Here are some cool Canterbury Earthquake links
Relive your sleepless night.
Christchurch earthquake map
Bob Parker did it and he is a lizard. Did I mention he is an alien?
Bob Parker Engineered the Earth quake
See the Canterbury earthquake page on Wikipedia.
A substantive 78-footnote page has sprouted in 4 days.
Canterbury earthquake
Secret government geo-engineering vis vapour trails.
New Zealand Chem Trails
Showing posts with label Environment Canterbury. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment Canterbury. Show all posts
07 September 2010
22 July 2010
Hurunui River moratorium: So What?
According to the Press, the Greens and Forest and Bird have welcomed today's Ecan's moratorium on processing applications for resource consents to take more water from the Hurunui River. It's even been described as a victory for "people power".
That view is just so wrong. Just read the Environment Canterbury announcement all the way down to the sixth paragraph.
"Existing resource consents would not be affected by a moratorium."
So it will have no effect on the applications to dam the Hurunui River for irrigation storage already lodged by the Hurunui Water Project
As far as I know, there is no impending 'flood' of applications to take more water from the Hurunui River about to hit Environment Canterbury. So the moratorium is at best, a futile gesture, and at worst, greenwashing for Smith and the irrigators.
It's the applications to dam the Hurunui River that are the 'game-changers' which will have irreversible adverse effects on the ecology of the Hurunui River. That particular horse has bolted from the stable, so there's not much point shutting the stable door.
That view is just so wrong. Just read the Environment Canterbury announcement all the way down to the sixth paragraph.
"Existing resource consents would not be affected by a moratorium."
So it will have no effect on the applications to dam the Hurunui River for irrigation storage already lodged by the Hurunui Water Project
As far as I know, there is no impending 'flood' of applications to take more water from the Hurunui River about to hit Environment Canterbury. So the moratorium is at best, a futile gesture, and at worst, greenwashing for Smith and the irrigators.
It's the applications to dam the Hurunui River that are the 'game-changers' which will have irreversible adverse effects on the ecology of the Hurunui River. That particular horse has bolted from the stable, so there's not much point shutting the stable door.
28 April 2010
ECAN Commissioners again
One of the other new ECAN Commissioners is David Bedford who is Chairman of Enterprise North Canterbury.
So where in the Canterbury water politics spectrum do David Bedford and Enterprise North Canterbury fit in?
According to its web site, Enterprise North Canterbury is a not-for- profit trust acting as the economic development agency for the Waimakariri and Hurunui District Councils. One of its key objectives is "to promote and facilitate land-use intensification in the region...(such as the) Hurunui Water Project which Enterprise North Canterbury helped establish.
Enterprise North Canterbury was part of a working group consisting of the Hurunui Irrigation and Power Trust, MainPower, Ngai Tahu Properties and Eskhead Station, which came up with the Hurunui River/Lake Taylor dam and water storage proposal in April 2006.
This working group recieved $590,000 from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Sustainable Farming Fund and Enterprise North Canterbury must have supported them as it contributed its postal address.
As National Business Review's Chris Hutchings says; the Environment Canterbury special legislation "represents a victory for Irrigation NZ and rural interests seeking control of the region’s waterways for irrigation projects involving the Hurunui, Rakaia, Waimakariri and other main rivers."
The Hurunui Water Project is going to be the main beneficiary of the special legislation as it cancels Fish and Game and Whitewater NZ's right to appeal their Hurunui River water conservation order application to the Environment Court. Remember, success for the water conservation order application would prevent the Hurunui Water Project, who already have had their consent applications notified, from damming the Hurunui River at Lake Sumner.
But the Government has moved the goalposts on the water conservation order.
Whitewater NZ is furious.
So Commissioner Bedford will be firmly in the pro-irrigation camp. I wonder if he will have the sense to declare a conflict of interest and excuse himself from any discussions the ECAN Commissioners have on the Hurunui River water conservation order?
Its also a little odd that Irrigation New Zealand's press release applauding Bedford's appointment does not mention the Hurunui Water Project Connection.
So where in the Canterbury water politics spectrum do David Bedford and Enterprise North Canterbury fit in?
According to its web site, Enterprise North Canterbury is a not-for- profit trust acting as the economic development agency for the Waimakariri and Hurunui District Councils. One of its key objectives is "to promote and facilitate land-use intensification in the region...(such as the) Hurunui Water Project which Enterprise North Canterbury helped establish.
Enterprise North Canterbury was part of a working group consisting of the Hurunui Irrigation and Power Trust, MainPower, Ngai Tahu Properties and Eskhead Station, which came up with the Hurunui River/Lake Taylor dam and water storage proposal in April 2006.
This working group recieved $590,000 from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Sustainable Farming Fund and Enterprise North Canterbury must have supported them as it contributed its postal address.
As National Business Review's Chris Hutchings says; the Environment Canterbury special legislation "represents a victory for Irrigation NZ and rural interests seeking control of the region’s waterways for irrigation projects involving the Hurunui, Rakaia, Waimakariri and other main rivers."
The Hurunui Water Project is going to be the main beneficiary of the special legislation as it cancels Fish and Game and Whitewater NZ's right to appeal their Hurunui River water conservation order application to the Environment Court. Remember, success for the water conservation order application would prevent the Hurunui Water Project, who already have had their consent applications notified, from damming the Hurunui River at Lake Sumner.
But the Government has moved the goalposts on the water conservation order.
Whitewater NZ is furious.
So Commissioner Bedford will be firmly in the pro-irrigation camp. I wonder if he will have the sense to declare a conflict of interest and excuse himself from any discussions the ECAN Commissioners have on the Hurunui River water conservation order?
Its also a little odd that Irrigation New Zealand's press release applauding Bedford's appointment does not mention the Hurunui Water Project Connection.
24 April 2010
23 April 2010
Campbell Live on Environment Canterbury
How cool is this? Using a widget on the TV3 website I posted this link of Campbell Live's item on Environment Canterbury. Quite funny that John Campbell (Wellington College Old Boy) said "This is why you should give a dam about Environment Canterbury.
