All posts in the topic ECan's approach to water management (Short link)
Summary
- There are 83 posts — by 16 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Tim Kerr at Jan 07 08:42 UTC
Here's an overview of ECan's approach to water management. I would be happy to respond to your comments or questions about this issue. Water management is becoming more complex as water is becoming a scarce resource. It is time to consider whether the RMA statutory process is sufficient as the method of management. It is proposed that a collaborative community engagement approach is needed to complement the statutory processes. Water management in Canterbury has shifted from managing a resource that was relatively abundant to one that is relatively scarce. The management task has become more complex. In addition to managing within the capacity limits of the water infrastructure, managing within the sustainability limits of the water resource is now required. For example, previously the main concerns were with the depth of bore and the size of pump for groundwater abstraction. Now there is the additional consideration of whether the allocation limits of the groundwater resource has been reached. In addition to managing the adverse effects of individual proposals to extract and use water, managing the cumulative effects of the combination of individual proposals and existing consents to extract and use water is required. For example, previously the main concern for new groundwater abstractions was their interference effects on neighbouring bores and direct effects on streams. Now there is the additional consideration of their combined effects of all abstractions on lowering of water levels affecting lowland stream flows and reliability of existing takes. In addition to resolving the competing requirements for instream and out-of-stream uses of water, the resolving of the competing requirements between out-of-stream users for the remaining available water is now required. For example, previously Environment Court actions were based on such matters as the effects of takes on river flows and reliability of existing takes. Now there are also Court actions (up to the Court of Appeal) on who has prior rights to the available water. With the changes in complexity in water management, it is timely to consider whether decision making on water resource management can be delivered solely by effects-based legislation using adversarial legal proceedings. Environment Canterbury has been developing a model of collaborative community engagement to complement the adversarial effects-based statutory requirements. This model is being applied at a number of different geographical levels: * At the catchment scale through the development of community-based catchment plans - a recent example is the one just completed for the Orari catchment (which will be available on the ECan website in the next 2-3 weeks); * At the subcatchment scale through community action plans to address land use impacts on water quality - Environment Canterbury's "Living Streams" programme now covers more than 30 streams; http://www.ecan.govt.nz/Our+Environment/Land/Living+Streams/ * At the stream reach level through water user groups to manage takes when rivers are on partial restriction - this has been successful on the Te Ngawai using web-based displays of real time monitoring of river flows and irrigator takes. http://www.ecan.govt.nz/Our+Environment/Water/Rivers/Water+Take+Trial/wa ter-take-trial.htm A more recent initiative is at the property level working with Irrigation NZ and Opuha Dam Limited on developing audited self management to complement regulatory inspections. For Canterbury it is also relevant to consider the regional scale. There are already water transfers between water-rich alpine rivers to the irrigable but water-poor catchments of our foothill rivers, such as the Rangitata Diversion Race transferring water from the Rangitata River to irrigate land in the Ashburton catchment. There is interest in developing storage to address concerns about limits of water availability at the time of demand particularly in low rainfall years. The Canterbury Strategic Water Study is being developed to address water management at the regional scale using a collaborative engagement model. The Stage 3 report has just been released based on a multi-stakeholder evaluation of storage options. http://www.ecan.govt.nz/Our+Environment/Water/PlansandReports/StrategicW aterStudy.htm Stage 4 is about to commence involving broad community engagement with support of a web-based collaborative governance model called OpenStrategy. This collaborative community engagement approach being taken by Environment Canterbury is consistent with Elinor Ostrom's self-governing community model for sustainable management of common resources. This is based on her research over the last 30 years on managing to avoid the tragedy of the commons in resource management issues. It also reflects the view of the Director of the European Commission's research program for Adaptive Integration of Research and Policy for Sustainable Development, Paul Weaver who says: "Even though the specifics of sustainability problems are relatively new, an established body of theory and methods has been developed in relation to analogous complex problems. The body of theory and experience suggests that problems characterized by a large number of potentially conflicting objectives, high degrees of uncertainty and risk, potential irreversibilities, large numbers of stakeholders, high stakes, unavoidable subjectivity and context specificity cannot be handled satisfactorily by centralized decision making structures and processes. Instead, they are best analysed and resolved in a decentralized fashion through participatory processes that engage the relevant actors and stakeholders in a constructive social process of mutual learning and decision making." ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
Hi Brian, On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 06:50 +1200, Bryan Jenkins wrote: > The Canterbury Strategic Water Study is being developed to address water > management at the regional scale using a collaborative engagement model. > The Stage 3 report has just been released based on a multi-stakeholder > evaluation of storage options. > http://www.ecan.govt.nz/Our+Environment/Water/PlansandReports/StrategicW > aterStudy.htm > > Stage 4 is about to commence involving broad community engagement with > support of a web-based collaborative governance model called > OpenStrategy. Thanks for letting us all know about this. An open, collaborative approach to this issue sounds like just what the doctor ordered ! How does one get involved ?
Bryan Jenkins wrote: > Here's an overview of ECan's approach to water management. I would be > happy to respond to your comments or questions about this issue. > > Water management is becoming more complex as water is becoming a scarce > resource. It is time to consider whether the RMA statutory process is > sufficient as the method of management. It is proposed that a > collaborative community engagement approach is needed to complement the > statutory processes. > from: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/foodWithoutFossilFuels.php "My talk is on how switching to organic agriculture and localised food and energy systems can save us from the ravages of industrial agricultural and climate change. It can feed the world; more than that, it is the/ only/ way we can feed the world, and also the most effective way to mitigate climate change. It can potentially compensate for all greenhouse gas emissions due to human activities and free us completely from fossil fuels. We have collected all the scientific evidence and evidence from farmers’ experiences around the world in a comprehensive report [1] (Food Futures Now *Organic *Sustainable *Fossil Fuel Free <http://www.i-sis.org.uk/foodFutures.php>) that has gone to press just before I came here. Croatia is very wise not to be diverted by GM crops. To grow GM crops now is a recipe for global famine. They have the worst features of industrial agriculture as a major driver of climate change, and are far from safe for human health and the environment." Solid Energy are reported in "The Press" Jan 8, 2008, as intending to plant 20,000 hectares of biofuel crop within 3 years. That is 200 square kilometers. They complain of the cost of rape making it uneconomic at $350 per tonne. But the Canadian genetically modified product would be cheaper as it is not wanted in many countries. I feel we are at risk of big business pushing in GM crops here despite in this area the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment saying we should not support them as they are no good for the CO2 footprint and raise food prices. Solid Energy is asking for tapayer support, too. Can the moderation of the supply of water be used to moderate big business whose mandate is to earn money quickly, often externalising costs on to the environment and biodiversity? I believe biodiversity to be the currency of the future. The water study is asking whether more water can be squeezed out of the Waiau River. Parnassus, where Solid Energy have rape planted, is by the Waiau River. Brian Sandle
Bryan Jenkins favours us with his comment here, and I mean this front up,
I am truly impressed and greatfull, it is a quiet time away from the politic
of elections, and maybe we can develop something, even with Rik,
Bryan says
"It is time to consider whether the RMA statutory process is
sufficient as the method of management. It is proposed that a
collaborative community engagement approach is needed to complement the
statutory processes"
This is a welcome statement and seems a long way from the corporate agenda 7,
or Central Government control of the South Island.
