The Environmental Protection Authority says it has granted the 17 resource consent applications relating to the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme subject to conditions.
Here's the full announcement.
Draft Report and Decision: Ruataniwha Consents Granted
Tuesday, 15 April 2014, 1:25 pm
Press Release: Environmental Protection AuthorityDraft Report and Decision
The Tukituki Catchment Proposal Board of Inquiry’s Draft Report and Decision – dated 10 April 2014 – was issued on 15 April 2014.
In summary the Board of Inquiry:
• Allowed the Plan Change request with amendments (as detailed in Part 2 of Volume 1 of the Draft Report and Decision). The provisions of the plan change request can be found in Volume 3 of the Draft Report and Decision.
• Granted the 17 resource consent applications relating to the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme (RWSS) subject to the conditions contained in Volume 3 of the Draft Report and Decision.
• Confirmed the Notice of Requirement (NoR) relating to the RWSS subject to the conditions contained in Volume 3 of the Draft Report and Decision.
Draft Report and Decision
[See www.epa.govt.nz/Resource-management/Tukituki/draft_decision/Pages/default.aspx]
Next steps
Under section 149Q(4) of the Resource Management Act (RMA) the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) invites comments on minor or technical aspects of the report from those parties outlined in section 149Q(3) of the RMA.
Under section 149Q(5) of the RMA comments may include:
• minor errors in the report;
• the wording of conditions specified in the report;
• that there are omissions in the report (for example, if the report does not address a certain issue).
Comments are not to be on the Board of Inquiry’s decision or its reasons for that decision.
Comments from parties need to be received by the EPA in writing by 5pm on 16 May 2014.
Comments can be sent to:
• Email: tukituki.proposal@epa.govt.nz
• Post: Shaun Lewis, Environmental Protection Authority, Private Bag 63002, Wellington, 6140
• Fax: (04) 914 0433
(Note: if sending comments by email or fax, please put “Tukituki Catchment Proposal: Comments on draft report and decision” in the subject line).
In accordance with section 149R(1) of the RMA, the Board will consider any comments received and then make its decision and prepare a final report.
41 Comments
In Australia the Northern Victoria Irrigation restructure has been called a train wreck. With farmers being forced of their farms by the high cost of water, even with subsidies.
This a scheme costing Australian farmers a 11 c a Cube. We get to pay 26c a cube, inflation indexed and apparently its a once in a life time opportunity.
Northern Victoria Irrigation Renewal Project 'a train wreck': Walsh
http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/commodities/northern-victoria-irrigati…
Hi Kate.
I think your judgementon on this decision is far too harsh. The BoI has delivered a good decision on water quality. HBRIC, JK, Federated Farmers, IrrigationNZ and the agricultural intensification lobby took a big hit today.
RWSS does have consent to build their irrigation scheme. It was never economically viable but is now even less so. It is now even less likely to find investors - the on farm economics don't work with the higher water quality demanded.
The BoI today proved Newman a liar.
A quote from an Email I received:
The ruling by the board is that Nitrogen toxicity will not safeguard life supporting capacity of our freshwater resources nor provide for the communities right to clean, swimmable, fishable, rivers. For farming to be sustainable the board ruled that both nitrogen and phosphorus needed to be managed to environmental limits based on ecosystem health, and the natural capital of soil, and not toxicity.
See page 2, paragraph 8 and 9 of the summary (Volume 1):
http://www.epa.govt.nz/Resource-management/Tukituki/draft_decision/Page…
The developer of Hawkes Bay's controversial Ruataniwha Dam is looking at whether the 600 million dollar project is still viable in the face of the strict environmental protections looming in its resource consent.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/2592724
I haven't read the decision, but of course the problem with all these statements of intent and conditions imposed - is that the fox is in charge of the hen house .. meaning to ensure compliance with all these conditions, it is the responsibility of the local authority to monitor, or require the consent holder to monitor, and to take action when the conditions are not being stringently met and to prosecute breaches.
