, > how best to increase biodiversity, > how best to minimise the risk of didymo spread, > how best to minimise fertiliser use > is dairying the best use of marginal land? > > I'm sure there are others but these will suffice for kick-off. The trouble is there are too many problems and too many vociferous clowns demanding this and that. I suggest that we need to go through a consultation process, let people become aware of the issues, so that we can all make an informed decision over what needs to be done in Canterbury, and how best to get there. We cannot make a rational decision with our heads in the sand. We need a 50 year plan, and in order to do this we need to make some projections over the next 50 years. This is precisely how smart economists think when it comes to long term budgeting, they make projections, which are a platform on which you can then take steps to reduce foreign debt. However, the same principles and objectives can and need to be applied to water. > > In short we are miles away from making anything resembling an informed decision over how best to manage our water resources. There is also a risk central government will intervene if we don't get our act together. Water should be a regional issue, where the people make informed decisions over its future, > > Cheers > Tony > > > I presume there has been land speculation. Based on building the perception of irrigation, land may have been bought for too high a price. Now values may drop. The hope of onselling some land at a profit in a rising market may be gone. Companies may now fold and land go cheap to international corporates with an axe to grind, perhaps genetic modification. If it is biofuel crops like Solid Energy are pushing I believe it would be an even worse disaster if they are sold GMOs. Interesting You Tube talks from the Institue of Science in Society: http://www.youtube.com/user/ISISltd
Brian Sandle wrote: > > I presume there has been land speculation. Based on building the > perception of irrigation, land may have been bought for too high a > price. Now values may drop. The hope of onselling some land at a profit > in a rising market may be gone. Companies may now fold and land go cheap > to international corporates with an axe to grind, perhaps genetic > modification. If it is biofuel crops like Solid Energy are pushing I > believe it would be an even worse disaster if they are sold GMOs. > http://www.i-sis.org.uk/whoOwnsLifeNotMonsanto.php Schmeiser said, “If we’re trying to stop them in the US and especially Canada, why would you want to introduce them in the UK and Europe?” He believes that now the Corporations have lost the ability to introduce any more GMOs in Canada they have turned their attention to other countries in the world.
Can anyone explain the importance of the Waimak in feeding Christchurch
aquifers? If the Waimak flow was reduced or disrupted, what would be the
expected effect on town aquifers? Any explanation of how this process works
would be appreciated.
Hi Tony,
Good questions, since the Waimak's the major source of our aquifer water.
Are there any local hydrogeologists on the forum who could answer them?
I'm no expert.... !! But I believe the Waimakariri does supply water to a
fairly low depth. However, the main water under Canterbury is very much
under Canterbury - thousands of years old and darn near to a thousand feet
in depth.
The issue is not the quantity of fresh water beneath Canterbury, but whether
drawing from it at depth will lessen pressure - allowing salt water to
penetrate.
Yep, you need a hydrologist on the panel....
Tim Kerr
Tim Kerr wrote: > I'm no expert.... !! But I believe the Waimakariri does supply water to a > fairly low depth. However, the main water under Canterbury is very much > under Canterbury - thousands of years old and darn near to a thousand feet > in depth. > > The issue is not the quantity of fresh water beneath Canterbury, but whether > drawing from it at depth will lessen pressure - allowing salt water to > penetrate. > > Yep, you need a hydrologist on the panel.... > > In the ocean water the is not constantly salty everywhere. And it is not the same temperature everywhere. Currents form layers with differing characteristcs. And on land I believe a layer of fresh ground water may be perched over a layer of brackish water. After the Forest and Bird meeting last Wednesday the City Botanist remarked about an area in Dunedin where trees increase in size till their roots get to a certain depth at which they come to the brackish water, I understood, then they die. So it is interesting to wonder about the water under Canterbury. The article: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6C-4RC6RF9-5&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d3454f9f121d80908eb7d3e76a5941da gives "Variable isotopic signatures of groundwater suggested that vertical mixing may occur between different aquifer layers " and "Signatures of radium isotopes in the coastal waters suggested that groundwater discharge was not confined to the shoreline " and "range of discharge estimates from 0.8 × 10^7 L day^−1 in late summer to 2.7 × 10^7 L day^−1 at the end of winter." (Cockburn Sound, Australia). Could the Canterbury non-saline aquifers be perched over saline one(s)? With the aquifers being thousands of years old we may be doing damage and not know about it for a long time. The summer outflow at Cockburn Sound is less than a third of the winter one. So I don't find it too hard to image that progressing to an inflow instead of an outflow. I wonder how far inland saline aquifers could go. Perhaps we should be investigating isotopes from our subterranean artesian outflows. That could be easier than drilling deep wells. I understood one presenter at the CCC Water Strategy Hearings to say he believes the Waimakariri River both receives from and donates to ground water. (just for interest he was sore about the CCC over water he had found. Some history here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/farming/293454, a sort of direction we might have to turn if we don't support the science enough.)