Govt labelled 'dictatorship' after kicking out elected reps - Campbell Live - Video - 3 News
Posted using ShareThis
Govt labelled 'dictatorship' after kicking out elected reps - Campbell Live - Video - 3 News
Posted using ShareThis
Environment Canterbury's New Commissioners
Nick Smith and Rodney Hide have announced the other commissioners who will join Dame Margaret Bazley in running Environment Canterbury for the next three years.
They state "The Government has selected experienced and capable commissioners with first-class public service, governance, judicial and business skills. We have ensured a balance of agricultural, environmental and electricity expertise"
"The Commissioners are: Dame Margaret Bazley (Chair), Hon. David Caygill (Deputy Chair), David Bedford, Donald Couch, Tom Lambie, Professor Peter Skelton, Rex Williams."
Professor and former Environment Court Judge Peter Skelton will be welcomed because of his highly relevant judicial and professional background. He has acted as an Ecan hearings panel member for the Lower Waitaki catchment consents. He has also given advice and run RMA training for Ecan staff.
Tom Lambie, the former President of Federated Farmers, and South Canterbury organic dairy farmer and consent holder, is also known to Environment Canterbury. In particular, by the Enforcement staff, as he received an infringement notice fine of $750 in February 2003 for an unlawful discharge of dairy shed effluent.
Have a look at the list of infringement notices on page 16 of Environment Canterbury's Enforcement Report of 2003.
R03-37
They state "The Government has selected experienced and capable commissioners with first-class public service, governance, judicial and business skills. We have ensured a balance of agricultural, environmental and electricity expertise"
"The Commissioners are: Dame Margaret Bazley (Chair), Hon. David Caygill (Deputy Chair), David Bedford, Donald Couch, Tom Lambie, Professor Peter Skelton, Rex Williams."
Professor and former Environment Court Judge Peter Skelton will be welcomed because of his highly relevant judicial and professional background. He has acted as an Ecan hearings panel member for the Lower Waitaki catchment consents. He has also given advice and run RMA training for Ecan staff.
Tom Lambie, the former President of Federated Farmers, and South Canterbury organic dairy farmer and consent holder, is also known to Environment Canterbury. In particular, by the Enforcement staff, as he received an infringement notice fine of $750 in February 2003 for an unlawful discharge of dairy shed effluent.
Have a look at the list of infringement notices on page 16 of Environment Canterbury's Enforcement Report of 2003.
R03-37
19 April 2010
Canterbury water conservation orders
A commenter asks Claire Browning at the Pundit blog:
"Does the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010) mean that the new ECan can bypass the process so that rights to access water in the Hurunui can be granted regardless of anyone else's needs or concerns?"
No the special legislation doesn't bypass the process, it completely rewrites the process!
Specifically, it inverts the old decision making criteria so that development of water resources is more important in the decison on a WCO than preserving rivers in their natural state.
In a tribunal decision on a WCO (under Section 207 of the RMA) environmental criteria ("outstanding amenity or intrinsic values which are afforded by waters in their natural state" s 199 RMA) have predominance over resource development criteria, which were still a matter the tribunal "shall also have regard to" (S 207(b)).
The Hurunui River WCO application, even though it was applied for and had it's tribunal stage prior to the Ecan Act, is now to be decided by the new Ecan/Dame Margaret. See Section 46 of "the Ecan Act".
Dame Margaret/Ecan's decision on the Hurunui WCO is to guided by Section 50 of "the Ecan Act"
The decision must have particular regard to the vision and principles of the Canterbury Water Managment Strategy (S 50(2)(a)(ii). The "vision" is now Schedule 1 to the Ecan Act.
I am afraid when I see the "vision and principles of the CWMS", it just seems a rehash of "resource management" apple pie matters, just like sections 5, 6 and 7 of the RMA.
The decision must also have particular regard to the old WCO criteria; "outstanding amenity or intrinsic values that are afforded by waters in their natural state" (S 50(2)(a)(i) and S 50(3)(a)).
But the decision must be made foremostly "subject to Part 2 of the RMA" (S 50(2)). That wording is from s 104 of the RMA (the section about how to consider the granting of resource consents). It means that ultimately the decision on a WCO should 'promote sustainable management' of resources as defined by court interpretations of Section 5 of the RMA. Just like a consent decision.
The MfE and Court-approved interpretation of "sustainable management" is the "broad overall judgment" weighing all matters. In other words, it is a balancing exercise. So what will this sort of decision look like in practice?
I suggest it will look exactly like the recent decision to grant consents to dam the Mokihinui River within a conservation area. See the article Watchdogs explain giving dam go-ahead, 8 April 2010 in the Herald.
The three-person hearing panel made a split 2 vs 1 decision to grant the consents. The civil engineer and the west coast councillor outvoted the specialist freshwater ecologist, who considered the dam should not go ahead due to significant adverse effects on freshwater ecosystems.
We may ask "how did the Hearing Panel "have regard to" the adverse effects of the dam on freshwater ecosystems?". The answer is that one of the three panel members recognised and documented the importance of the freshwater ecology in their decision and the other two considered the instream values worth sacrificing for the power.
To me that is a perfect example of what is wrong with the "broad overall judgment" approach to sustainable management It is "weak sustainability" writ large.
The definitions section of the Ecan Act also defines the term 'WCO application' to include an application to revoke or vary an existing WCO. Applying to revoke or vary a WCO is provided for in S 216 of the RMA. But there is a high threshhold as it's still the same S 207 decision-making criteria "outstanding amenity or intrinsic values" of water in it's natural state".
The Majac Trust (the Talley family) tried to vary the Buller River WCO to allow hydro dam on the Gowan River. That application was declined.
The Ecan Act now means that Canterbury's WCOs, which were established against criteria of "outstanding intrinsic values", can now be varied or revoked by appications that will be considered against a criteria of fairly weak sustainability.