Dear Paul and fellow CPIF readers,
Welcome is this dialogue, and the focused presentation of the resource
development theory that $300k+ p.a. buys Canterbury ratepayers at
regional Chief Executive Officer level. All is revealed, on the
demolition by substitution of community-based democracy. This process
underpins that of mooted corporate seizure of the public water resource,
to meet dairy export growth targets. It is driven from Parliament
through legislation, increased international trade, and local political
and economic agents.
"Dairy is the big winner," said the Honorable Phil Goff yesterday on the
NZ-China Free Trade Agreement. 'Locally we must develop the
infrastructure to take advantage of the FTA,' was another comment
reported. Read that indication for Canterbury's future, from rural
Labour, as you will. Then weep for Senior Fire Officer Derek Lovell,
lost at Tamahere in Hamilton on Saturday, to rampant thoughtless dairy
and its resultant water deficits; Shame!!!
Paul, in an earlier thread and post, had accurately identified the key
and life-sacrificing dynamic he notes again here. For there is just one
way to understand the mounting pressure to large-scale store, by 'public
venture', Canterbury's declining water supply, and so to hasten its
decline: corporate coup, undemocratic and driven by profit beyond logic
or care.
The process of privatising the remaining water resource is difficult to
sell, and so is marketed by business's influential media wing. That is
how we must read the "Earth Hour" contradiction - of great publicity for
'sustainability' (consumer portion reduction for business growth), as an
extravagant and desperate investment in industrial-strength _greenwash_.
Where The Press has seemingly reversed its 2007 propaganda campaign for
the Central Plains Water scheme, for example, in favour of more balanced
coverage of the CPW hearings this year, in fact it has shifted its eye
onto the main game. Why else would The Press publish a puff piece on the
Canterbury Regional Council's Executive, instead of working with its
elected public representatives, if it was not to commence building the
case for the massive and region-wide commercial water storage for which
plans are already tabled?
Prepare to see the expensive marketing pitch for (water)
unsustainability everywhere now - the Press editor is a self-appointed
arbiter of 'green values,' and of Greenpeace-style methodological
efficacy, around his exhaustive 29 March black ink. Woe indeed.
The corporatisation of local government, for its private control beyond
public hands, of the assets it is responsible for, is one of our
greatest challenges today. Please use your votes and voice wisely. Use
the free press (of keyboard keys) too.
paul scott wrote:
> Bryan Jenkins favours us with his comment here, and I mean this front up,
> I am truly impressed and greatfull, it is a quiet time away from the
politic of elections, and maybe we can develop something, even with Rik,
> Bryan says
>
> "It is time to consider whether the RMA statutory process is
> sufficient as the method of management. It is proposed that a
> collaborative community engagement approach is needed to complement the
> statutory processes"
>
> This is a welcome statement and seems a long way from the corporate agenda 7,
or Central Government control of the South Island.
>
> paul scott
> North avon
Perhaps _the_ fundamental issue in Election'08 is the developer scrum
weight set to unwind the Resource Management Act. The RMA has been this
country's primary environmental guard since 1991, and we need it to
remain so. Imported investment is the key driver threatening our viable
dryland regional identity based on viable braided rivers. Turn it back.
It is most unfortunate to see how well the RMA-destructive campaign is
now being resourced. The community must resist the marshaled assault on
our environment, and its protections, by every democratic means
available. Instruct the Executive, and the public relations team you've
paid to hire, or subscribe to, accordingly.
Kind regards,
Rik
I wrote: > Solid Energy are reported in "The Press" Jan 8, 2008, as intending to > plant 20,000 hectares of biofuel crop within 3 years. That is 200 square > kilometers. Just for comparison http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/story_images/1429_RR255_s4321.pdf gives: Arable cropping or seed production in North Canterbury as 6,493 hectares. > They complain of the cost of rape making it uneconomic at > $350 per tonne. But the Canadian genetically modified product would be > cheaper as it is not wanted in many countries. I feel we are at risk of > big business pushing in GM crops here despite in this area the > Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment saying we should not > support them sorry, 'them' being biofuel crops. > as they are no good for the CO2 footprint and raise food > prices. Solid Energy is asking for tapayer support, too. > > Can the moderation of the supply of water be used to moderate big > business whose mandate is to earn money quickly, often externalising > costs on to the environment and biodiversity? Unlike Europe the farmers here do not yet have a carbon footprint tax applied. But a start would be to plan for starting to restrict water rights based on the carbon footprint. > I believe biodiversity to > be the currency of the future. The water study is asking whether more water can be squeezed out of the > > Waiau River. Parnassus, where Solid Energy have rape planted, is by the > Waiau River. > Though some of the current 5000 hectare rape crop is in Southland.
This is getting really interesting and all in plain english so far too.
Thanks very much for that especially.. lol
In this column we seem to have different theories.
One is that the South Island is about to progress toward more community
involvement, and this is advanced by Bryan Jenkins with examples.
The community collaboration he refers to states that Ecan will be prepared to
engage more broadly with the community in a way that is not exactly spelled out
in the Resource management Act.
Well of course nothing in the Resource Management Act is readable, it is a
swirling vortex of circumlocution, and I can not agree with Ecan Councillor Rik
who laments the antagonism to the RMA but at the same time recognizes that it
is about to be swallowed up by the Corporate agenda.
Bryan Jenkins quotes European experts in his search for a new way:
“ [ sustainability problems] are best analysed and resolved in a
decentralized fashion through participatory processes that engage the
relevant actors and stakeholders in a constructive social process of
mutual learning and decision making."
Andrew Groom backs this idea of community collaboration up, and I would not be
surprised if he feels that he is getting somewhere.
But let us not be to optimistic about our chances:
At the same time as the open strategy, Ecan present to us [ the Annual plan ]
appendix 7,
which I facetiously call Agenda 7, the biggest load of centralised
gobbledygook you will ever read but not understand in your life.
Orwell is whirling. But it means money from Central Government for agriculture.
The next theory is by Brian Sandle , and is not wordy at all.
“ I believe biodiversity to be the currency of the future. The water study is
asking whether more water
can be squeezed out “
This is a tough call Bryan, and I for one would like to live in a community
where our Councils had simple clean objectives.
Maybe we can set up a Council controlled operative a CCO or a ROG or a
synonym you can live with , with you and Rik as sole directors on salaries and
get the job done.
Next we have Rik, and bless him for attending to his community.
Rik does not see community involvement coming yet.
He says
“All is revealed, on the demolition by substitution of community-based
democracy. This process
underpins that of mooted corporate seizure of the public water resource,
to meet dairy export growth targets. It is driven from Parliament
through legislation, increased international trade, and local political
and economic agents.”