Hi All,
Is there a hydrogeologist on the forum who knows about the Canterbury
aquifers and can tell us how they are likely to behave in response to
abstraction?
Tom Taylor wrote: > Hi All, > > Is there a hydrogeologist on the forum who knows about the Canterbury > aquifers and can tell us how they are likely to behave in response to > abstraction? > [...] > >> Perhaps we should be investigating isotopes from our subterranean >> artesian outflows. Sorry I meant to write submarine, of course. The Journal of Hydrology just offered me a complimentary issue which has two ground water - sea water isotope studies in it, India and Sicily. It also covers pollution of aquifers. >> That could be easier than drilling deep wells. >> >> I understood one presenter at the CCC Water Strategy Hearings to say he >> believes the Waimakariri River both receives from and donates to ground >> water. >> >> (just for interest he was sore about the CCC over water he had found. >> Some history here: >> http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/farming/293454, a sort of direction we >> might have to turn if we don't support the science enough.) >> The Chair of the Committee asked what he thought about the affects of extraction of water on aquifers, and he seemed to be concerned that pooling over them is likely to pollute them. He was pleased to see a move against CPW's large dam. I think it is that if aquifers are pumped out then polluted surface water is more likely to get in.
It's all good news for us in Coalgate. but CPW are already heading in a new direction. NBR journalist Chris Hutching writes... "The consenting process is not for a particular scheme but is for particular activities which require consent," the Central Plains lawyers are now arguing. One of the recurrent opposing arguments during the hearing was that Central Plains never had a viable scheme and was frequently modifying it. Central Plains argued that it wanted the consents and would mitigate any problems later. Any Central Plains scheme would now be "run of river" and it might be tied into various schemes being proposed behind the scenes by irrigation interests involved in the Canterbury Strategic Water Study, which has identified other ambitious storage options, the most viable involving raising the level of Lake Coleridge Here's a link to some other recent media publications and the commissioners minutes http://www.stopthedam.org.nz/News.htm although not an abstraction report this might be close to what you're looking for Tom re chch aquifers http://www.pdp.co.nz/publications.html
Hi Trevor, Thanks for that. PDP's reports are relevant to understanding our aquifers. CPW's proposals have been, indeed, a moving target - they started off as high flow Spring runoff diversion and ended with, in effect, a run-of-river scheme. This sort of change in what you are after would not have been acceptable in the UK (I wish! It would have made my job much easier before I saw the light, took the money and the early bath and did a runner to NZ). As you note, the lawyers are scenting big bucks in changing the rules again - though they are only doing what their clients want. Under the Government's new RMA amendment Bill it would have been very difficult (if not impossible) for any of us to object to CPW in the first place. Note to expostulators: Read the Bill before you comment ( link at http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/3/4/c/00DBHOH_BILL9045_1-Resource-Management-Simplifying-and-Streamlining.htm or let me know if you would like me to send you a copy).