It is no wonder Chris Hutchings of the NBR decribes the Ecan Act as a major victory for the irrigators.
"Does the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010) mean that the new ECan can bypass the process so that rights to access water in the Hurunui can be granted regardless of anyone else's needs or concerns?"
No the special legislation doesn't bypass the process, it completely rewrites the process!
Specifically, it inverts the old decision making criteria so that development of water resources is more important in the decison on a WCO than preserving rivers in their natural state.
In a tribunal decision on a WCO (under Section 207 of the RMA) environmental criteria ("outstanding amenity or intrinsic values which are afforded by waters in their natural state" s 199 RMA) have predominance over resource development criteria, which were still a matter the tribunal "shall also have regard to" (S 207(b)).
The Hurunui River WCO application, even though it was applied for and had it's tribunal stage prior to the Ecan Act, is now to be decided by the new Ecan/Dame Margaret. See Section 46 of "the Ecan Act".
Dame Margaret/Ecan's decision on the Hurunui WCO is to guided by Section 50 of "the Ecan Act"
The decision must have particular regard to the vision and principles of the Canterbury Water Managment Strategy (S 50(2)(a)(ii). The "vision" is now Schedule 1 to the Ecan Act.
I am afraid when I see the "vision and principles of the CWMS", it just seems a rehash of "resource management" apple pie matters, just like sections 5, 6 and 7 of the RMA.
The decision must also have particular regard to the old WCO criteria; "outstanding amenity or intrinsic values that are afforded by waters in their natural state" (S 50(2)(a)(i) and S 50(3)(a)).
But the decision must be made foremostly "subject to Part 2 of the RMA" (S 50(2)). That wording is from s 104 of the RMA (the section about how to consider the granting of resource consents). It means that ultimately the decision on a WCO should 'promote sustainable management' of resources as defined by court interpretations of Section 5 of the RMA. Just like a consent decision.
The MfE and Court-approved interpretation of "sustainable management" is the "broad overall judgment" weighing all matters. In other words, it is a balancing exercise. So what will this sort of decision look like in practice?
I suggest it will look exactly like the recent decision to grant consents to dam the Mokihinui River within a conservation area. See the article Watchdogs explain giving dam go-ahead, 8 April 2010 in the Herald.
The three-person hearing panel made a split 2 vs 1 decision to grant the consents. The civil engineer and the west coast councillor outvoted the specialist freshwater ecologist, who considered the dam should not go ahead due to significant adverse effects on freshwater ecosystems.
We may ask "how did the Hearing Panel "have regard to" the adverse effects of the dam on freshwater ecosystems?". The answer is that one of the three panel members recognised and documented the importance of the freshwater ecology in their decision and the other two considered the instream values worth sacrificing for the power.
To me that is a perfect example of what is wrong with the "broad overall judgment" approach to sustainable management It is "weak sustainability" writ large.
The definitions section of the Ecan Act also defines the term 'WCO application' to include an application to revoke or vary an existing WCO. Applying to revoke or vary a WCO is provided for in S 216 of the RMA. But there is a high threshhold as it's still the same S 207 decision-making criteria "outstanding amenity or intrinsic values" of water in it's natural state".
The Majac Trust (the Talley family) tried to vary the Buller River WCO to allow hydro dam on the Gowan River. That application was declined.
The Ecan Act now means that Canterbury's WCOs, which were established against criteria of "outstanding intrinsic values", can now be varied or revoked by appications that will be considered against a criteria of fairly weak sustainability.
It is no wonder Chris Hutchings of the NBR decribes the Ecan Act as a major victory for the irrigators.
01 April 2010
The Environment Canterbury Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management Act Part 2
Claire Browning makes the point about the Environment Canterbury special legislation weakening the water conservation orders in Canterbury.
The press release of EDS, Ecologic, Fish and Game, Whitewater NZ and Forest and Bird is bang on.
The legislation really cries out 'Have a go at the Canterbury water conservation orders'. If Dame Margaret's commissioners don't give economic values enough weighting, the water interests are very familiar with the courts. The lack of appeal on facts to the Environment Court is unlikely to put off the water interests. Ngai Tahu and Central Plains Water Limited took the 'priority' of water issue (the 'who is first in line' issue) all the way to the Court of Appeal.
I have been looking at the "Dame Margaret" bill to see if the additional powers in Subpart 4, sections 61 to 69, will be likely to help 'fix' the Natural Resources Regional Plan ("NRRP").
S 63 appears to say Ecan (Dame Margaret's commissioners) must have particular regard to the CWMS in deciding the NRRP. Well, okay.
S 66 appears to say that there is no right of appeal of that decision to the Environment Court, only to the High Court, if you were a submitter.
S 69 appears to say that IF hearings on submissions on the NRRP have concluded (S 69(1)(b)) AND Ecan revokes the delegation to the NRRP commissioners (S 69(1)(a)) THEN Ecan can then make an 'instant' decision with no further cross-submissions or hearings AS LONG AS submissions, evidence and officers reports are considered.
However, Ecan's decision-making for the five problematic NRRP 'chapters', which were notified in July 2004, is 'grandparented' under the version of the RMA that existed in 2004. This is provided for in S 131 of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2005, S 161 of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009 and S 62 of the Environment Canterbury Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management Bill (which specifically says S 161 still applies).
So, on the face of it, Dame Margaret can't make a quick-no-hearing-no-appeal decision on the NRRP, relying on S 63, 66 and 69. And submitters will still have rights of appeal to the Environment Court.
It appears to me that Dame Margaret can only use S 61, 63, 66 and 69 to speed up variations (amendments) to the NRRP, that she initiates AFTER the commencement of the Bill. At last count, Ecan were already up to 14 'variations' on the NRRP. I don't really see more variations cutting through the complexity. It's more likely to add to it.
However, Dame Margaret may 'withdraw' the proposed NRRP chapters under Schedule 1 Clause 8D 'Withdrawal of proposed policy statements and plans' of the RMA. That clause has not been changed since 1993, it was in the RMA when the NRRP was notified in 2004, so it can be used by Ecan/Dame Margaret.