Paula Lambert thanks us all so much for speaking in plain language .
I wish it were otherwise. Agenda 7 is bad news and the “Open strategy” is good
news.
I am a hopeful cynic.
If Bryan Jenkins gives us a gap I say we take it, and save our part of the
country.
.
Paul if I can follow the various arguments without a major brainstrain so
far then this thread is providing a very useful discussion for everyone : )
I too am a hopeful cynic, though it seriously alarms me the way a vital
natural resource suddenly seems to be in the process of being alienated away
from ordinary punters in order to benefit minority business shareholders,
and eventually it could even be under the control of non-local corporates.
That the RMA could be soundly trashed as a result of the next general
election is also a cause for concern.
Lets face it, there are a lot of serious environmental concerns these days,
and if we cock up something as basic as water access I quite possibly will
be sorry I had children. I realise my future grandchildren may grow up
thinking it is perfectly normal to pay some overseas company for their
water, and not worry about it. But I still don't like it.
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 5:24 PM, paul scott <paulscottfilms@yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:
Bryan Jenkins wrote:
> Paul Weaver who says:
>
> "Even though the specifics of sustainability problems are relatively
> new, an established body of theory and methods has been developed in
> relation to analogous complex problems. The body of theory and
> experience suggests that problems characterized by a large number of
> potentially conflicting objectives, high degrees of uncertainty and
> risk, potential irreversibilities, large numbers of stakeholders, high
> stakes, unavoidable subjectivity and context specificity cannot be
> handled satisfactorily by centralized decision making structures and
> processes. Instead, they are best analysed and resolved in a
> decentralized fashion through participatory processes that engage the
> relevant actors and stakeholders in a constructive social process of
> mutual learning and decision making."
The centralised structures can be protective.
For example the Human Rights Act might seem too troublesome to the
biotechnology industry. So should it be set aside in favour of local
interests who may be mainly the industry?
Further, once a supposedly representative group were set up what sort of
minutes would they be required to keep and would they be available to
all to read?
What review procedures would there be and could new members be allowed
on to the task force?
Thanks to all contributors for working this thread further, and
especially to Bryan Jenkins for kicking it off. Hopefully there's more
quality discussion to come.
Are we on 'e-talkback' here on Canterbury Public Issues Forum, where the
community can directly engage with its governors like nowhere else? It's
a really great forum; thanks Dan, Andrew, & CPIF board.
Well, six months into a new councillorship the learning curve has begun
to level off and allow more public interaction time; in that initial
'RMA Training' phase has just ended (barring any need to resubmit the
final assignment). This is the new certification requirement for elected
consent hearings commissioners, as of last year - just thought you'd
like to know what we have to do with our time, for those considering
seeking regional council roles in future. 2,500 consent applications per
annum - ECan needs our help.
So it's a big relief to have that homework done, along with most of the
other trainings and introductory briefings and tours that have filled
the first six months of duty. 'Productive mode' may well now be here.
Words never convey a complete picture, so we grapple with 'what's going
on?' daily - all interested in politics. Here's more impressions,
experiences, inside view - that is what I owe the community, for being
elected, I feel. That and ongoing commitment to Save Our Water, despite
the essence of electoral politics being to mash the newcomer into the
smudgy status quo centre, of drift into... what?
Canterbury water exports by 2020; in the form of whole milk - it's in
the FTA signed last week with China. But first off? - All the milk
powder we can ship, later this year, for manufacturing infant formula in
China (= our 'knowledge economy' upgrade?); milk powder is the first
tariff-free cab off the rank (to borrow Clark+Cullen's of-used phrase).
6% increase in Fonterra milksolid payouts? - 'I told you so'; this is
the 'perpetual growth' factored into this cooperative-company, at every
level including greenhouse gas emissions. Oh, I forgot; we've
compensated for that with our new annual hour of 'lights out' early.
Food riots toppling the Haiti government?; rice price inflation? -
That's just the start. [Am working on a reply for Tim Kerr.]
Back to the water. National Radio listeners will have been dumbfounded
Sunday morning to hear John "Napoleon Banks" has plans to reduce current
Auckland public representation (councillor numbers) to just 10%. 10%?!
Watch out Chrissie Williams. I jest you not. We have our own little
corporal with the same big plans down here.
Which is why the translation of corporate speak is being offered here.
Paul says:
>> Agenda 7 is bad news and the "Open strategy" is good news.
>> I am a hopeful cynic.
They are one and the same; in that the "Open strategy" is the method by
which 'public consultation' (yeah right) is to be managed for the
Canterbury Strategic Water Study (CSWS) - watch that (greenwash) Press
space, coming to you 'real soon now' TM.
Our minority mayor is on record regarding the CSWS, as declaring that
"this is a fundamental battle for the future of Canterbury".
What Bob hasn't realised yet is that he is on the side of evil.
Viz: citing the 1998 drought as justification for massive, remedial
water storage, the CSWS response has grown like topsy into some
mega-greed milk pipe dream of super-irrigation. The business-elected /
sponsored mayors of the region have clubbed together with their (also
rich) CEOs to nurture this 'infinite GDP growth' misanthropy, which is
bad for biodiversity too. All that stands in their way is democracy.
Funny, that. - "What's a few less councillor's, between friends?"..
At heart, the Canterbury water debate is very, very simple to read:
We have superlative water storage, beneath our feet. Yet some _______s
want to risk 'improving' on what nature sustains us with.
100% guaranteed result of this grand plan will be permanent drought in
Canterbury. - Read "dustbowl" creation.
Why? - "Bloody Australians!" (;-)
- Ran their own rivers dry. Have bought back the Murray-Darling water
consents off farmers three times already, and are still not done with
it. CER has brought a lot of their $ over here to run us dry as well.
Have they sent their Chief Scientist to package the job?
Well, at Council it goes like this. Elected officials have no direct
authority whatsoever over Council staff. Fair enough; there have been a
few meddlers, I am told. Instead, the only way elected Council can
direct its work output is through Council policy statements and plans,
almost. The single staff member Council can instruct is its CEO. The CEO
has complete discretion as to how s/he will instruct staff, to meet the
principles laid out in the policy statements and plans; unless
specifically instructed otherwise, through the CEO Code of Conduct
(reviewed once every three years).
Now don't get me wrong, I like and respect Bryan: I voted for his
rehiring (for a longer term than I am secure) and for Bryan's salary
increase. This is in line with the thinking of my environmentalist
peers. But that is where it stops. My primary duty is to you, dear
ratepayer, and the long-term security of your water supply, etc.
So, a few weeks back, while still wading through that new term tidal
wave of paper, we reviewed the CEO Code of Conduct. To the narrow band
of specific CEO instructions (e.g. 'rural pest management to be locally
driven') - from trying to ascertain just who was driving the water
mega-storage bandwagon ('better than nature' yeah right) - I sought CEO
Code of Conduct amendment, to eliminate one possibility:
'that the CEO shall not facilitate planning of new water storage schemes
greater than 50 million cubic meters in capacity'. [e.g. Opuha dam is
about 90.]