I could provide a huge number of examples where that simply doesn't happen. In fact I think a Masters thesis was recently published showing just how bad it [monitoring of consent conditions] is. I'm working with a number of members of the public at the moment who are adversely affected by a council-owned unconsented structure in the coastal marine area. They have requested that the relevant RC take enforcement action against the local council to no avail (so far). Yet all authorities involved agree about the nature and extent of adverse effect. We had the same issue in Palmy with the RC reluctant to require PNCC to meet the conditions of its wastewater discharge permit ... how many years did those breaches of consent conditions go on?
Point is once these structures go in, there is no going back, no matter how bad the impacts on the environment of their operation is. Whangamata Marina is another great case in point - last I heard the wave at Whanga had broken and of course the consent holders claim its got nothing to do with their harbour dredging (one of the conditions of the consent of course being to monitor the effect of ongoing dredging on the surf wave).
To my mind, Pike River is another consent that more than likely should never have been granted - the 'light environmental footprint' design and the conditions of consent all contributed to make the mining proposal unlikely to be economic - and well we all know what happened there.
Might be a non-issue unless they can find another sucker to foot the $50 mill hole left from trustpower pull out.
The notion that the venture can climb from 42% no-obligation EOIs to 40% firm contracts to farmers filling a $50 million capital gap on top of that seems — to put it generously — ambitious.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1403/S00708/dam-cracks.htm
They'll push ahead and then come running for a tax or ratepayer bail out.
As it happens I'm sympathetic to the idea of irrigation schemes, and am not absolutely averse to the government playing a role in them. Having said that, previous articles on here have had clearly well informed contributors who have lambasted the business case for this particular dam.
It would be annoying if this scheme were to go ahead, paid for by the taxpayers, under an at best opaque business case, with the actual beneficiaries being a very small group of well connected local farmers, landholders, or contractors.
As a local ratepayer (and taxpayer), and someone who would like to be able to swim in the Tuki river again, I am all for this scheme.
I am not a farmer, so will leave to them to decide if the numbers stack up, but I hope they do - I think it will make a huge difference to the local economy.
Hi Andrewj,
As gladtobekiwi says, one of the reasons for the scheme was to manage water flows to make the river healthier.
If you are a local to the area then you would know the river is dire during the summer months in particular.
I don't mean to overstate the issue, but it can be a rather unpleasant river to visit during the months when you would most like to use it. Some recent articles state how bad it is:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503462&objectid=11087895
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10876634
Hopefully other investments, such as the chbdc sewage scheme will also help towards improving water quality in the region:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503462&objectid=11210912
I hope the farmers in the area do come up with a profitable way to use the available water from the dam, because I personally think the status quo is not an option.
The council cannot promise more water in the river and then in the next breath enough water to irrigate 25,000 hectares from the existing flow. Trust me i know the river very well and this scheme will fail to deliver summer flows because all the water has been commited to farmers.
Farmers use a tonne of water its simply not possible to promise better summer flows and all this irrigation, someone is telling a lie.
The better rainfall is in the upper Tuki tuki, the Makarora has much lower rainfall.
This scheme to function would have required a substantial subsidy from rate and taxpayers only to deliver very poor results.
To fix our water problems someone has to put a price on water but not 26c a m3
The Maitai River in Nelson - before the Maitai dam - and after it
I first swam in the Maitai River in 1961. Delightfully fresh clean water. In the early 60's the 900mm pipeline was installed to take SOME water from the South Branch.
My kids still enjoyed the Maitai River in the 70's
In the 80's the Maitai Dam was built. The promise was to add a recreational water way to the region. That never happened. The plan was to capture and store the North branch so that all of the South branch could be fed to the city.
The dam was designed to augment the river flow and keep its water quality high.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE1403/S00049/toxic-algae-in-section-of-maitai-river.htm
These days the Maitai river is a mess. Where are those who promised better? Why are they not held to account?