I would favour complete withdrawal of the NRRP and starting again. I don't think the NRRP is worth saving.
For example, even if the NRRP was operative tomorrow, the rules only make groundwater consents exceeding a groundwater allocation block "non-complying" and therefore arguable at a hearing. The more rigorous 'third order' groundwater allocations that would be backed by prohibited rule status are a 'work-in-progress' And have been since 2004.
Really, this shows that Dame Margaret has a very tough job. She will need some very good planners as fellow commissioners to produce an effective regional water allocation plan for Canterbury. She is unlikely to be helped by the Ecan planners as they are stuck in Plato's cave, mistaking the world viewed through the lense of the NRRP as reality.
The press release of EDS, Ecologic, Fish and Game, Whitewater NZ and Forest and Bird is bang on.
The legislation really cries out 'Have a go at the Canterbury water conservation orders'. If Dame Margaret's commissioners don't give economic values enough weighting, the water interests are very familiar with the courts. The lack of appeal on facts to the Environment Court is unlikely to put off the water interests. Ngai Tahu and Central Plains Water Limited took the 'priority' of water issue (the 'who is first in line' issue) all the way to the Court of Appeal.
I have been looking at the "Dame Margaret" bill to see if the additional powers in Subpart 4, sections 61 to 69, will be likely to help 'fix' the Natural Resources Regional Plan ("NRRP").
S 63 appears to say Ecan (Dame Margaret's commissioners) must have particular regard to the CWMS in deciding the NRRP. Well, okay.
S 66 appears to say that there is no right of appeal of that decision to the Environment Court, only to the High Court, if you were a submitter.
S 69 appears to say that IF hearings on submissions on the NRRP have concluded (S 69(1)(b)) AND Ecan revokes the delegation to the NRRP commissioners (S 69(1)(a)) THEN Ecan can then make an 'instant' decision with no further cross-submissions or hearings AS LONG AS submissions, evidence and officers reports are considered.
However, Ecan's decision-making for the five problematic NRRP 'chapters', which were notified in July 2004, is 'grandparented' under the version of the RMA that existed in 2004. This is provided for in S 131 of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2005, S 161 of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009 and S 62 of the Environment Canterbury Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management Bill (which specifically says S 161 still applies).
So, on the face of it, Dame Margaret can't make a quick-no-hearing-no-appeal decision on the NRRP, relying on S 63, 66 and 69. And submitters will still have rights of appeal to the Environment Court.
It appears to me that Dame Margaret can only use S 61, 63, 66 and 69 to speed up variations (amendments) to the NRRP, that she initiates AFTER the commencement of the Bill. At last count, Ecan were already up to 14 'variations' on the NRRP. I don't really see more variations cutting through the complexity. It's more likely to add to it.
However, Dame Margaret may 'withdraw' the proposed NRRP chapters under Schedule 1 Clause 8D 'Withdrawal of proposed policy statements and plans' of the RMA. That clause has not been changed since 1993, it was in the RMA when the NRRP was notified in 2004, so it can be used by Ecan/Dame Margaret.
I would favour complete withdrawal of the NRRP and starting again. I don't think the NRRP is worth saving.
For example, even if the NRRP was operative tomorrow, the rules only make groundwater consents exceeding a groundwater allocation block "non-complying" and therefore arguable at a hearing. The more rigorous 'third order' groundwater allocations that would be backed by prohibited rule status are a 'work-in-progress' And have been since 2004.
Really, this shows that Dame Margaret has a very tough job. She will need some very good planners as fellow commissioners to produce an effective regional water allocation plan for Canterbury. She is unlikely to be helped by the Ecan planners as they are stuck in Plato's cave, mistaking the world viewed through the lense of the NRRP as reality.
31 March 2010
The Environment Canterbury Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management Act
Its no longer a bill. At 7.50 p.m. I switched to Parliament TV and watched the last few speeches of the third reading debate. Lianne Dalziel was fairly good.
The third reading debate concluded and the matter was adopted at 7.59 p.m. with National, ACT and United voting for and Labour, the Greens, the Maori party and Progressive against.
Environment Canterbury Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management Bill became law just in time for me to switch channel to "The Big Bang Theory".
The third reading debate concluded and the matter was adopted at 7.59 p.m. with National, ACT and United voting for and Labour, the Greens, the Maori party and Progressive against.
Environment Canterbury Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management Bill became law just in time for me to switch channel to "The Big Bang Theory".
The Environment Canterbury Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management Bill
I am quite concerned about some aspects of the Environment Canterbury Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management Bill. (Oh no another awful acronym, the "ECTCIWMB"!)
Under Part 3 of the bill, Dame Margaret Bazley and the Environment Canterbury commissioners will become the decision maker for the Hurunui Water Conservation Order application when that process is perhaps 80% complete (Tribunal compromise decision with Minister) .
Water Conservation Orders were the only part of RMA deliberately not subject to Part 2 (sustainable management) of the RMA, as the statutory purpose inherited from the previous legislation is preservation in the natural state of nationally significant rivers. Dame Margaret's decision on the Hurunui River WCO must consider 'sustainable management' and the principles of the Canterbury Strategic Water Management Strategy.
And there is of course the Hurunui Water Project suite of storage and irrigation consents notified at Ecan, which cannot co-exist with the Hurunui River WCO if approved in it's current form.
This part is a major change to the water and rivers framework of the RMA that is nothing to do with Ecan's jurisdiction or performance. It is being rammed through Parliament without due process. It's an affront to due process for Fish and Game (as the Hurunui WCO applicant) to have the legal process (and goalposts) changed at the nearly the end of the process.
It's also an affront to the transitional practice that has applied to all previous (overly numerous) amendments to the RMA: that the process for all applications and plans are 'grandfathered' with the version of the RMA that existed on they day they were lodged.
Here's a quote, not from the Greens, but from Canterbury NBR correspondent Chris Hutchings
"The move represents a victory for Irrigation NZ and rural interests seeking control of the region’s waterways for irrigation projects involving the Hurunui, Rakaia, Waimakariri and other main rivers."
