SUBMISSION ON THE PROPOSED CANTERBURY LAND AND WATER REGIONAL PLAN
Prepared under the Resource Management Act 1991
To:
Environment Canterbury
PO Box 345
Christchurch 8140
Name of Submitter:
JANE DEMETER
Address for service:
117ChampionSt
St Albans
Christchurch 8013
Phone:
Email:
03 365 2399
demeters@xtra.co.nz
This is a submission on the proposed Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan as notified in August
2012.
General
This approach of combined planning for the take and use of water and use of land resources is to be
commended.
I support the intent of this plan to address cumulative effects of land and water use and to work
toward limiting the already significant effects of land use generated diffuse pollutants including
nutrient leaching.
Much discussion in Canterbury centres around creating “headroom” for nutrient discharges from
additional development and intensification of land use. Because this proposal has limited requirement
for changed practice before 2017, little change in current farming practice to reduce nutrient leaching
can be expected. Catchments already considered overallocated are unlikely to see any improvement
in nutrient status. It is unlikely that any improvement in currently declining freshwater quality trends
will be seen and most likely a further decline will occur between now and 2017. Stock numbers and
stock intensity continue to increase with increasing urine deposits and use of fertiliser. It is likely that
more zones will be in over allocation by 2017 rather than fewer unless some measures are put in
place to drive improved outcomes between now and 2017
Limited guidance by way of specific numeric limits for nutrient loss means less certainty for resource
users and less possibility of achieving required outcomes. Allowing existing farmers to have continued
permitted use will do nothing to improve water quality in already overallocated catchments and defer
the burden to new users.
Failure to set and require regionally set nutrient loading limits as the default holding position for sub
catchment plans potentially compromises improved outcomes by allowing catchment plans to set
lower levels for nutrient leaching requirements resulting in further compromised water quality
outcomes..
Permitted activities are proposed with no means of auditing by Canterbury Regional Council (CRC)
making it difficult to monitor and report on resource use. Without these findings management of the
resources is limited as is CRCs ability to improve trends and outcomes. Nutrient leaching trends can
not be determined and improved where necessary. Small permitted water takes should require some
reporting and auditing so the total take and potential effects across the catchment are known.
Lack of provision of a schedule of wetlands (with a future delivery date, if necessary) and associated
objectives and rules means that the plan fails to meet the requirements of the Resource Management
Act (RMA). The Environment Court has said that all rare threatened habitats should be regarded as
significant. Hence appropriated identification and protection is required. This also applies to significant
ecological indigenous dryland ecosystems where a buffer zone with no water application is required.
Development of water infrastructure should be conditional on maximising water distribution and water
use efficiency along with uptake of resource consent sharing opportunities.
Surrender of water with transfers in overallocated catchments provides a mechanism to work towards
returning a catchment below overallocated status as required by the National Policy Statement Fresh
Water (NPSFW)
Particular regard to the vision and principles of CWMS is required by the ECan Act while the
requirements of the RMA continue to set the legal framework for the Plan. Within the plan CWMS first
order priorities should be given more importance than second order priorities.
This document fails to provide sufficient policies objectives and rules to meet the requirements of
ensuring effective sustainable resource management in Canterbury – too little too late.
Part 1 Introduction
1.
1.1
Page 2-9, Table Proposed Hurunui and Waiau Regional Plan
This proposed plan is lacking specific detail in some sections and is lacking detail on limits
that would indicate progress on the NPS Freshwater requirements. This pLWRP should
provide default limits where the pHWRRP is silent
Section 3 Objectives
2.
Objectives – Support with additions
2.1
There is no objective that provides for the protection of significant indigenous dryland species
and ecosystems where they are at risk of compromise from adjacent water use.
There is no objective for protection of landscape and natural character.
2.2
2.3
Relief sought
Add to 3.10
“…and natural character and natural processes of rivers are protected”.
Amend 3.11 by deleting “Those parts of lakes and rivers…
Amend 3.6 to read:
..wetlands in Canterbury…are protected or enhanced.
Add additional objectives:
The significant indigenous biodiversity values of dryland ecosystems are protected from water use on
adjacent land
The existing landscape and natural character values of Canterbury are protected
3.
Policies
Water quality that meets contact recreation standards has been overlooked
3.1
Relief sought
Insert in 4.4: “…support customary uses, meets contract recreation standards and provides..”.
Table 1a Outcomes for Canterbury Rivers
Values appear to be more current state values than futures desired outcomes given that
many freshwater bodies are degraded
3.2
Relief sought
Reviewing the numeric values with experts for more appropriate values.
