Irrigation comes first, even in polluted catchments
The recent decision on the future of the Selwyn-Waihora catchment has shown that irrigation-led investment is clearly the top priority in this already heavily polluted catchment.
In observing development of the Selwyn-Waihora sub-regional plan Variation 1, we are now seeing the full extent and influence of the Environment Canterbury Act 2010.
The overriding vision of the Variation 1 Plan is to return the catchment to a ‘‘healthy state’’ while allowing continued agricultural growth and prosperity.
North Canterbury Fish and Game has no confidence this subregional plan will set the foundation for achieving a healthy state, because planned environmental improvements will be no match for the scale of proposed dairy intensification.
Most of Fish and Game’s 39,000 licence holders in Canterbury expect Fish and Game to have an integral role in these catchment planning processes. However, we have had to keep our distance, due to concerns about the unbalanced nature of the Zone Committee process to date.
This situation is frustrating when so many of our licence holders have experienced the degradation of once abundantly stocked/high quality fisheries like the Selwyn, Irwell, Hart’s Creek, Hawkins and Hororata.
Independent hearing commissioners were tasked with hearing submissions and evidence from parties to ensure this subregional plan complied with appropriate statutory legislation and the wider Canterbury Land and Water Plan strategic policies.
However, in contrast to the normal RMA process for other New Zealand regions, the ECan Act places significant constraints on submitters. For example, no matters of fact such as water and ecological-based science evidence can be subsequently tested or cross-examined in the Environment Court, should the plan appear to have inaccurate or inconsistent data or dubious scientific claims made during the hearing process.
In the Selwyn-Waihora hearing, Fish and Game’s submission was subjected to a very narrow definition of scope (topic area).
This is not normal for a regional plan hearing and was in our view inconsistently applied to other parties.
Except for Fish and Game and Forest & Bird, few submitters provided specialised evidence about the current and projected ecological effects on Te Waihora/ Lake Ellesmere and its tributaries. This evidence was somewhat dismissed without stating clearly what evidence was preferred. And yet this lake is deemed important enough to have a Water Conservation Order.
We believe that present environmental decision makers are under considerable pressure to make allowances for further irrigation-led development and that some are turning a blind-eye to the ‘‘first-order environmental priorities’’ originally agreed in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy.
The Variation 1 plan has set future nitrogen river limits at toxicity levels, up to an annual median of 6.9 milligrams per litre in spring-fed plains streams, which is worse than the Yangtze River in China and the River Thames. In contrast, the Ruataniwha Board of Inquiry case in the Hawkes Bay was able to be appealed on facts of science and has set nitrogen limits at 0.8 milligrams per litre, to protect the life-supporting capacity of rivers in this catchment.
We believe one of the poorest decisions in the plan relates to the full nutrient discharge allocation provided to the Central Plains Water Scheme (CPW). Given the obvious nutrient discharge issues in this catchment, the original CPW consent approval provided no more than a temporary discharge allocation in anticipation of the sub-regional plan process.
Despite this uncertainty, CPW proceeded with building the massive water distribution pipelines, well before the independent commissioners had decided how much nitrogen and phosphorus the irrigation scheme could discharge.
In a recent article in The Press – ‘‘The Deal to Clean Lake Ellesmere’’ – it was implied by Donald Couch (outgoing ECan commissioner) that further intensification is required in order to financially afford the proposed farm improvements.
It seems a flawed logic to allow significantly more pollution in order to clean up the existing problems, somewhat akin to the old lady who swallowed a spider to catch the fly. In this catchment’s case, the damage will come from an additional estimated 60,000 to 80,000 cows, equivalent in effluent terms to 800,000 to 900,000 humans without a sewerage treatment plant.
Fish and Game is sceptical of the claimed benefits the CPW scheme’s additional ‘‘alpine water’’ will bring for diluting nutrient concentrations and raising river flows, given we expect only 20 per cent of the irrigated water will reach Lake Ellesmere/Te Waihora and its tributaries, along with the scheme generating at least 25 per cent more nutrient leaching.
In this overall process, the limitations associated with the ECan Act 2010 have clearly jeopardised the ability of Fish & Game to achieve its statutory mandate of managing, maintaining and enhancing sports fish and game birds in Canterbury, and the wider habitat protections these aims afford.
Fish and Game wants the primary sector to focus on lower input/higher yielding solutions as opposed to the standard high input/high volume approach. To truly deliver ‘‘environmentally friendly’’ dairy products, the supply-chain distributors, the supermarkets, the banks and the end consumer will also need to play a role.
Despite these potential solutions, the stark truth is that some Canterbury catchments like Selwyn-Waihora have reached an environmental ceiling, where further dairy expansion should be capped until we see actual improvements in the rivers and lakes.
Fish and Game acknowledges that many farmers in Canterbury are currently struggling from the acute effects of the drought and a poor milk solid pay-out. This is one of the reasons we agree that improvements must occur over time with plenty of support.
Unfortunately, the longer term approach taken in Variation 1 will miss its target and repeat the historical mistake of allowing significant further land-use intensification. We all want to live in healthy surrounds, so it seems daft to keep making the same mistakes that were made last century.
In the end, Cantabrians will need to judge for themselves whether their long-term interests are being managed wisely, especially when half of the $200 million proposed to partially cleanup Lake Ellesmere/Te Waihora is to be ratepayer funded.