In respect of that part of the bill, it's hard to disagree.
Under Part 3 of the bill, Dame Margaret Bazley and the Environment Canterbury commissioners will become the decision maker for the Hurunui Water Conservation Order application when that process is perhaps 80% complete (Tribunal compromise decision with Minister) .
Water Conservation Orders were the only part of RMA deliberately not subject to Part 2 (sustainable management) of the RMA, as the statutory purpose inherited from the previous legislation is preservation in the natural state of nationally significant rivers. Dame Margaret's decision on the Hurunui River WCO must consider 'sustainable management' and the principles of the Canterbury Strategic Water Management Strategy.
And there is of course the Hurunui Water Project suite of storage and irrigation consents notified at Ecan, which cannot co-exist with the Hurunui River WCO if approved in it's current form.
This part is a major change to the water and rivers framework of the RMA that is nothing to do with Ecan's jurisdiction or performance. It is being rammed through Parliament without due process. It's an affront to due process for Fish and Game (as the Hurunui WCO applicant) to have the legal process (and goalposts) changed at the nearly the end of the process.
It's also an affront to the transitional practice that has applied to all previous (overly numerous) amendments to the RMA: that the process for all applications and plans are 'grandfathered' with the version of the RMA that existed on they day they were lodged.
Here's a quote, not from the Greens, but from Canterbury NBR correspondent Chris Hutchings
"The move represents a victory for Irrigation NZ and rural interests seeking control of the region’s waterways for irrigation projects involving the Hurunui, Rakaia, Waimakariri and other main rivers."
In respect of that part of the bill, it's hard to disagree.
30 March 2010
Environment Canterbury Councillors Gone-Burgers!
With apologies to Jim Hickey and Jeremy Wells, Nick Smith and Rodney have made a decision on the Creech Report on Environment Canterbury.
The decision on the Beehive website and on the Ministry for the Environment website, replaces the councillors with up to seven commissioners to be chaired by Dame Margaret Bazley. Special legislation, an Environment Canterbury Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management Bill, will be introduced under urgency in Parliament this week. It will amend the Local Government and Resource Management Acts to give Dame Margaret and co. some special powers:
* to complete the Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan (NRRP);
* to decide Water Conservation Orders (the Hurunui River Water Conservation Order is in draft form being appealed to the Environment Court) and,
* to impose moratoriums on consenting over-allocated water resources (with the consent of the Minister).
The commissioners will govern Environment Canterbury until October 2013 (for a complete 3-year electoral term).
There is a Q and A sheet (pdf).
Scoop has coverage, as does Fairfax/Stuff.
Alec Neill, the short-lived Chair of Environment Canterbury has just recycled his previous press release about working constructively to ensure a smooth transition.
Hasta la vista, Alec!
The decision on the Beehive website and on the Ministry for the Environment website, replaces the councillors with up to seven commissioners to be chaired by Dame Margaret Bazley. Special legislation, an Environment Canterbury Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management Bill, will be introduced under urgency in Parliament this week. It will amend the Local Government and Resource Management Acts to give Dame Margaret and co. some special powers:
* to complete the Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan (NRRP);
* to decide Water Conservation Orders (the Hurunui River Water Conservation Order is in draft form being appealed to the Environment Court) and,
* to impose moratoriums on consenting over-allocated water resources (with the consent of the Minister).
The commissioners will govern Environment Canterbury until October 2013 (for a complete 3-year electoral term).
There is a Q and A sheet (pdf).
Scoop has coverage, as does Fairfax/Stuff.
Alec Neill, the short-lived Chair of Environment Canterbury has just recycled his previous press release about working constructively to ensure a smooth transition.
Hasta la vista, Alec!
29 March 2010
Environment Canterbury's RMA heresy
"I found it (the Creech Report) cavalier in documenting its justification for dismembering a democratically elected body"
Yes I agree totally. The report has large portions that are just a grab-bag of embittered comments from district councils and consultants.
"on the question of whether ECan had been misapplying the RMA, the discussion was very muddled, and the evidence presented very thin".
Yes again I agree with that too. The Creech Report is an inherently political document. Kennedy Graeme's speech, as well as being enjoyably eloquent, was pretty much right in referring to it's circular logic and preconceived conclusion. A contact informed me that the review team arrived late for their day at Ecan and left early.
So I think they deliberately gave Nick Smith an extreme recommendation (or a "hatchet job") which would give him the justification and the space to do whatever he wants to. As whatever Smith decides will appear well within the scope of the Creech recommendations and therefore more 'balanced' and 'moderate'.
"I would have thought the job is to protect the environment in accordance with the RMA, which would seem to be the real bone of contention -- ie, whether there has been an undue or improper focus on the environment by ECan, in terms of the RMA"
You make a good point here. This comes back to what "in accordance with the RMA" means to the various actors in the tragedy!
The Creech Report RMA experts are almost as vicious as Creech about Ecan's "improper focus on the environment". That is because Bryan Jenkins (and therefore Ecan) has committed a heresy against RMA orthodoxy. Jenkins stated that Ecan has not been able to apply sustainability limits to groundwater because the RMA is 'enabling legislation' (Rather than because the NRRP is as helpful as the Book of Mormon. Or because Ecan's senior planner and senior hydrogeologist were poor witnesses).
RMA orthodoxy, as espoused by the MfE Commissioners course and by RMA lawyers, planners and consultants, is 'weak sustainability rules okay'. For Jenkins to say otherwise is a heresy against the RMA mainstream. Jenkins also publicly and explicitly criticised a decision of a hearing panel - the decision to approve more groundwater abstraction from the arguably over-allocated Rakaia-Selwyn groundwater zone. Also heretical.
26 March 2010
Canterbury's Urban-Rural Voter Split 2007
In 2007, the 8 urban Canterbury councillors represented 40,284 voters each. The 6 rural Canterbury councillors represented 33,062 voters each.
