Like rolling turd in glitter – activist
Irrigation consent sparks rally
A challenge to Canterbury’s regional council echoed through the streets of central Christchurch – ‘‘We care a lot, can ECan care?’’
More than a hundred concerned locals and members of at least six climate campaign groups – including Forest & Bird, Extinction Rebellion, and Aotearoa Water Action (AWA) – rallied outside Environment Canterbury’s (ECan) Christchurch office as councillors met yesterday.
At the heart of their concerns was the approval of the MayfieldHinds-Valetta (MHV) irrigation scheme last month, which they feared would lead to high levels of nitrates being used on farms and leaching into the region’s freshwater system, risking the environment and human health.
MHV had sought a 10-year replacement consent from ECan for permission to irrigate 56,500 hectares of farmland between the Ashburton and Rangitata rivers.
The case was considered by an independent hearing commissioner but was not required to be publicly notified, which distressed local freshwater advocates who felt they were not able to have a say.
Rally organiser Sara Campbell said ECan had failed in its duty of care, because it treated the health of Canterbury’s water as something to be balanced against economic gain.
‘‘As predicted, the intensive dairy stocking these schemes support has had a destructive impact over the past decade on the health of our water, land, biodiversity and human communities.’’
Selwyn resident and Extinction Rebellion O¯ tautahi spokeswoman Siana Fitzjohn said the community was constantly being excluded from decisions that affected them.
‘‘Doctors and freshwater experts are bringing their expertise to the table in the conversation about Canterbury’s water crisis, yet these perspectives are ignored to make way for industrial agriculture.
‘‘Laws that allow the public to be shut out of these decisions need to change, immediately.’’
AWA spokesman Peter Richardson said they wanted more concrete action to make sure consents like MHV’s were not granted in the future, ‘‘or at the very least, are publicly notified’’.
‘‘These rivers, these waterways, belong to all of us. We have a right to enjoy them, and it’s being denied.’’
Too many decisions were being made behind closed doors, he said. ‘‘Farmers have the right to their experts, and have their opinions heard.
‘‘Why doesn’t everyone else have that right?’’
‘‘Extra security was posted in
‘‘Farmers have the right to their experts, and have their opinions heard. Why doesn’t everyone else have that right?’’
Peter Richardson AWA spokesman, who says too many decisions are being made behind closed doors
and around the ECan building during yesterday’s protest.
An ECan-branded zero emissions car was parked over an access point to the water mains.
In 2018, five Extinction Rebellion protesters were arrested after they turned off water access to the building, and chained themselves to the mains.
Councillors, including ECan chair Jenny Hughey, fronted the crowd.
Hughey took questions from the audience, including one woman who asked why current consents could not be pulled and the process restarted.
Hughey said people elected to public office faced a lot of constraints, which prompted another person to ask why she was not doing more to fight that legislation.
‘‘Why aren’t you on the steps of Parliament, pleading for things to change, if that’s what’s stopping you?’’
Extinction Rebellion demanded the law that stopped the public having input on the MHV consent be changed, and asked Hughey what action ECan would take on intensive dairying, as Canterbury’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter.
Hughey promised to respond to all questions – including what the council intended to do to keep Cantabrians safe from bowel cancer – by email to Extinction Rebellion.
Group spokesman Simon Brown finished up by slamming the MHV decision as being like ‘‘rolling a turd in glitter’’.
‘‘It might look pretty, and it’s going in the right direction, but deep down, it still smells really, really bad.’’
MHV’s chief executive, Melanie Brooks, previously said the renewal provided clear expectations and held farmers to account on achieving improved water quality outcomes.
She said without it, 200 farmers would have been forced to apply for individual consents, making environmental outcomes harder to manage.