The next time you see an on-line post from me with the above heading, it will be because I have learned and become thoroughly convinced that a genuine tsunami alert is URGENT for Canterbury and Wellington to hear. Why must I write this? Let me explain.

Three careers have been permanently capped by the Christchurch, 22 February 2011, magnitude 6.3 earthquake: Prime Minister John Key’s, Mayor Bob Parker’s, and Dr Mark Quigley‘s. For as at today’s date around two hundred people have died, ON THEIR WATCH. Land resources and people’s welfare were neither respected nor understood, safely, on their watch. This overt lack of governing and academic competence can never be forgiven – by survivors or the world. After the magnitude 7.1 quake of 4 September 2010, this group gave false confidence that the danger had passed, that the central city business restoration took top priority, with tragic results. Shattering.

Hazard risk safety in Canterbury can only be restored along with the democratically elected regional governance. The insult to people and planet done by Parker and Key, through their illegitimate coup – for irrigation, gravel extraction, central planning and industrial and commercial interests etc, of April 2010 – is being repaid FROM ON HIGH. Balance must now be restored: bring ECan out of exile.

To help fill the intelligence gap, the empirical deficit giving regard to Canterbury coastal well-being, please add this – adapted from yesterday’s facebook entry for rik.tindall:

Scientific knowledge of the Chatham Rise is quite limited and actually poor. e.g. “It stretches for some 1000 kilometres from near the South Island in the west, to the Chatham Islands in the east” – ref Wikipedia/ Chatham_Rise – WRONG! – For Christchurch, the Chatham Rise now presents a very clear and present DANGER!

My September 4th event thesis was confirmed on 22 Feb. That is, the Greendale Fault has shown that, not so deep below us, the ancient Chatham Rise geological feature – the ossified and brittle original subduction zone front – actually continues west and abuts the Southern Alps, where it acts as a giant inertia brake effective upon the Alpine Fault, stalling greater disaster…

Greendale Fault – 33km – magnitude 7.1 quake (x 10 =)
Alpine Fault – 330km – magnitude 8.1 quake (x 2 =)
Chatham Rise fault – 660km – magnitude 8.2 quake [1]

These are rough calculations based on expert information in articles published recently in The Press newspaper. The earthquake magnitude forecasts are conservative, as the actual fault lengths are: Alpine Fault – “650km” while Chatham Rise faults – “are numerous ..some up to 700 km long”. If we add a conceptual 300 kilometres of actual length to the western Chatham Rise as I advise – spanning Banks Peninsula and west through Greendale to the Southern Alps – we reach a length of almost 1300 kilometres; and probably, therefore, towards a mid-to-high magnitude 8 local quake risk. For comparison, the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami was from a magnitude 9.0 quake surface rupture of 1300 km length. [2]

The Greendale Fault “reflected” shock force back off the Alps, we were told by geologists after 4Sep, but wrongly that “reflection” also came off Banks Peninsula, it seems. Instead, 22 February’s 6.3 quake confirmed what I had been postulating: that the Greendale Fault energy release was actually pounding its way through the westward, thick-end of Banks Peninsula, so to pass east beneath Lyttelton area and out to sea (and has also been fracturing under Christchurch city – SW to NE – exit Waimairi Beach). Silo-like, geologists prefer to treat faults and aftershocks discretely – each with their own ‘standard pattern of decline’ towards restabilisation (for political reasons?) In this case, however, a fraction more dot-joining would undoubtedly have saved lives in Christchurch during 22 February’s shock – where devastating energy very predictably spilled east..

The ‘small picture’ of proving separate faults eastward of Greendale’s – rather than one contiguous fault – is far less significant than that of the imminent transfer of fault energy, along the system onto the Chatham Rise faults.

For a clear example of the strange errors made by geologists here, see Port Hills half a metre taller after Christchurch earthquake where “Satellite analysis by GNS Science shows the top of the roughly east-west buried fault responsible for the February 22 magnitude-6.3 quake lies between one kilometre and 2km below the southern edge of the Avon-Heathcote Estuary. Land on either side of the fault has slipped horizontally as well as vertically, causing the Port Hills to rise by about 40 centimetres and land just south of the Avon-Heathcote Estuary to shift to the west by a few tens of centimetres. Land immediately north of the estuary, on the other side of the fault, has also moved tens of centimetres, but to the east. GNS natural hazards manager Kelvin Berryman said the estuary and land just west of it had sunk by about 10cm.. ‘It’s not a big fault. It hasn’t had a lot of movement on it in the past. The quake occurred at the periphery of the September 4 aftershock cloud. The stress front has arrived there and found a piece of the crust that was primed and ready to go.’ There was no indication how long it was since the Port Hills fault last moved, Berryman said. ‘It has not been determined before now in any geological maps or geophysics work. ‘It could have moved before, but it might be the first time it ruptured in the last 100 million years’” from The Press of 2 March 2011.