Any seconder for this motion? ... Councillors?!
- Lapsed through want of seconder.
So, the jury is still out as to who is in fact driving the water
mega-storage drift in Canterbury. We could have ascertained who _wasn't_
driving Canterbury water mega-storage on this occasion, but that's
'environmentalism' for you - one-up-personship to a fault. I am happier
at least that all this is on public record now. These are the facts:
0. The Canterbury Mayoral Forum comprises all the Mayors of Canterbury,
and the ECan Chair, and their CEOs. It meets at ECan, thus far.
1. The Canterbury Mayoral Forum contracts out the Canterbury Strategic
Water Study (CSWS) to the private sector.
2. Canterbury Regional Council ('Environment Canterbury' TM) funds the
CSWS; oops, that is, _you_do_.
3. Division on Council prevented us requesting sight of the CSWS
documentary output, at the same time as the Mayoral Forum receives it,
but we're still working on information access.
4. Reversing the liberal practise of the previous Mayoral Forum Chair,
Michael McEvedy, the new Chair, Mayor Bob, has banned Councillors as
observers at Mayoral Forum meetings.
5. The Mayoral Forum has statutory authority to unite, decide, and pitch
for economic development funding from government.
- Dynamic 5 affects events in Auckland too, no doubt.
- It's all happening behind closed doors. And now you know.
- Watch for Canterbury Strategic Water Study, Stage 4, "Open strategy".
My advice? - Rein in the cowboys.
Supporting evidence? - Hamilton. Dairy. Boom.
- Sincere commiserations and condolences to all the affected families
and staff,
from Canterbury Civil Defence and Emergency Management, Portfolio Chair.
Rik Tindall wrote:
> They are one and the same; in that the "Open strategy" is the method by which
'public consultation' (yeah right) is to be managed for the Canterbury
Strategic Water Study (CSWS) - watch that (greenwash) Press space, coming to
you 'real soon now' TM.
>
> Our minority mayor is on record regarding the CSWS, as declaring that "this
is a fundamental battle for the future of Canterbury".
>
> What Bob hasn't realised yet is that he is on the side of evil.
>
>
There is the type of business where one person's gain is another's loss. I
think it can happen with the big players that they can manipulate currency
markets. A computer program detects a small fluctuation in an exchange rate
before a human might notice it. The computer starts to sell up big and the
currency drops further as some panic develops. Then buy-back happens after the
bottoming out approaches. There is no net gain to people overall, maybe some
loss.
A similar thing can happen in the property market. Markets may be manipulated
by spreading perceptions. Some players can become rich but there is no overall
gain across the whole market from that type of business.
So is the 'future of Canterbury' being thought of from benefit across all
aspects, or in the manner of trying to manipulate speculative markets where
there is no net benefit?
All aspects must include the long range viewpoint. This game does not have to
be played like chess with Canterbury's environment as a pawn with the dollar
as king to be taken by one or other player. It is also happening so badly
elsewhere as well as here with the rush for bio-diesel crops planting, removing
forests. The market has tried to push them as environmental and the NZ govt may
be a knowing or unknowing accomplice. It would be a knowing accomplice if it
goes ahead now the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has spoken
against it..
Rik wrote:
"What Bob hasn't realised yet is that he is on the side of evil. Viz: citing
the 1998 drought as justification for massive, remedial water storage, the CSWS
response has grown like topsy into some mega-greed milk pipe dream of
super-irrigation."
I got Waimakariri River flows from ECAN. I asked for them with the effects of
irrigation takes added back. There seems to be a bit of a seven year cycle,
with low January flows for a year or three, repeating after seven years. 1999
was a low flow year, that might be after less snow deposited in the drought
year 1998. But 1999 was a year of the 7 year cycle. There has been another low
7 years later in 2006. Now if my type of speculation is correct we should be
starting to move to better flows for a few years. So maybe it is time to
re-plant some trees and give them the years till about 2012 or 2013 to get
roots down a bit. Think out a more environmental - ethical way to apply
irrigation than removing trees for the big wheeled irrigators. Removal of tree
leaves the land drier and brings more profit to irrigation businesses, but not
to the farmer or the general person in the long run.
I wonder if the 7 year cycle Chandler Wobble of the earth on its axis is
related to the river flow.
Let us try to work out what is actually happening and develop ethical business
which benefits us all and does not externalise costs on to the future, leaving
biodiversity depleted.
Brian Sandle
I am expecting a reply from Bryan Jenkins soon,
he said he would respond
There have been a number of posts after my discussion of ECan’s approach to
water management (Apr 7 18:51).
There has been some interest in the OpenStrategy concept and the Canterbury
Strategic Water Study. There are also comments about the role of the RMA.
OpenStrategy is a multi-stakeholder planning system. It uses a web-based
software tool that enables stakeholders to record information in a simple but
structured way, and allows them to prioritise and analyse that information. It
is supported by and complemented by other means of communication such as
facilitation and workshops. The information structure has four components:
Projects, Results, Uses and Benefits. This is based on the concept that
strategy involves people implementing “projects” that produce “results” (or
outputs), which others “use” to create “benefits” (or community outcomes).
For the community engagement in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, there
are two main ways that people can be involved. One is through stakeholder
workshops providing input to OpenStrategy. The second is through public
engagement with public meetings and submissions providing input to
OpenStrategy. Details of the arrangements will be announced shortly. It is
proposed that the engagement would be in two main phases: the first focused on
uses and benefits associated with water; and the second focused on strategies
and substrategies to achieve those uses and benefits.
This approach follows from the work undertaken during Stage 3 multi-stakeholder
evaluation of storage options. This work identified “two over-arching critical
issues – land use intensification and its effects on water quality; and,
maintaining or improving flow variability in major rivers – that need to be
rigorously explored and subjected to comprehensive public debate before
Canterbury is in a position to make sustainable, long-term decisions about
water storage or water management” (CSWS Stage 3 report p2).
The report also noted that “Water storage is only one of the things that need
to be considered in a water strategy for Canterbury. Other issues that need to
be considered include land use intensification, water quality, cultural values,
tangata whenua objectives, and recreation uses (p4).
The Canterbury Mayoral Forum has endorsed an outline of work for Stage 4 (refer
Appendix 4 of the CSWS Stage 3 report). In addition to the community engagement
using collaborative governance, other components comprise: meeting Canterbury’s
long-term needs through integrated water management; institutional arrangements
for integrated water management, strategic management of water quality,
integration of land use and water management, more detailed site
investigations, land use designations, and a biodiversity strategy.
The concept of collaborative governance is to complement the statutory
processes. Any approach to water management requires statutory backing. Rather
than commence with the formal RMA processes which have become extremely
adversarial, the intent is to seek agreement through collaborative approaches
first and give that agreement statutory backing. This is similar to the
approach adopted for the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy. In
this case regional, local and central government worked in partnership with
community involvement to reach an agreed strategy. Key components of this
Strategy are now being given statutory backing through a Change to the Regional
Policy Statement.