Dams make for better swimming water? Keep them in the dark. And the other part of farming mushrooms comes to mind.
Thanks for your personal experience and the url links Rudderless.
It highlights we need to keep our councils accountable.
Maybe the scheme doesn't go ahead, and if that is the case, I would like to know what other possible solutions there are to resolve the issues we currently have with the Tuki river.
Hi Hobo
I am not against the storage of water. Makes sense.
I am against false promises of proper dam management.
It is clear that the North branch of the Maitai contains certain items not fit to send to ratepayers thru their taps. Thirty years later it is clear that
- The North branch water - undiluted with South branch water - is maybe unfit to maintain life in the waterway.
- Maybe some of the North branch water is being raided to make up the volume - leaving the waterway to dry out.
Either way the river is stuffed. Maybe!
I guess we can look forward to kissing goodbye to fruit grown in this area in the future as the land will become too "valuable" for horticulture.
More imported fruit and veg on the way. I could have supported something a bit smaller to help out the horticulturalists but we all know what this is for, more bloody dairying
How do you know the land is only going to be used for dairying?
There is plenty of land around all of Hawke’s bay that is primarily being used for horticulture and they need healthy rivers to maintain use of irrigation otherwise they lose all their crops for the year. They will pull out their trees and convert to dairy support if they can't guarantee their income for the year. This is serious stuff. If you care about horticulturalists, then you might want to support this scheme.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503462&objectid=11121252
I'm not a farmer, but I think the use of "bloody dairying" is unnecessary. It is in NZ's best interests to support dairy farmers to achieve the required water quality requirements rather than writing them off as "bloody dairying".
Andrewj , without doubt you are the most consistently negative commentator both on this website and in the world . We all have troughs - climatic , price , mental in this game . Farming is long term ,wealth is created by building equity over time and trying to exist comfortably whilst physically working in your business .
Water brings wealth , and yes in this instance it will have to be Dairy . I am from the South Island and now live in Hawkes Bay . You guys are ignorant about the power of irrigation . Hawkes Bay is in the doldrums economically and yes the water is expensive . But water brings opportunity - increased land value , construction - both houses and milking sheds and employment .
My advice is this , if the water can come to your gate then buy it without hesitation . Waikato Dairy farmers are sick of droughts and want certainty of production , irrigation provides that certainty . If you don't want the financial risk then sell . You will be rewarded and then you can buy a sheep and beef farm elsewhere with all that cash that is burning a hole in your back pocket or you can retire .
Whilst you interpret this as a somewhat superficial summation of today's events , I can assure you that this is what happens , I know from experience . Land is always a great and appreciating investment and has been for centuries
Land is always a great and appreciating investment and has been for centuries
I'd check on the 19th century in the UK, before running around with that statement.
I'm a fouth generation farmer in the area, I've got a bore, i've been involved in cropping and other farming ventures. Tell me how well your dairy opperation will go with water at 26c a M3? If you don't know then Colin Riden can tell you.
I'm happy to debate the economics.
I'm sick of being bombarded by people who think they only need to look on the bright side, the world changed in 2008, 'normal' is not coming back. The world can be a savage place, there is a cold hand of capitalism. I'm over people with the enthusiasim and atitude thats comes from an Amway sales brochure, give me a realalist any day.
Dairy has become like pig and chicken farming, production can be increased rapidly overwhelming the market, I spent last night with a vet from Wiscounsin, he's on a 5000 cow housed dairy and we talked about this very subject for two hours. he thinks diary is too risky without a decent local market and a volatile export market, we both agreed that China is not a stable market. He is very familiar with BST.
Bovine Growth Hormone
https://www.globaldairyinnovation.com/dairy-milk-production/what-is-rbs…
Let your inflation exceed your trading partners for 20 years and believe me there is a dark side.
Start trying to compete with our fuel prices at nearly $8.00 a gallon while US farmers are paying $3.50 and you won't get far.