Hi, Yesterday the hearing Chaiman Philip Milne said it was the potential impact on Waianiwaniwa Valley residents that led to the likely rejection of the dam. The commissioners listened to CPW tell them why the remaining consents should be granted if the dam was rejected.. CPW claim that their scheme won't be very different without the storage reservoir and they never mean't to indicate that in their application, but as the MHPS submission points out.. 'CPW are changing the scheme from a water harvesting and reservoir storage one to a "run-of-river" one' and To become a requiring authority CPW said: "The essential feature of the Scheme is that it includes the principle of 'water harvesting' i.e. taking water during periods of high flows and conveying it to the irrigation system or storage reservoir for use during periods of restricted flows." What's the difference? Irrigation isn't needed in winter so for a 'run of river scheme' no consent to take river water is needed, but in summer the low flow restriction on the rivers means no water can be taken for much of that period.. CPW still want the winter 'take' even though the storage is not available. The DOC's submission concludes (amongst other things) 'the Commissioners have sufficient evidence to determine that critical aspects of the CPW scheme would not constitute sustainable management. [and] They do not have sufficient evidence to determine a run-of-the river scheme would be sustainable.' The above submissions and others can be found on the ECan site here http://www.ecan.govt.nz/Resource+Consents/Central+Plains+Water/SubmittersEvidenceInstitutions.htm#hearingResumption CPW are saying lots of different things in order to gain the consents for the water and 600kms of private land for canals, Radio nz reports here http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/05/11/1245afc6a3b6 'CPW says it is willing to compromise by reducing its proposed water take from 40 cubic metres per second to half the available flow, up to a maximum of 25 cumecs. [for the Waimak] The other concession is that if the dam was granted consent the [CPW] trust would not acquire land under the Public Works Act, instead agreeing to buy the land at the market rate when it became available.' The MHPS labelled this a "Clayton's offer" because CPW did not offer to withdraw the notice of requirement over properties.. also some land owners have already said they'll never sell! in The Press here http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch/2402697/Full-house-at-hearing-for-reduced-CPW-scheme Some other worries could be the Dairy Holdings Ltd $4.8M loan as the MHPS submission points out, where the agreement states 'DHL would be entitled by agreement with the Trust to conduct the application in the name of the Trust, or to conduct the application in its own name.' Which amounts to, if consented what has been touted as a community irrigation scheme could in fact turn out to be for the benefit of a single commercial operator! Cheers Trev
Whats going to happen to the Hurunui water scheme dudes.
One year to go before Regional Council elections.
After that National elections,
Second term PM John Key Government.
No more Ecan.
Regional Council abolition has been set back to the second term of NZ Nat
Government,
Want to look after Canterbury Rik ?.
You must immediately promote an alternative to Bob Parker,
a larger Council is coming your way Citizens,
prepare now,
I warn you now.
Bob Parker has visions of Canterbury in his own name.
Paul,
Thank you for being sooo optimistic!
> From: <email obscured>
> Subject: [Canterbury Issues] Central Plains Water Scheme
> To: <email obscured>
> Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:39:08 +1200
>
> Whats going to happen to the Hurunui water scheme dudes.
>
> One year to go before Regional Council elections.
> After that National elections,
> Second term PM John Key Government.
> No more Ecan.
> Regional Council abolition has been set back to the second term of NZ Nat
Government,
Here's a bit of optimism... CPW have been keeping a fairly low profile recently, but anyone who missed the great news, the commissioners have detailed why they've rejected the dam, reservoir and tunnel in a minute (#10) released 3 weeks ago on the ecan website here http://www.ecan.govt.nz/Resource+Consents/Central+Plains+Water/Hearings.htm It was great news for all that opposed the scheme to read that the report backed up nearly all their concerns about this land/water stealing company's Canterbury invasion. In a press release a few days later CPW said they'd follow the commissioners recommendations and withdraw the NOR from the private property affected by their plan, read about that here http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/national/2661172/Relief-as-dam-plan-axed Unfortunately they haven't done that yet, it could be yet another lie, but we here are hoping they will hurry up and get on with it. The question of 'should a few farmers be given the power of land acquisition over many' is questioned on Radio NZ, where even Benson-Pope admits he shouldn't have given requiring Authority status to CPW listen here http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/07/27/1245bca686b2 Meanwhile CPW are 'on the move' again and have sold shares to Synlait (despite saying a few years ago to farmers if they didn't buy in then, they wouldn't have the opportunity later and then saying they'd been over subscribed and had to decline some investors) Read about CPW's now so called 'Stage One' here http://www.ruralnews.co.nz/Default.asp?task=article&subtask=show&item=17896&pageno=1 Here at Red Alert http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2009/07/22/getting-mugged-over-water/comment-page-1/ Brendon Burns writes about how Canterbury's dairy profits as well as NZ water turned to milk powder will end up overseas... More recently the Waimakariri river was voted by councilors to be better protected as ecan writes here http://www.ecan.govt.nz/About+Us/DisplayMediaRelease.html?id=1310 and how CPW still wants to exploit it, no matter what the damage, for money in a press release here http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch/2705940/Tensions-flare-over-CPW-bid CPW's 'Headrace canal' is still a source of contention for Canterbury landowners though and will have to wait until October before hearings continue. small pdf of the timetable here http://www.ecan.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/1A5463CE-8E36-4C27-9052-37834FFC2542/0/CPWT2009TimelineForReconveningOfhearingInOctober.pdf cheers Trev
Need help? Please contact technical support and we will follow-up in 24-48 hours.
Hosted by E-Democracy.Org. Powered by OnlineGroups.Net using the open source web-based mailing list manager GroupServer.