I have some worries about this process.
Bryan Jenkins wrote:
> There have been a number of posts after my discussion of ECan’s approach to
water management (Apr 7 18:51).
>
> There has been some interest in the OpenStrategy concept and the Canterbury
Strategic Water Study. There are also comments about the role of the RMA.
>
> OpenStrategy is a multi-stakeholder planning system. It uses a web-based
software tool that enables stakeholders to record information in a simple but
structured way, and allows them to prioritise and analyse that information.
How will stakeholders for the scoping process be chosen? For the
Christchurch City Council water they were invited. It moved very quickly
on to a bylaw hearings process. (I will ask at the hearing on Monday for
recognisance for biodiversity. On larger sections with less hard surface
and less sewer output per land area I do not believe any water charge
should include so much storm, waste water charges.)
> It is supported by and complemented by other means of communication such as
facilitation and workshops. The information structure has four components:
Projects, Results, Uses and Benefits. This is based on the concept that
strategy involves people implementing “projects” that produce “results” (or
outputs), which others “use” to create “benefits” (or community outcomes).
>
And what about adverse effects?
> For the community engagement in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy,
there are two main ways that people can be involved. One is through stakeholder
workshops providing input to OpenStrategy. The second is through public
engagement with public meetings and submissions providing input to
OpenStrategy. Details of the arrangements will be announced shortly. It is
proposed that the engagement would be in two main phases: the first focused on
uses and benefits associated with water; and the second focused on strategies
and substrategies to achieve those uses and benefits.
>
> This approach follows from the work undertaken during Stage 3
multi-stakeholder evaluation of storage options. This work identified “two
over-arching critical issues – land use intensification and its effects on
water quality; and, maintaining or improving flow variability in major rivers –
that need to be rigorously explored and subjected to comprehensive public
debate before Canterbury is in a position to make sustainable, long-term
decisions about water storage or water management” (CSWS Stage 3 report p2).
>
> The report also noted that “Water storage is only one of the things that need
to be considered in a water strategy for Canterbury. Other issues that need to
be considered include land use intensification, water quality, cultural values,
tangata whenua objectives, and recreation uses (p4).
>
> The Canterbury Mayoral Forum has endorsed an outline of work for Stage 4
(refer Appendix 4 of the CSWS Stage 3 report). In addition to the community
engagement using collaborative governance, other components comprise: meeting
Canterbury’s long-term needs through integrated water management; institutional
arrangements for integrated water management, strategic management of water
quality, integration of land use and water management, more detailed site
investigations, land use designations, and a biodiversity strategy.
>
> The concept of collaborative governance is to complement the statutory
processes. Any approach to water management requires statutory backing.
But the biodiversity strategy is non-statutory.
> Rather than commence with the formal RMA processes which have become
extremely adversarial,
I remember you saying at the Kim Hill Science Series that ECAN denials
of water rights, based on scarcity of resource, are being overturned in
the Environment Court.
> the intent is to seek agreement through collaborative approaches first and
give that agreement statutory backing. This is similar to the approach adopted
for the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy. In this case regional,
local and central government worked in partnership with community involvement
to reach an agreed strategy. Key components of this Strategy are now being
given statutory backing through a Change to the Regional Policy Statement.
>
Things in the world are moving very fast. Rice is in short supply and
Walmart, I have just heard, are rationing sales. It is interesting that
they are not just trying to do it through the market - raising prices.
How can we continue to have faith in our current economic system when so
many people's life savings are being lost as so many finance companies
collapse? Surely we shall need rules and rationing rather than the market.
Can we better ration water for local food growers and biodiversity?
And the proposed change to the RPS does not give sufficient credence to
biodiversity. Remove the land for larger trees and the habitat for
bellbirds will be gone. I have just been listening to one in a
macrocarpa tree in New Brighton, near the beach. (And silvereyes and
fantails use exotic trees for habitat, too.)
In New Brighton an attempt is being made to legislate 'urban
denisification' through Plan Change 27 to City Plan. Reference is made
to wishes of a 'New Brighton Task Force' , which though a supposedly a
community voice, was weighted towards developers. Now it is difficult to
trace it and find its real responsibility to the community. Also a CCC
report process left out a biodiversity report based on an old report by
a plant scientist, not a bird scientist. Bell birds were not heard in
New Brighton till the last couple of years. Now it is an important
refuge for them.
The failing economic financial market system we have is also causing
loss of our biodiversity. We need to be very careful that any system we
choose safeguards the future.
Brian Sandle
New Zealanders,
Canterbury people, South Islanders,
Friends who are Participants and Partisans
I hope that co-operation with our Commumity will prevail.
Many of us do not agree with the process do have much work.
Sometimes we see words we can not understand.
We will prevail.
Our Country is destined to be rich,
Brian Sandle raised some “worries” about the process in his 24/04/08 posting.
My responses to these concerns are as follows:
In relation to “selection of stakeholders” –
The concept of OpenStrategy is that it is open to any stakeholder group to
engage.
In relation to “adverse effects” –
Adverse effects are included as negative results, negative effects on uses,
and, negative effects on benefits. For example, if water is diverted from a
stream (a project), the results include firstly water available for
out-of-stream use (a positive effect on economic benefits), and secondly, a
reduction of instream water (a negative result with reductions in use for
ecological and recreation benefits).
Where there are negative results (or negative effects on uses and benefits),
this is clearly shown in OpenStrategy. This would count against a project in
terms of community acceptance unless the negative effects are avoided or
another project is added to the strategy that provides greater positive results
for the desired uses and benefits. The concept of OpenStrategy is to deliver
positive community outcomes through partnerships of government, industry and
community (the Local Government Act concept of sustainability). This contrasts
with the mitigation of adverse effects (the Resource Management Act concept of
sustainability).
In relation to the “biodiversity strategy”-
The overall water management strategy will need to incorporate biodiversity
projects (related to water) as a substrategy. Part of the process is
identifying how the projects can be implemented whether as statutory
requirements or a non-statutory plan. If statutory components are required then
they could be given statutory backing.
In relation to “issues of water scarcity overturned in the Environment Court”-
One of the reasons for proceeding with a collaborative governance path is to
move away from adversarial court proceedings as the only means of making
decisions. Where there is widespread support for a water management strategy
there is less likelihood of legal challenge and less likelihood of a court
overturning the approach.
Bryan Jenkins wrote:
> Brian Sandle raised some “worries” about the process in his 24/04/08 posting.
My responses to these concerns are as follows:
>
> In relation to “selection of stakeholders” –
> The concept of OpenStrategy is that it is open to any stakeholder group to
engage.
>
>
That seems to give futher power to the already stronger voices of the time.
What sort of a strong voice would be likely to come from a standing
point in the future looking back at what has happened or is happening
just now?
Take a look at fisheries stocks. Salmon farmers may see a future
benefit to their market if the natural river breeding process gets cut
back. Knowing how many firms fail these days it might not be hard to
think of a salmon farm having to get quickish profits. Then who protects
them and any other prospective salmon user of the future if the genetic
diversity of the natural stock is lost?
