Canterbury has reputation for being one-eyed. When it comes to our water, many of us currently feel a bit like the biblical David. It is we Cantabrians that are up against Cyclops and all we’ve got is our slingshot.
So forgive me, if I start this address by firing a few stones. I will then move to the wider issues of how we might better make decisions on water allocation and management. And give you an assessment of the EPA’s likely role.
I believe the demise of ECAN was decided no later than six weeks after the 2008 election. A forum of Canterbury irrigations was called, organised by MAF on behalf of a trio of senior Government Ministers. Not one environmental voice was present, not even Nick Smith.
Implicitly or explicitly, I believe the signal was given at that meeting that issues with ECAN starting to turn off water consents would be resolved; And with it, the constraints imposed by Water Conservation Orders.
OIAs to MAF and others show the direction of that thinking taking shape at and soon after that December 20 2008 forum.
Labour has pledged to rescind the ECAN Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management Act and to hold elections as soon as possible.
It is unfair on the people of Canterbury that they are subject to a different set of rules than the rest of the country; Cantabrians are not able to seek the same protection under the Resource Management Act as other New Zealanders;
The Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act denies people the right to appeal proposed policy statements or plans based on the merits of the decision; Cantabrians will be prevented from seeking a reconsideration of the decisions of the un-elected commissioners that have been forced on them;
The same has occurred with the process for water conservation orders – Cantabrians are not able to seek a review of the merits of the un-elected Commissioners decisions in the Environment Court; Yet, Water Conservation Orders are granted for waterways of National Significance.
Kate Wilkinson told a meeting at which I was present that the WCOs had to go as the water was needed for the Government’s growth agenda. A Conservation Minister openly advocating that waterways of national significance give way for rushed regional economic imperatives.
What’s more, Agriculture Minister David Carter is on record warning other regional councils to take note of what happened in Canterbury. He suggests it would be wise for them to develop better relationships with farmers otherwise they too might be ECANNed.
Little wonder, organisations like Fish and Game, Forest and Bird, Whitewater NZ and others, who are members of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, have questioned continued membership. We will all pay a big price if that once in a lifetime strategy falls apart because of an explicit Government rapid growth agenda superimposed over the top.
Similarly, there are major questions about what the Land and Water Forum can now deliver.
This is Nick Smith’s big hope of rafting up diverse groups to get better water management around the country; he put his foot through the raft by choosing not to consult it on the changes to Water Conservation Order processes in Canterbury.
He has however kicked it the report on the Proposed National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management headed by Judge David Sheppard. This report says that the Government cannot put aside environmental values for economic gain
Labour supports that report.
I will credit Dr Smith for one thing. His announcement that, here in Canterbury he Government will move to meter major water users.
That’s an appropriate decision but in Parliament Dr Smith would not answer my question whether the Government will stop big water users being able to on-sell unused allocations – sometimes at windfall profits – to other farmers
Labour believes water is a common good, owned by us all and that there is no case to effectively allow the privatisation of water
We believe this is being set up at a local body level with the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill, which would allow private water companies to develop and own water projects for up to 35 years. Such ownership is currently precluded. One vehicle for this within council ownership but still removed from ratepayer scrutiny is to use a Council Owned Operating Company. I note the Christchurch City Council has this year set up several Council Owned Operating Companies, without defining what they might be used for.
Labour is working on policies to ensure we as New Zealanders continue to own our water and require that those who use it, do not degrade it; to put sustainable environmental outcomes alongside if not ahead of economic growth outcomes.
We are perhaps a year away from policy announcements, but here are some themes that I have been considering.
• Labour is a party that supports our quality of life – clean water, fresh air, open spaces – are part of our birthright as New Zealanders
• Our ‘clean, green’ image is more than what makes us feel good – it is the basis of our economic livelihood – both for what we produce and our huge tourism industry
• Labour will work with business leaders who understand that the new green economy is where New Zealand should be positioning itself
• We want high-value, high-pay, sustainable jobs that create a more prosperous nation without undermining our quality of life
• Labour regards water as a common good, owned by every New Zealander who have absolute rights to expect they can use it and drink it safely
• We believe Government must assist communities to get safe drinking water
• I personally support metering and charging major water users so as to improve economic and environmental outcomes
• I see that a resource rental approach may be the best vehicle so we regard farmers as stewards of our water, not its owners
• I firmly oppose tradeable water rights which are used for major private gain (read privatization)
It is now critical for New Zealanders to debate and decide the future of water allocation.
Last week, two Government Ministers acknowledged that any prospect of improving New Zealand’s water quality will come second to intensive agriculture.
At the Primary Production committee meeting last Thursday, Agriculture Minister David Carter certainly acknowledged the importance of New Zealand’s environmental record to our exports, but could not say what will stop new irrigation projects leading to further water degradation.
John Key has said he wants to see new water schemes in place in Canterbury and possibly Otago next year. Mr Carter suggested those time frames were too optimistic, but said no new environmental controls could be put in place anywhere near as rapidly to ensure new water flows do not lead to further deterioration in water quality because of unchecked farming practices.
David Carter confirmed that the most recent assessment of dairying’s impact on water quality saw it going backwards, yet he is keen to put in place new water before any tough new requirement is introduced to stop polluting our waterways.
Meanwhile at the Environment and Local Government select committee, all Environment Minister Nick Smith talked about was environmental protections already in place — which are not stopping current levels of waterway pollution anyway.
Dr Smith argued that water schemes don’t necessarily have negative environmental water impacts, but can be positive. That’s true in terms of taking pressure off aquifers but doesn’t address increased discharges of effluent and nitrates that will flow unless the Government insists it’s time the environment should come ahead of new, rushed irrigation schemes.
So what about the Environmental Protection Authority? Will that provide the new checks and balances? Well first, Nick Smith is at least a year out on delivering the EPA. He wanted the EPA fully operational by, as it happens, yesterday.
Eighteen months into government, the Budget estimates for the Environmental Protection Authority show it will receive only $2m a year for the next four years, $1m less than the current year.
It employs just seven staff – one fewer than last year.
The estimates do show the EPA will receive $16.8m as a resource consent processor for major energy, land and roading projects. But that was never intended as its core function.
Dr Smith promoted the EPA as filling the gaps in the RMA which have allowed such outcomes as a deterioration of water quality across much of New Zealand.
Since the Budget, Dr Smith has announced the EPA might be up and running with 150 staff by next July. Sounds ok? But 90 of those staff come across from ERMA; 40 will work on climate change. Some of the rest will work on Antarctica; others will be working on fast-tracking major projects. You have to ask whether an Environmental Protection Authority should be taking money from developers to speed up resource consents.
So, that’s the 150 staff. Perhaps some more might be folded across from a reduced Ministry for the Environment. Perhaps. Personally I think Bill English has squashed Nick Smith’s dream of an EPA that would deliver real environmental protection policies and enforce them.
That brings me back to my opening point. I don’t believe Nick Smith wanted the ECAN legislation as introduced. I think he has a genuine commitment to improving environmental outcomes. I don’t view him as Cyclops because I think he, has both eyes open. If we put our environmental record at further risk, with it we put in jeopardy the very way we earn our living as a nation.
Water is the litmus test of our clean, green image. We need new ways to allocate it and manage it that make maintaining water quality the key to getting access to it.
Frankly, at the moment you’d have to be pretty one-eyed to believe that we are making real progress.
Entries (RSS)