- As “the Port Hills” were part of an active island volcano system just 20 million years ago, going extinct with the plate collision that formed the West Coast and Southern Alps just 5-6 million years ago, then Berryman’s claim of no Lyttelton fault movement in five times that length of time can be neither correct nor relevant – in the larger scale of landscape dynamics. Ref Pushing New Zealand’s Boundaries NZ land formation simulation by GNS. Given the lack of surface rupture expression, would a more useful assumption to present not be: ‘like Greendale, there has been no sign of movement on the Lyttelton fault for at least ten thousand years’?

Incontrovertible supporting evidence for my ‘eastward rift’ thesis, the west-east “straw that broke the camel’s back” was precisely this shock sequence:
1) 22-Feb 01:07am Magnitude 2.3
Near 82 Knights Rd, Rolleston 7675, New Zealand
The distance from the Square in Christchurch is 21.2 km
2) 22-Feb 09:16am Magnitude 3.1
Near 747-823 Cashmere Rd, Kennedys Bush 8025, New Zealand
The distance from the Square in Christchurch is 7.6 km
3) 22-Feb 12:51pm Magnitude 6.3
Near Tunnel Rd, Lyttelton 8082, New Zealand
“The distance from the Square in Christchurch is 9.7 km Mercalli VIII – Little damage in specially built structures. Considerable damage to ordinary buildings, severe damage to poorly built structures. Some walls collapse.” quake.crowe.co.nz

And there has been much further seaside quake confirmation today:

01-Mar 09:10am Magnitude 4.3, Energy 37 tons, Depth 2.00 km, Near 500 Camp Bay Rd, Port Levy, distance from the Square in Christchurch is 19.3 km; Southshore; Sumner; 01-Mar 10:42pm Magnitude 4.6, Energy 110 tons, Depth 5.00 km, Near 1951 Summit Rd, Governors Bay, distance from the Square in Christchurch is 9.3 km; etc:


The Greendale Fault line (in red) points east, to the subterranean Port Hills rift events continued of 1 Mar 2011, and a surface view over Chatham Rise. Graphics: quake.crowe.co.nz

Having spent two and half years working with the Canterbury risk managers in the implementation of their natural hazard emergency plan, I can tell you with complete authenticity that the tsunami risk from the Chatham Rise HAS NOT BEEN FACTORED IN YET, but is now rising.

Why does this matter? If you think that East Christchurch is a neglected mess now, compare it to Aceh, Indonesia on Boxing Day 2004 to get a clearer picture.* The Christchurch City Council had tsunami warning systems budgeted in for the eastern suburbs, but when will these now be delivered? – With sufficient urgency?

I was a Canterbury Regional Councillor, working hard with the New Brighton, Southshore, Redcliffs and Sumner communities in particular on emergency preparedness plans. I was in New Brighton on the morning of 27 Feb 2010 when the last Pacific tsunami warning sounded, and was able to open a temporary forward evacuation base – in the Brighton Mall shop where Stronger Christchurch in now situated – where I witnessed the local pre-evacuation alert state practically.

CONCLUSION: If Cantabrians want to feel safe from ground-force risk again soon, then you need to demand the IMMEDIATE REINSTATEMENT OF THE ELECTED ENVIRONMENT CANTERBURY COUNCIL to continue preparedness work on the crucial subject outlined here today.

DEMOCRACY – the decisive authority of the people – is a real and vital natural force. Governments abuse it AT GREAT PERIL!

[1] Calculation proof:
Greendale Fault – 33km – magnitude 7.1 quake (/ 10 =)
hypothetical fault – 3.3km – magnitude 6.1 quake (x 3 =)
Lyttelton Fault – ’9.9km’ – magnitude 6.3 quake (recorded as 8km long, 8km deep)

[2] “The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake came just three days after a magnitude 8.1 earthquake in an uninhabited region west of New Zealand’s sub-Antarctic Auckland Islands, and north of Australia’s Macquarie Island. This is unusual, since earthquakes of magnitude 8 or more occur only about once per year on average. Some seismologists have speculated about a connection between these two earthquakes, saying that the former one might have been a catalyst to the Indian Ocean earthquake, as the two earthquakes happened on opposite sides of the Indo-Australian Plate. However, the U.S. Geological Survey sees no evidence of a causal relationship in this incident. Coincidentally, the earthquake struck almost exactly one year (to the hour) after a 6.6 magnitude earthquake killed an estimated 30,000 people in the city of Bam in Iran on December 26, 2003.”
Wikipedia/ 2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_and_tsunami

The top global source on current Pacific tsunami threats is the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center of the US NOAA.gov in Hawaii. See some 22Feb11 quake info from NZ’s Crown Research Institute (CRI) Geological and Nuclear Sciences (GNS) and on youtube.