(Source 'Local Government Commission Determination of the representation arrangements to apply for the election of the Canterbury Regional Council to be held on 13 October 2007', by Sue Piper (Chair) and Gwen Bull (Commissioner), 10 April 2007.)
(Source 'Local Government Commission Determination of the representation arrangements to apply for the election of the Canterbury Regional Council to be held on 13 October 2007', by Sue Piper (Chair) and Gwen Bull (Commissioner), 10 April 2007.)
| Environment Canterbury constituencies 2007 local body election | ||||||
| Constituency | Urban Rural | Population | Councillors | Population/councillor | ||
| Waitaki | ||||||
| Rakaia(Ashburton) | Rural | 32,480 | 1 | 32,480 | ||
| North Canterbury | Rural | 73,620 | 2 | 36,810 | ||
| Selwyn-Banks Peninsula | Rural | 36,870 | 1 | 36,870 | ||
| South Canterbury | Rural | 55,400 | 2 | 27,700 | ||
| 198,370 | 6 | 33,062 | ||||
| East Christchurch | Urban | 80,620 | 2 | 40,310 | ||
| West Christchurch | Urban | 81,290 | 2 | 40,645 | ||
| South Christchurch | Urban | 81,130 | 2 | 40,565 | ||
| North Christchurch | Urban | 79,230 | 2 | 39,615 | ||
| 322,270 | 8 | 40,284 | ||||
| 520,640 | 14 | 37,189 | ||||
Canterbury's Urban-Rural Voter Split 2004
Claire Browning is interested in the representation weighting between rural and urban constituencies of Environment Canterbury's councillors. In 2004, the 8 urban councillors represented 43,012 voters each. The 6 rural councillors represented 29,417 voters each.
The rural to urban weighting of Ecan constituencies for 2004 and 2007 is found in 'Local Government Commission Determination of the representation arrangements to apply for the election of the Canterbury Regional Council to be held on 13 October 2007', by Sue Piper (Chair) and Gwen Bull (Commissioner), 10 April 2007. (http://www.lgc.govt.nz/lgcwebsite.nsf/Files/CanterburyRC2007/$file/CanterburyRC2007.pdf)
The rural to urban weighting of Ecan constituencies for 2004 and 2007 is found in 'Local Government Commission Determination of the representation arrangements to apply for the election of the Canterbury Regional Council to be held on 13 October 2007', by Sue Piper (Chair) and Gwen Bull (Commissioner), 10 April 2007. (http://www.lgc.govt.nz/lgcwebsite.nsf/Files/CanterburyRC2007/$file/CanterburyRC2007.pdf)
| Environment Canterbury constituencies 2004 local body election | ||||||
| Constituency | Type | Population | Councillors | Population/councillor | ||
| Waitaki | Rural | 12,300 | 1 | 12,300 | ||
| Ashburton | Rural | 26,700 | 1 | 26,700 | ||
| North Canterbury | Rural | 55,300 | 2 | 27,650 | ||
| Selwyn-Banks Peninsula | Rural | 39,100 | 1 | 39,100 | ||
| South Canterbury | Rural | 43,100 | 1 | 43,100 | ||
| 176,500 | 6 | 29,417 | ||||
| East Christchurch | Urban | 81,300 | 2 | 40,650 | ||
| West Christchurch | Urban | 85,200 | 2 | 42,600 | ||
| South Christchurch | Urban | 85,500 | 2 | 42,750 | ||
| North Christchurch | Urban | 92,100 | 2 | 46,050 | ||
| 344,100 | 8 | 43,012 | ||||
| Total | 520,600 | 14 | 37,186 | |||
25 March 2010
Environment Canterbury and the Creech Report
Claire Browning of the Pundit blog has written intelligently about Environment Canterbury and the Creech Report.
I have been delaying commenting on the Creech Report, but I felt Claire deserved an inside viewpoint on Environment Canterbury. So I have finally come up with an opinion (below), which I posted as a comment on her post on Pundit.
You may be interested in a few thoughts from someone who was once on the "consenting frontline" at Environment Canterbury. Through the 'noughties', I either worked for or contracted to Ecan, as a (consents) compliance monitoring officer or a consents investigating (processing) officer or as an author of the annual environmental enforcement report or as a contracted reporting officer at consent hearings.
Yes, Creech's involvement is not that relevant. Yes, the Creech Report is not above criticism. For example, it says almost nothing about agricultural intensification and water quality. Yes the Greens have gone from criticising Ecan for 'not trying and failing the environment' to defending Ecan for 'trying and failing the environment'. Yes, Ecan's water consenting and water planning are the most important issue. Yes, both have been a shambles. Yes, it is a failure of both governance and senior management, and yes, there are are culpable parties, and an intervention is required to solve a problem and it would be good to hold those culpable parties responsible.
Here's one example of bad management management of groundwater and surface water permits. Prior to 1991, the North Canterbury and South Canterbury Catchment Boards issued water permits that specified weekly or fortnightly take volumes, maximum pumping rates and had a maximum duration of 10 years.
In the early 1990s, the new manager of the Ecan groundwater scientists wished to manage water consenting much as he had done at his previous employer, Nelson Catchment Board. He wanted short duration permits (5 years), clearly stated maximum pumping rates and weekly/fortnightly volume limits, and compulsory measurement via water meters of the volumes taken. At Nelson, after five years, they replaced expiring permits with new permits with annual volume limits based on actual usage. Pretty commonsense sustainable management of water resources you would think.
However, the Consents Manager (who we used to call 'Mr Teflon' as nothing used to stick to him) did the exact opposite.
He bowed to pressure from rural councillors and began issuing non-notified water permits with the maximum duration, 35 years, without water meters, and without the weekly volumes, instead only stating a maximum pumping rate. This was a huge strategic mistake. The 35 year duration was out of step with other regions and has been validly criticised by DOC, Fish and Game, Ngai Tahu, the Water Rights Trust and Judge Smith in the Lynton Dairies case.