Indeed as I said my comments are broad and perhaps general in nature but I look at from a purely selfish perspective too . If I can pick up "free" capital gain due to dairy expansion on the plains then I am all for it . In North Canterbury , yes the water is cheaper but boy the Dairy industry just creeps it tentacles further inland in search of more land , ie , dairy runoffs and those who sell to them end up buying other properties and that keeps the economic wheel rolling too so to speak . I can't make much money actually farming and my Amway sales are down a little too Andrewj so as a Capitalist I want people to take financial risk and get this dam built !
We don't have enough people in this country and our over - reliance on exports particularly Dairy is not ideal . What other options do we have in this fair land then fellas other than ag and hort ?
The onerous conditions and very ordinary leadership around this Dam project make it look like a dead duck anyway , so I shall have to re-hone my energies into lifting my own on-farm performance to stay afloat . Farming , it's a bastard ..
Have you tried thinking outside the square?
I happen to be carniverous, and no-spray/chemical, rather than 'organic' - but there a lot like me. They want to know what they ingest, and that it is of cleanish origin.
The supermarkets are making farmers/suppliers 'price-takers', which means in supplying them, you're screwed. Every time you get bigger scale-wise, they screw you down again. The way is around the outside - straight to the consumer, use the net to communicate, take the margin yourself. Must work for meat too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqP1SC5Tr7U
Agree. Some of the local "market garden" markets seem to be going gang busters.
Though sometimes the prices are worse than the super-markets, not much realism from some. Then yes there is the Net, however sometimes when I use it eg I wanted a case of speciality beer recently the supplier wanted to charge me more than the supermarket ($69) a case plus $35 to ship it, retarded frankly. So instead I ordered a case from the supermarket, couriered up over-night, no carriage charge.
regards
PDK: "The supermarkets are making farmers/suppliers 'price-takers'
Yes, and as the supermarkets screw their suppliers into the ground, the suppliers begin to change the formulation in the case of processed foods, by changing the ingredient mix, less nutrition, more salt, more sugars, still looks the same, tastes more moorish. In the case of produce, they force feed the stuff, more fertilisers, more sprays, more aggressive growth, more pesticides, more heavy metals, less taste, less nutrition - and so the beat goes on
Jezza
Id be very careful investing in NZ at the moment. Our cost structure is too high for a lot of agriculture to compete and then theres the debt.
Im actually in Nappa today looking at some vineyard operations, Very intesting hanging out with some fellow organic growers. I think we are right up there with our knowledge.
Next week im looking at some large scale beef opertions and talking to some sheep farmers with over 2500 ewes in Oregon.
Ivve been invited to look at a French operation in Serbia later in the year.
I love nz but we need to deal with some structural problems that are over loading the export sector with cost that are simply unaffordable for many operations.
This irragtion scheme was a bad one, poor site, poor river flows, difficult delivery. The council was over promising and could never deliver. They deserve a roasting for wasting so much money.
Exactly Andrew.
Also the cost structures in New Zealand are too high for just about anything. We carry a huge superstructure for most things (local government is just one) with mostly overspecified facilties and requirements. Such excessive things would be ok if we could actually afford them. But we don't have the productivity.
Well my view of kiwiland is that mainly we run on a shoe string on many things. certainly after spending a decade specifying and designing facilities to meet the requirements that was and is my view. We do things very cheap and cheerfully, at the expence of the longer term...ie total cost of ownership for instance.
I'll agree on costs being too high, but really the biggest input cost, fossil energy is no longer $20US a barrel and it wont ever be again...if if it is it will be because we in the depths of a second great depression.
regards
The conversion was a big step for Mark, who realised he was taking on so much debt he risked losing the family farm if things went awry.
But things are going well. The farm was well planned and laid out and is a model of efficiency. Staff housing is first class. The day-to-day running of the farm is done by sharemilkers Troy and Donna Yaxley who employ two Filipino workers, Nino Alovera and Ronan Angcos.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/dairy/9944007/Dairying-alters-country-culture
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.