And that is just from the commercial spectrum.
Thanks from Brian Sandle
Hello Bryan and forum group, 1) Thankyou for this update, and Brian and Paul for extra comment. Most welcome is the explanation of this groundbreaking approach. ref - http://openstrategies.co.uk - Homegrown innovation, truly worth participating in. I'll reiterate the breakthrough nature of water strategy development before us now, in reporting the CSWS release of the OpenStrategy timetable detail to Canterbury Regional Council (CRC/ECan) Thursday 24 April - in support of its appeal for increased funding. This is progress. The Canterbury Mayoral Forum seems to have agreed, for the first time, to CRC councillors having early access to the latest CSWS output. That is greatly appreciated. We also had question-time, and learned good news that OpenStrategy has no predetermined outcomes at all (e.g. water storage works are not necessarily an unavoidable outcome). So there is room to explore whether - in addressing our 'peak oil / water & food trough' situation - drastic guided and inclusive alteration in land use might also be considered. That is, we may look at whether energy considerations - with food supply having preeminence amongst these - top our hierarchy of local and international needs re land use; such that efficiency of food/energy production and long-term preservation of the water resource can viably be structured in (against 'more of the same' resource desecration). Public and stakeholder involvement in the CSWS OpenStrategy can thus only be most enthusiastically encouraged. (See '2' below.)
Rik Tindall wrote: > Hello Bryan and forum group, > > 1) Thankyou for this update, and Brian and Paul for extra comment. > > Most welcome is the explanation of this groundbreaking approach. > > ref - http://openstrategies.co.uk > > - Homegrown innovation, truly worth participating in. > Just reading the terms and conditions it is not allowable in OpenStrategy to promote or benefit an industry which harms or exploits animals. I started to think that removing so many trees from farms (to make way for the big irrigators) removes navigation landmarks and hive places, possibly harming bee populations. Theoretically then, would some farmers have a voice in OpenStrategy? Brian Sandle
Bryan Jenkins wrote: > [...] > The Canterbury Mayoral Forum has endorsed an outline of work for Stage 4 (refer Appendix 4 of the CSWS Stage 3 report). In addition to the community engagement using collaborative governance, other components comprise: meeting Canterbury’s long-term needs through integrated water management; institutional arrangements for integrated water management, strategic management of water quality, integration of land use and water management, more detailed site investigations, land use designations, and a biodiversity strategy. > > [...] > Has anyone on this forum inputted? It disturbs me that the Canterbury Strategic Water Study only appears to look at vegetation as an impediment to run-off into rivers, and to applying water: p20 Although the land-use scenario includes major forestry areas (particularly in Waimakariri and Hurunui areas) and the 80% use of potential land takes account of shelter-belts, etc., we have not assumed that all present forestry areas will necessarily remain in forest. There are recent examples in New Zealand where trees have been removed prematurely to make way for irrigation development. p33 5.5.3 Effect of Other Vegetation Change Any change in land-use and vegetation has the potential to reduce catchment water yield. Wilding trees and reversion to scrub has the potential to reduce water yield, particularly as this land-use change is occurring in areas of higher rainfall. These land-use changes might ultimately play a more significant role than any increase in plantation forestry. However, to quantify the effect of wilding trees and reversion to scrub, further information would be needed on where and how much land use change is occurring. p 110 The overall impact on water availability from increases in plantation forestry is relatively small. However, wilding trees and reversion to scrub might ultimately play a more significant role than any increase in plantation forestry. To quantify this effect, further information would be needed on where and how much change there may be to this type of land. I believe there needs to be acknowledgement of storage of water in the soil itself. I believe the shelter of trees and their consequent ability to reduce evaporation enables water to be better stored in soil, and so agroforestry needs examination. Trees also can lift deeper water in considerable quantities - they tap the deeper storage. Also humus in the soil can reduce drain-through. Landcare are studying that, therefore why is there no reference to it in the CSWS? Further, vegetation, actually by slowing run off, can reduce river floods and losses and silting, so works to help storage. from: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/kuchlers/k075/all.html "The Nebraska sandhills have been described as an enormous sponge soaking up and storing immense quantities of water. It was estimated that the 20,000 square miles (5 million ha) of Nebraska sandhills can store 600 million acre-feet of water [13 <references.html#13>]. " Given 640 acres per square mile that would be a water volume like a lake of depth 45 to 50 feet, and dimension 140 miles by 140 miles. [600,000,000/(640 x 20,000)]. The New Brighton sand dunes certainly are damp at not too great a depth even in the hot summer, and marram grass or other plants with reasonably long roots survive very well. Dr Jenkins refers above to the Canterbury Mayoral Forum, and I get suspicious that it might be the same sort of make-up as the proposed Council Controlled Organisation the Regional Government Group. It would run quite a large amount of Canterbury funding as a corporate. So in the case of water it might not be interested in water stored in soils, or in the protection of soils by trees. It would be interested in the commercial side - stored water which it can meter and sell. And it would be interested in conditions which dry the soils so more water could be sold. 26 June seems to be the date ECAN adopts its Annual Plan. If you oppose the CCO RGG there may be a chance to get your local ECAN Councillor to vote against the CCO option. I have explained the other 3 options earlier.
Hi Brian,
Brian Sandle wrote:
> Bryan Jenkins wrote:
>> [...]
>> The Canterbury Mayoral Forum has endorsed an outline of work for Stage 4
(refer Appendix 4 of the CSWS Stage 3 report). In addition to the community
engagement using collaborative governance, other components comprise: meeting
Canterbury’s long-term needs through integrated water management; institutional
arrangements for integrated water management, strategic management of water
quality, integration of land use and water management, more detailed site
investigations, land use designations, and a biodiversity strategy.
>
> Has anyone on this forum inputted?
As far as I know the Canterbury Strategic Water Study (CSWS) is now
over, so that the Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS) has
superseded it - in moving to '(CSWS) Stage 4'.
But announcement of the CWMS launch is now overdue I believe, such the
CWMS Open Strategy consultation portal is not yet accessible to the
public. You will have registered on the Open Strategies (tm) software
website instead, I believe - a different input area entirely, with no
direct bearing on the CWMS at all.
That will be a new (CWMS) Open Strategy instance once CWMS is launched.
Watch The Press I'd say. Sorry about the confusion. I hope this helps.
Cheers, Rik
FYI Brian and fellow Cantabrians, re Canterbury Water Management Strategy input: http://www.canterburywater.org.nz - was part iv, Canterbury Strategic Water Study. Remembering http://www.canterburywater.net.nz Good to see our CPI Forum subscription up 10%, to 222, in recent months. Cherish (e-)democracy: it's the best allocation resource we've got.
Rik Tindall
The only ECAN Councillor to contribute toward public debate.
On various issues
Some of the others will be going next time.
Names shortly.