Obviously (in hindsight, to me anyway), the then CEO, the Director of Regulation and the Director of Planning Policy, either tolerated or acquiesced in councillor interference in statutory decisions delegated to a 'tier 3' manager, and had failed to plan for the issue. To me, that was clearly a failure of governance and senior management.
Water planning.
As the most water-abundant region in New Zealand, Canterbury should have led planning for water allocation under the RMA, instead of being the laggard. Why doesn't Ecan have an operative regional water plan? Why is the proposed Ecan plan stuck in limbo? I have several reasons.
The proposed-but-not-operative Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan ("NRRP") was fundamentally over-scoped from the beginning and the plan writing process suffered from continual scope-creep. The best metaphor is that the NRRP is the INCIS Police Computer System of RMA planning and local government. The NRRP can be seen as a code to completely replace the RMA in Canterbury, rather than to complement the RMA in setting the most important rules for the highest priority matters such as water allocation and agricultural intensification.
I once tried to goad one of the senior Ecan planners (an ex-catchment board planner) with the quip that the NRRP was like the bible, capable of any interpretation. The planner started a serious discussion with me about how one strength of the NRRP was it's comprehensiveness. He just didn't get it.
Here's a real-world example of this. At the 2006 Rakaia-Selwyn groundwater hearing, the applicants' planning witness (of course a former Ecan consents team leader) gave a plausible interpetation of the NRRP 180 degrees different from Ecan's. The said senior Ecan planner further sunk the Ecan case by giving three possible explanations of the water allocation provisions to the hearing panel ("On the one hand, on the second, and on the third hand..."). That typified interactions with the Ecan planners. Any discussions about the NRRP and its meaning were very open-ended and inconclusive.
From a practical consent processing perspective, a regional plan only affects the real world through the granting of resource consents. A plan can only concretely affect the real world in two ways:
* It can permit without consent some low level activities that would otherwise require consents under sections 9-15 RMA (i.e. make 'permitted' taking small volumes of water that would otherwise be 'discretionary' requiring consent).
* It can make some activities 'prohibited' that would otherwise require consents under sections 9-15 RMA (i.e. prohibiting taking water in excess of a minimum flow or allocation block).
From a theoretical plan-writing perspective, a regional plan can also have rules making consented activities 'controlled', 'restricted discretionary','discretionary' and 'non-complying'. A plan can also include detailed objectives, policies, and methods. From a practical consenting background, such distinctions are just mere generic 'matters to have regard to' for the decision makers.
The NRRP writers had transferred to Ecan from catchment boards (or even the short-lived Canterbury United Council) and had little or no practical resource consenting background. Not surprisingly the NRRP includes too many unfocused overly-long objectives, methods, and policies. The more unfocused provisions you have in your plan, the more open-ended inconclusive discursive debates you have about them. And the more uncertain and open to alternative interpretation the plan becomes. And the longer to get it through the submissions stage. And the less relevant the plan is to the consent process.
Again, the Ecan Councillors, the former CEOs, the Director of Regulation and the Director of Planning Policy, all failed to ensure that the NRRP's original scope was clearly prioritised and defined. They all either initiated or tolerated or acquiesced in this miss-scoped open-ended on-going never-ending discursive discussion that was the NRRP planning process. Again, I call that a failure of governance and senior management.
What should Ecan have done? Easy to answer with hindsight. There were explicit minimum flows for river in the conditions of a large number of the old catchment board surface water permits. These minimum flows and a few 'boundaries' between 'permitted' activities and discretionary activities should have immediately been written into a 'quick and dirty' RMA-styled regional plan. Ecan would have 'learnt by doing' RMA planning by incrementally writing and getting prioritised rules operative. After minimum river flows, Ecan should have worked on river allocation blocks and groundwater allocation blocks and water quality effects of agricultural intensification. Instead, they went for a 'kitchen sink' approach where the definition of the 'kitchen sink' was endlessly debated and the needed outcome, clear certain, enforceable rules, remains as far off as ever.
Whats my cure? Well, my diagnosis is that the problem is the plan, the NRRP, not the organisation, Ecan that created it. Any new Canterbury Water Authority will be just as stuck in contentious water consent hearings as Ecan when it inherits the NRRP. The fix for the NRRP is for the Ministry for the Environment to enact a 'quick and dirty' National Environmental Standard for Canterbury water allocation under Sections 43, 43A, 43B and 44 of the RMA. These sections allow the Minister to enact an almost instant operative plan that covers "water quality, level, or flow" (s43). It trumps both a proposed and an operative plan (s 44A), thus making the NRRP a dead letter. The National Environmental Standard for Canterbury water allocation needs to be in place before the October local body elections.
Of course, the Ecan councillors should be replaced by commissioners. There has been a cumulative governance failure and some admirals need to be shot. The present councillors, especially Alex Neill and Jo Kane, can try to explain to the public in October why they should be returned to office instead of new blood.
I have been delaying commenting on the Creech Report, but I felt Claire deserved an inside viewpoint on Environment Canterbury. So I have finally come up with an opinion (below), which I posted as a comment on her post on Pundit.
You may be interested in a few thoughts from someone who was once on the "consenting frontline" at Environment Canterbury. Through the 'noughties', I either worked for or contracted to Ecan, as a (consents) compliance monitoring officer or a consents investigating (processing) officer or as an author of the annual environmental enforcement report or as a contracted reporting officer at consent hearings.
Yes, Creech's involvement is not that relevant. Yes, the Creech Report is not above criticism. For example, it says almost nothing about agricultural intensification and water quality. Yes the Greens have gone from criticising Ecan for 'not trying and failing the environment' to defending Ecan for 'trying and failing the environment'. Yes, Ecan's water consenting and water planning are the most important issue. Yes, both have been a shambles. Yes, it is a failure of both governance and senior management, and yes, there are are culpable parties, and an intervention is required to solve a problem and it would be good to hold those culpable parties responsible.
