All posts in the topic Central Plains Water Scheme (Short link)
Summary
- There are 67 posts — by 23 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Trevor Owen at Oct 29 10:00 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.