Paul Scott
The 'Final Document' is out. Is the public consultation going to happen or is it 'Final'?... Part way down here is the doc http://www.ecan.govt.nz/Our+Environment/Water/PlansandReports/StrategicWaterStudy.htm Bryan Jenkins wrote: >The report also noted that “Water storage is only one of the things that need to be considered in a water strategy for Canterbury. Other issues that need to be considered include land use intensification, water quality, cultural values, tangata whenua objectives, and recreation uses (p4). looks like all about storage..? > OpenStrategy is a multi-stakeholder planning system. It uses a web-based software tool that enables stakeholders to record information in a simple but structured way, and allows them to prioritise and analyse that information. >The concept of OpenStrategy is that it is open to any stakeholder group to engage. On p19 Irrigating/farmer stakeholders make up 80% of the group >One of the reasons for proceeding with a collaborative governance path is to move away from adversarial court proceedings as the only means of making decisions. Where there is widespread support for a water management strategy there is less likelihood of legal challenge and less likelihood of a court overturning the approach. If someone steals something they end up in court, is this much different? The trouble is Irrigation is using 80% of our water at the moment and this project looks like it's designed to give more. Why hasn't there been a project about irrigation efficiency to reduce this huge allocation? Surly that would be the first, cheapest and easiest step and it'd have huge public backing from day one! Summer is coming and to witness the normal irrigation practice here in Canterbury is bemusing, it could almost be described as criminal. If the real reason for farmers to irrigate every day, including hot and/or windy days is to make sure the higher grounds get the right amount of water where undulating ground causes uneven watering/run-off effects, then that could be a starting point for a project. If cooling the leaf down is another problem there has to be a more efficient solution for that too. If 'water management' was a driver then irrigation has got to get better than 60% . It looks more like water mis-management to find other ways to cover this inefficiency
My view is that in deciding water allocation, there has to be strong account
taken of the end use of the water; that there should be community input and
that allocation should take account of the need to retain diversity on the
Plains. Currently there is a push going on for water trading - I think that's
just a recipe for dairying intensification.
I wrote for The Press on this topic last week - as follows below if you missed
it.
Brendon Burns
In the 21st century economy, water is king. Climate change now has everyone
drinking deep on how fundamental water is to everything – agriculture,
industry, communities and life itself.
As we emerge from a very wet winter we will soon be reminded that Canterbury is
a summer-dry province. Our forefathers bred sheep like the Corriedale to cope
with those conditions.
In recent years, the huge returns of dairying have seen the conversion of parts
of Canterbury into an ersatz Waikato.
Demand for extracted water has already seen some areas of our province
red-zoned. The response to growing need includes the Central Plains Water
project, seeking to divert huge volumes of braided river water into storage.
Clearly the current ‘first come, first served’ model for water is not working.
Water management has become a prime focus for Government. A draft National
Policy Statement on Freshwater Management is out for public consultation, and
work is underway on National Environmental Standards to measure water takes,
levels and ecological flows. Government also recognises some over-allocation
and is moving to address this, including building local government capability.
The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development has entered the
debate with a weighty report. While much of its content is sound, it proposes
trading water rights to achieve better use of water. Canterbury, already by far
the most irrigated province, is proposed as a test model for water trading.
This blunt economic instrument – transferring unused water from one party to
another – would effectively privatise water that belongs to every one of us.
While this may appeal to those in the National Party who think privatising
everything is the way to go, water is a community resource – it belongs to all
of us; it can be centuries old when extracted from under a farm; no one owns a
river or its contents.
That doesn’t mean price has no place in sustainably managing water use. My wife
and I developed a small vineyard using irrigated water. When landowners are
allocated water, they should for pay for each litre, not by the hectare. This,
however, is very different than on-selling water.
Already, Canterbury water, gained for the minimal cost of a consent
application, is being traded over the Internet for personal profit. This
currently requires Ecan consent but no wider consultation or input. Around 8000
consents for water were granted in Canterbury since the start of the last
decade. Most for 35 years. Just as we realise, whoops, that too much has been
allocated to be sustainable in some areas, a push emerges to turn the current
modest trading of water into a full-blown mechanism.
As a community resource, water deserves to be managed on more than an
economically rational model. Environmental, societal and national implications
also need to be considered.
Allocating water simply by price would reward those with the deepest pockets.
Canterbury dairy farms are already twice the national average size. Who can
compete with an industry where returns are such that a single stock unit can be
valued at $2000?
The industry is going corporate. At least Fonterra remains, for now, wholly New
Zealand-owned unlike its emerging foreign-funded challengers.
Attempting to replicate the climate of traditional dairy areas requires
extraordinary amounts of our water. The nor' westers and freer draining soils
exacerbate the water requirements. Urea fertiliser use is up ten-fold on the
Plains since 1990. Its bequest is high concentrations of noxious nitrate via
cows urine. Some 80 percent of Canterbury streams are now classified as
polluted. There are already warning signs against drinking the water in some
Canterbury townships.
While the finger cannot be entirely pointed at dairying, it is a key factor in
lowering water quality in our region. As a nation with an already tenuous
reputation for being clean and green we must surely listen to more than the
tinkle of cash cows.
Christchurch has the best drinking water in the world. We need to know without
question, that this supply and its purity can continue for generations to come,
no matter what the demands of agriculture or other users. Already the north
west of the city has been split off to uphold the rest of Christchurch's water
classification.
We want to be able to drink the water, swim safely in our waterways, catch
fish, to have enough river flows to go boating. In some cases, it may be almost
too late - look at the state of Lake Ellesmere.
We also need an allocation model that works sustainably and maintains the
diversity of the Plains. At the moment, there is not even a requirement to
notify plans to convert an existing farm into a dairy unit.
As fuel prices rise, it makes sense to retain locally grown fruit and
vegetables. As climate change hits Australia, it becomes strategically
important to retain a grain and seed industry in Canterbury, currently
producing 80 percent of our nation's output. Sheep will again have their day.
The Canterbury wine industry might never have got off the ground if the dairy
boom had started earlier and settled on Waipara.
Community input into water allocation might see some weight given in
decision-making to the issue of what a farmer plans to do with water resources.
This would not preclude dairying as part of a Canterbury farming mix,
especially if it can stop use of urea fertiliser (bio-charcoal is an exciting
possibility.)
Water trading would simply accelerate the potential for a spread of corporate
dairying north from Ashburton up to Amberley, with giant irrigators creating a
War of the Worlds landscape and destroying all the precious diversity of the
Plains. Water is the essence of life. Wars have been fought over it. The battle
here is just beginning.
Brendon Burns is Labour’s candidate in Christchurch Central.
Hello CPIF and greetings Brendon Burns. Welcome to Canterbury, and to our great
water debate.
Interesting to read of your work in Marlborough, Brendon. How is the water
situation doing there lately please? - Unavailable for further allocation for
agriculture, horticulture, or vineyard development, with kilometers of good
farmland washed away in this year's floods, is the most recent news I'd heard.
Thanks for your thoughts re Canterbury water. I find them strong on sentiment
and specific in ways, but somewhat short in others.