Here's one example of bad management management of groundwater and surface water permits. Prior to 1991, the North Canterbury and South Canterbury Catchment Boards issued water permits that specified weekly or fortnightly take volumes, maximum pumping rates and had a maximum duration of 10 years.
In the early 1990s, the new manager of the Ecan groundwater scientists wished to manage water consenting much as he had done at his previous employer, Nelson Catchment Board. He wanted short duration permits (5 years), clearly stated maximum pumping rates and weekly/fortnightly volume limits, and compulsory measurement via water meters of the volumes taken. At Nelson, after five years, they replaced expiring permits with new permits with annual volume limits based on actual usage. Pretty commonsense sustainable management of water resources you would think.
However, the Consents Manager (who we used to call 'Mr Teflon' as nothing used to stick to him) did the exact opposite.
He bowed to pressure from rural councillors and began issuing non-notified water permits with the maximum duration, 35 years, without water meters, and without the weekly volumes, instead only stating a maximum pumping rate. This was a huge strategic mistake. The 35 year duration was out of step with other regions and has been validly criticised by DOC, Fish and Game, Ngai Tahu, the Water Rights Trust and Judge Smith in the Lynton Dairies case.
Obviously (in hindsight, to me anyway), the then CEO, the Director of Regulation and the Director of Planning Policy, either tolerated or acquiesced in councillor interference in statutory decisions delegated to a 'tier 3' manager, and had failed to plan for the issue. To me, that was clearly a failure of governance and senior management.
Water planning.
As the most water-abundant region in New Zealand, Canterbury should have led planning for water allocation under the RMA, instead of being the laggard. Why doesn't Ecan have an operative regional water plan? Why is the proposed Ecan plan stuck in limbo? I have several reasons.
The proposed-but-not-operative Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan ("NRRP") was fundamentally over-scoped from the beginning and the plan writing process suffered from continual scope-creep. The best metaphor is that the NRRP is the INCIS Police Computer System of RMA planning and local government. The NRRP can be seen as a code to completely replace the RMA in Canterbury, rather than to complement the RMA in setting the most important rules for the highest priority matters such as water allocation and agricultural intensification.
I once tried to goad one of the senior Ecan planners (an ex-catchment board planner) with the quip that the NRRP was like the bible, capable of any interpretation. The planner started a serious discussion with me about how one strength of the NRRP was it's comprehensiveness. He just didn't get it.
Here's a real-world example of this. At the 2006 Rakaia-Selwyn groundwater hearing, the applicants' planning witness (of course a former Ecan consents team leader) gave a plausible interpetation of the NRRP 180 degrees different from Ecan's. The said senior Ecan planner further sunk the Ecan case by giving three possible explanations of the water allocation provisions to the hearing panel ("On the one hand, on the second, and on the third hand..."). That typified interactions with the Ecan planners. Any discussions about the NRRP and its meaning were very open-ended and inconclusive.
From a practical consent processing perspective, a regional plan only affects the real world through the granting of resource consents. A plan can only concretely affect the real world in two ways:
* It can permit without consent some low level activities that would otherwise require consents under sections 9-15 RMA (i.e. make 'permitted' taking small volumes of water that would otherwise be 'discretionary' requiring consent).
* It can make some activities 'prohibited' that would otherwise require consents under sections 9-15 RMA (i.e. prohibiting taking water in excess of a minimum flow or allocation block).
From a theoretical plan-writing perspective, a regional plan can also have rules making consented activities 'controlled', 'restricted discretionary','discretionary' and 'non-complying'. A plan can also include detailed objectives, policies, and methods. From a practical consenting background, such distinctions are just mere generic 'matters to have regard to' for the decision makers.
The NRRP writers had transferred to Ecan from catchment boards (or even the short-lived Canterbury United Council) and had little or no practical resource consenting background. Not surprisingly the NRRP includes too many unfocused overly-long objectives, methods, and policies. The more unfocused provisions you have in your plan, the more open-ended inconclusive discursive debates you have about them. And the more uncertain and open to alternative interpretation the plan becomes. And the longer to get it through the submissions stage. And the less relevant the plan is to the consent process.
Again, the Ecan Councillors, the former CEOs, the Director of Regulation and the Director of Planning Policy, all failed to ensure that the NRRP's original scope was clearly prioritised and defined. They all either initiated or tolerated or acquiesced in this miss-scoped open-ended on-going never-ending discursive discussion that was the NRRP planning process. Again, I call that a failure of governance and senior management.
What should Ecan have done? Easy to answer with hindsight. There were explicit minimum flows for river in the conditions of a large number of the old catchment board surface water permits. These minimum flows and a few 'boundaries' between 'permitted' activities and discretionary activities should have immediately been written into a 'quick and dirty' RMA-styled regional plan. Ecan would have 'learnt by doing' RMA planning by incrementally writing and getting prioritised rules operative. After minimum river flows, Ecan should have worked on river allocation blocks and groundwater allocation blocks and water quality effects of agricultural intensification. Instead, they went for a 'kitchen sink' approach where the definition of the 'kitchen sink' was endlessly debated and the needed outcome, clear certain, enforceable rules, remains as far off as ever.
Whats my cure? Well, my diagnosis is that the problem is the plan, the NRRP, not the organisation, Ecan that created it. Any new Canterbury Water Authority will be just as stuck in contentious water consent hearings as Ecan when it inherits the NRRP. The fix for the NRRP is for the Ministry for the Environment to enact a 'quick and dirty' National Environmental Standard for Canterbury water allocation under Sections 43, 43A, 43B and 44 of the RMA. These sections allow the Minister to enact an almost instant operative plan that covers "water quality, level, or flow" (s43). It trumps both a proposed and an operative plan (s 44A), thus making the NRRP a dead letter. The National Environmental Standard for Canterbury water allocation needs to be in place before the October local body elections.
Of course, the Ecan councillors should be replaced by commissioners. There has been a cumulative governance failure and some admirals need to be shot. The present councillors, especially Alex Neill and Jo Kane, can try to explain to the public in October why they should be returned to office instead of new blood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)