Include Conductivity and pH values
Microbial indicators of Fair are not a desired outcome for the community
Add standards for Hapua which seem to have been overlooked
Add standards for nitrate toxicity
Add standards for phosphate toxicity
Table 1b Outcomes for Canterbury Lakes
TLI provides only a part of the picture of the lake health and has low values for outcomes that
are not aligned with objectives
3.3
Relief sought
Add water chemistry criteria
Revise TLI levels upward
Include Mystery Lake, Spider lakes
Table 1c Outcomes for Canterbury Aquifers
Support
Activity and Resource Policies – Support with amendments
4.
4.11 (C) (i) Regional default nutrient allowance standards need to be developed and included.
Subregional chapters should have outcomes that are at least as good or better than regional
default standards. (This would result in changes to several references within this plan)
5.
4.39 delete “Note ….” etc that precludes any special management for wetlands with respect to
abstraction earthworks, or structures. Given the significant wetland loss in Canterbury
wetlands require special considerations with regard to activities.
6.
Add “no damming of the mainstem of braided rivers wheremainstem means that stem of the
river which flows to the sea, and applies from the source of that stem to the sea, but excludes
any tributary
4.51 Add additional text to indicate date driven (i.e. year) requirements for all new takes to
telemeter water take/use records to CRC
4.52 Add (f) “change water chemistry of receiving environment”
4.80 Delete in its entirety as this is in conflict with 4.79 and does not meet RMA
requirements.. Offsets in no way equate to loss of functioning wetland ecosystems
Section 5 Region-wide Rules
7.
Rule 5.7 – Support
7.1
The potential adverse effects of discharges entering water bodies are significant.
8.
Rule 5.28 – Support with amendment
8.1
Remove public or limited notification clause as potential adverse effects should require
notified resource consent.
9.
Rule 5.29, 5.30, 5.31 – Support
9.1
Contamination risk from inappropriate offal pits near ground or surface water sources is high.
10.
Rule 5.33 – Support with amendment
10.1
There is no provision for this permitted activity to have a maximum rate of application beyond
which rule 5.34 would apply.
10.2
Relief sought
Amend Rule 5.33 to additionally contain a clause for maximum rate of application not to
exceed (an agreed to value)
11.
Rule 5.37 – Support with amendment
11.1
Silage pits, regardless of size should be subject to items 2, 3 and 4 of this rule to be a
permitted activity
11.2
Relief sought
Amend Rule 5.37 to combine (1) and (2) to read “Any silage pit or stockpile is not sited: ….”
12.
Rule 5.39 - Support with Amendment
12.1
This rule lacks provisions for ensuring that CRC receives the necessary data from farmers to
build up a regional picture of projected annual nitrogen loss. This data is needed to develop
sub regional chapters of the LWRP, to understand trends in catchments, zones and
regionally.
The 2017 date for changed farming requirements will result in little change in land use
activities to reduce nitrogen loading unless interim provisions are included. An additional 2015
requirement requiring a decrease in projected nitrogen loading per farm would support CWMS
vision and principles
12.2
Relief sought
Amend Rule 5.39 delete “upon request” and replace with by an agreed to date for each year
Add a new rule for 2015 that requires land owners in red and orange coloured catchments to
show a decrease in nutrient loss from 2013
13.
Rule 5.40 – Support with amendment
13.1
Rule 5.40 has no provision to require OverseerTM reports on projected nitrogen loss to be
submitted to CRC
13.2
Relief sought
Add text of suggested amended rule 5.39 1 to rule 5.40 1
14.
Rule 5.42 – Oppose in part
14.1
Provisions relating to irrigation companies with water permits with authorizations and nitrogen
conditions are unlikely to be effective as those companies have very limited ability to apply
controls to any noncomplying users of distributed water. Allowing conditions for only nitrogen
leaching without full assessment of all effects of water use fails to meet RMA requirements.
For the same reasons as above OverseerTM data should be sent to CRC.
14.2
14.3
Relief sought
Remove text re irrigation companies in 5.42 1 or modify to provide more enforceable and
effective requirements for nitrogen leaching maxima and other adverse effects.
Add text of suggested amended rule 5.39 1 to rule 5.42 3
15.
Rule 5.43, 5.44, 5.45 – Support
15.1
Given the current state of the environments in each of the nutrient status zones it should be a
requirement of the plan that further irrigation, increased stocking rates and intensification are
done in a manner that does not further compromise the environment.
As notified these give effect to Part 2 RMA, the NPS for Freshwater Management and the
Vision and Principles of the CWMS.
15.2
16.
Rule 5.46 – Support in part
16.1
This rule does not reflect the ppolicy provisions around limiting nitrogen leaching. 5.46 2
allows industry to define best practice without any requirement around meeting RMA
provisions. OverseerTM reports should be a requirement of CRC
5.46 4 is inadequate with respect to requirements of a Farm Environment Plan that would see
improved nutrient trends.
16.2
16.3
Relief sought
Amend 5.46 2: Qualify Schedule 8 to have a requirement to be consistent with policies and
objectives of this plan.