As a new Labour representative seeking support within Christchurch, we need to
know more from you. We need to know especially what Labour's "infrastructure"
development spending plans are going to do, to: a) our 'pristine' / declining
natural environment, and; b) our rates.
Because the massive global inequities seen recently - where taxpayer funds are
transferred to CEOs and investors, and savers' interests are equally undermined
- can only be exacerbated by water privatisation at local level in Canterbury.
The public interest is absolutely to stop a Labour government from initiating
such an asset grab in our region, while stopping National from doing 'the same
only faster' too.
With children dead and thousands more hospitalised in China, from the dairy
industry's 'cash-at-all-cost, 6 percent per annum growth' imperative, a
moratorium on further dairy expansion is what Christchurch voters want to
support, and now. Brendon, would you support an immediate moratorium on further
dairy expansion, and if so, how?
We need this commitment from you, this week. Because behind the rhetoric, more
of the same - 'agricultural restructuring towards heavy and polluting
monoculture', which has predominantly allowed Labour to retain the treasury
benches for its recent three terms - is what we should otherwise expect to
continue. Unless Brendon is really going to help us.
The problem for Labour and National is that the same old same old can no longer
cut it. For people to believe that these parties can resolve the current
"crisis", they'd need to show first that they actually understood it. The above
noted, dairy intensification policy tack shows that these perties do not
(understand the crisis). Against the Lab-Nat's 1930s-style "infrastructure
investment" faith must be counterposed wish-less reality: that the crisis is
not one of too little "growth", but of too much. National simply lack the human
resource for stepping outside of that expired framework, and will dissipate
along with the faltering "growth" fetish.
The message any prospective government must now echo back to the voting public
is primarily cognisance of historic reversal - that extreme economic growth is
finally failing, through impact upon its real and natural limits - and it is
time to start effectively caring about people, other species, and our
environment too, instead.
The "growth" of individualised greed and acquisition, at the expense of the
common good, is not something that can have any positive effect upon government
at all - that is the lesson 2008 demands we must learn (and elect). Where
resource depletion across the board - from skilled labour to food, water,
minerals, time itself, liquid capital, and especially of energy (winter's
petroleum price spike) - has burst the speculative finance bubble, the first
job of viable leadership is to know that we're reaching "the end of the road".
Next is how to discover effective brakes, and then navigate a way forward from
here: a complete change of direction. More "infrastructure growth", serving
oligarchy, on its way through, can only become more of a social graveyard.
The Lab-Nat 'borrowing' proposal is iniquitous: where can it come from? The
Kiwi soul is up for sale here, but we musn't trade it.
We can only accept the part promoting smart infrastructure: public broadband
service expansion, around renewable energy transition. Through e-commuting,
time and pollution recovery, skills development with maximised individual
freedom, productivity and social responsibility, the facilitated "knowledge
economy" offers the key advance for Aotearoa New Zealand. We must trade on our
difference, our extant biodiversity and cultural awareness, our productive
innovation, and especially on the preserved quality of our land - above
preserved good water - if we are to survive and prosper.
The only way to pick this direction politically, is to condition the next
government most strongly with green, indigenous, and labour perspectives.
Nothing else is up to the very urgent job at hand, with fresh ideas for social
and economic renewal.
At council level, as nationally, the same outmoded growth-at-all-cost (felling)
'ethic' has also been prevailing, until next popular vote. Better information
is always required - to overturn 'mushroom' politics - with two significant
recent moments:
i) The Canterbury Mayoral Forum, on 25 August 2008, received report of creation
of the Canterbury Economic Development Company (CED Co.) from the previously
named Regional Governance Group: this is the body corporate that will receive
big central government monies for big roading, water storage and irrigation
schemes in 'future Canterbury' (not). The (1930s-style) 'New Deal' funding
receptacle is now readily in place for Canterbury, to birth a water bureaucracy
(destructively).
ii) The Canterbury Regional Council (ECan), on 25 September 2008, received the
report of its Finance and Audit Committee, which recommended inclusion of
Uniform Annual General Charges as a rating mechanism in its Long Term Council
Community Plan, that will go out for public consultation in April 2009: watch
for that. Alongside the UAGC consultation will also be consultation "on
recovery of a portion of water management costs[...]". On the motion of
Councillor Kane, seconded Cr Oldfield, was deleted the rest of F&A's
recommendation, that water management cost recovery should be "[...]from
businesses and commercial users" only - pointedly shifting the hard focus off
the water depletion exacerbaters, as a neo-conservative drive.
This was a fundamental ground-shift at ECan, and for Christchurch - which
consumes just 3% of Canterbury's water (industrial and domestic supplies) yet
contributes around 60% of ECan's rating budget and certainly has not caused any
kind of water shortage as a polity. The Kane/Oldfield motion overcame the
resistance of the five labourist Councillors, but how does the public defeat
such depredating commercialisation? Perhaps Brendon Burns can help! Will
Brendon speak out against imminent and massive injustice, whereby Canterbury's
domestic water users are being lined up to pay the inflated mortgage on the
water storage follies of exploitative wealth?
Most importantly Brendon, can you win Christchurch's heart, by being prepared
to defeat Michael Cullen and Jim Anderton's gross and unsuited polluting plans
for our Eden-like gladed settlement? Will you oppose any further large-scale
water storage 'public works' schemes in Canterbury, on our behalf, and help
save our water?
The dairy risk is out of control, gambling all on glitter at the bottom of an
empty tank (sustainable aqueous environment end). The market only knows how to
drive resources to exhaustion, and reaching that point will be far too late.
"Adaptation" is a scam, when disconnected from its "mitigation" flipside as per
IPCC guidance.
The 6% p.a. dairy growth target is a knife poised across Canterbury's throat,
because with milk solid payouts stalling, the only way to maintain that growth
is through bulk production. Allowing such shortsightedness to drive land
conversion, wetland draining, biodiversity loss, and nitrous contamination,
indefinitely, is certain suicide for our region and thus for human civilisation
too. Loss of land fertility is what stopped most civilisations historically,
and there has yet to be a signal break from the ignorance of the past (our
'dominion over all' creed is our undoing, where faith in incomplete science
cannot recover).
Break government's latch onto unsustainable growth, Brendon, in this instance
and on our behalf, if you want Christchurch votes. Break it explicitly, with
rejection of any more large-scale water storage in Canterbury - opposing Dr
Cullen's bankrupt ideas for (non-)"change".
Offer us promise, that we can hold you to, please. Offer us bravery, and, if
you can, a healthy new world.
Regards, Rik
Hi The public consultation part is now here http://www.canterburywater.org.nz/getting-involved/ about half way down the page in a pdf called 'special topic dates' unfortunately we've missed a few, but apparently it was advertised in the media somewhere on the 12th (the day before the first meeting)... anyway it's now or never as according to their timeline 'Implementation' of this project occurs in April next year. Cheers Trev
Plaudits are due to The Press and the Christchurch City Council, for "The State of Our Rivers"