Amend Rule 5.46.3: delete “upon request” and replace with “by September 1 of each year.”
Amend 5.46.4 to include specifics around requirements for declining nitrogen leaching unless
already below schedule 8 limits.
17.
Rule 5.107 – Transfers Support
18.
Sub Regional Sections – Support in Part
These sections should have regional standards as default limits so that there is a consistent
regional approach and so that the proposed sub regional chapters are required to meet
national standards and requirements.
Water bodies of High Naturalness and flow sensitive catchments seem to be lacking sufficient
detail for each section.
Wetlands schedules are conspicuously absent.
Significant indigenous dryland ecosystem sites are absent
18.1
Relief sought
This plan should include default limits that sub regional chapters should have to adhere to as
a minimum..
Further work on schedules from CRC on water bodies of High Naturalness and flow sensitive
catchments. Alpine lakes should include Mystery Lake and Spider Lakes and possibly others.
Flow sensitive catchments should be more than only those that CRC has monitoring sites on.
Add wetlands schedules and significant indigenous dryland ecosystem sites.
19.
7.1.1 Hurunui Waiau River Regional Plan - Oppose in part
The proposed Hurunui Waiau River Regional Plan (pHWRRP) only partially covers matters
required of a river plan and as such is confusing to the community as to which document to
look to for guidance. It is silent on some matters e.g. nutrient loading in the Waiau river
catchment. Lack of certainty could be resolved by this plan providing default limits where the
pHWRP is silent.
19.1
Relief sought
This plan should provide default limits where the pHWRRP is silent
20.
Schedule 1 Drinking water protection areas – Partial Support
The approach is generally sound but the distances required combined with the intensification
of farming that this plan proposes to allow will make it very difficult for communities to be able
to source groundwater as a drinking water source resulting in this plan failing to meet social
outcomes of the RMA and CWMS.
21.
Schedule 2 Fish Screens - Support with additions
All surface water takes should have some kind of screen that prevents fish being entering the
water take infrastructure.
Where takes require more than one fish screen for the intake an additional backup up screen
should be required to limit the time period of intakes operating with screens removed
21.1
Relief sought
Add general requirement for screening on all surface water intakes.
Add requirement for back up screen for intakes with multiple screens.
22.
Schedule 5 Mixing Zones – Support with amendments
Reference to current NRRP tables should be revised e.g. ammonia – see WQL17.1
Ecoli standards and Natural waters toxicant concentration excedance of 95% do not seem to
be sufficiently aspirational.
Chemical table % column headers for non-natural waters makes no sense – all 99% !
22.1
Relief sought
Revise the approach to not be reliant on the current NRRP
Revise EColi and toxicant standards
Correct Chemical table % column headers
23.
Schedule 6 Freshwater bathing sites – Oppose
To limit requirements about suitability of bathing water to this limited list fails to gives effect to
Part 2 RMA, the NPS for Freshwater Management and the Vision and Principles of the
CWMS
24.
Schedule 7 Farm Environment Plan – Support with additions
How the management objectives will be met needs more detail to give guidance and certainty
to landowners
24.1
Relief sought
Retain as worded with addition of items to management objectives:
Add 4 (g) Significant indigenous biodiversity management: to manage risks associated with
land use and operation of irrigation systems to ensure protection of significant indigenous
ecosystems and species.
Modify 4 (a) “…minimising nutrient losses to ground and surface water..”
Add to end of 4 (b) “ so there is no ponding nor excessive runoff or loss to groundwater.
Where possible use real-time soil and water data”.
Add to end of 4 (c) “…including loss of topsoil with water and wind erosion and damage to soil
structure and health”
Modify 4 (d) delete “direct” from “avoid direct input of nutrients”. Add to end “in constructed
wetlands”.
Add “Protect naturally occurring wetlands”
25.
Schedule 8 Industry Derived Nitrogen Discharges - Support in part
Industry groups should develop best practice schedules for nitrogen and for other discharges
e.g. phosphorous and microbial pathogens.
These schedules should then be an input to regional limits defined by CRC and not the
default standard as they might not meet RMA, NPSFW and CWMS requirements.
25.1
Relief sought
Further develop these schedules to include phosphorous and microbial pathogens
26.
Schedule 17 Salmon and Inanga Spawning sites – Partial support
Inanga table appears to be missing known spawning sites
26.1
Relief sought
Add known Canterbury inanga spawning sites.
27.
Schedule 21 Sites with Nohoanga entitlements…– Support with addition
Table appears to be missing Ashley River mouth sites
27.1
Relief sought
Add the two Ashley River mouth sites
General
28.
I wish to be heard in support of my submission.
29.
I would be prepared to consider presenting a joint case with others making a similar
submission at any hearing.
____________________________________________
Jane Demeter
5 October 2012