Wellington

Since beginning study of the September 4th Canterbury / Christchurch earthquake (and discount of a reactivation of local volcanics) I have been explaining the event in terms – and with warning – of more imminent Wellington groundshake disaster. This incident progression south to north can easily be read from the 2009-2011 NZ quake history and the tectonic plate dynamic animations made available by GNS Science, whom seem loathe to interpret in ways that could instill fear and preparedness. But consensus and the evidence are still building..

Surprise Quake prophecy will come true … eventually where “a kaumatua’s Waitangi Day prophecy of doom and destruction for Wellington should be taken with a pinch of salt – though a massive earthquake in the capital is inevitable, experts say. Anglican minister Gray Theodore, who was born Te Kerei Tiatua, stunned the 1000-strong crowd gathered at the Treaty grounds when he revealed his vision at yesterday’s dawn ceremony. ‘A terrible earthquake is going to hit Wellington. I have seen body bags in the streets of Wellington. I have seen houses on the hills of Wellington – seen them disappear. I have seen the roof of the Beehive lying in the debris of the streets of Wellington.’ God had shown him the harbour waters receding, then rushing back in a tsunami that would affect an area from the South Island to as far north as Whanganui. He did not know what year the catastrophe would strike – but it would be in the month of June..” 6 Feb 2011, then:

Reference # 3472164, Tue Mar 1 2011 10:07 pm NZDT, Magnitude 4.5, Depth 40 km, Details 20 km north-west of Wellington;
Reference # 3473252, Fri Mar 4 2011 2:19 am NZDT, Magnitude 4.7, Depth 30 km, Details 10 km north-east of Upper Hutt;
Reference # 3473493, Fri, Mar 4 2011 12:55 pm NZDT, Magnitude 3.7, Depth: 30 km, Details: 10 km north of Upper Hutt;
Reference # 3474189, Sun, Mar 6 2011 0:41 am NZDT, Magnitude: 3.0, Depth: 40 km, Details: 20 km north-west of Wellington;
Reference # 3476805, Fri, Mar 11 2011 9:57 am NZDT, Magnitude: 3.2, Depth: 40 km, Details: 30 km east of Wellington;
Reference # 3477261, Sat, Mar 12 2011 8:03 am NZDT, Magnitude: 2.6, Depth: 5 km, Details: Within 5 km of Otaki; source Geonet.

New Zealand recent quakes 040311 ex geonet.org.nz

GNS Science recent quakes pic 07Mar11

Geonet recent quakes 11Mar2011

… Watch this space

“You have been warned.”

Interesting: John Campbell’s 28Feb11 TV3 interview attack upon, then apology to, meteorological and earth event forecaster Ken Ring.

Ok, sadly the big tsunami predicted is here.. Not local to Chch, but likely effects.. Honshu Japan offshore 8.9 quake, March 11, 2011 http://www.weather.gov/ptwc/index.php?region=1

14 March: Sendai earthquake data upgrade to magnitude 9.0, over a “300km” or 500km-long main fault? (reports vary).. Ref Wikipedia /2011_Sendai_earthquake

N.B. Facebook pre-discusson of the magnitude 9.0, see 26Feb11 Ruaumoko in better light..

Whether it be the Green Party’s insistence upon unaffordable volumetric charging per consumer household, or the Labour-Progressive insistence upon unaffordable and problematic fluoride treatment, or the governing National, ACT, United Future and Maaori parties’ insistence that overpopulation, water depletion and pollution – by cattle beasts – is somehow a good thing, each is wrong and unacceptable to city water voters.

Our community’s pure water thirsts for a fourth electoral choice – one to guarantee this special resource’s quality and quantity, into the future – Save Our Water!

This sacred task can only be completed through sound appreciation of the biblical origins to contemporary culture-clash, when dramatic climate change with floods and drought began sculpting human actions, beliefs and society. The ancient water Way of the Tao must also be understood, to make essential progress. Be one with water, here and now.

Our Water Our City ~ keep our water pure! ~ enrol & VOTE pure water

This was the auto-generated theme pic when I first gained a WordPress page

It is election year and a long, cold winter of discontent lies ahead for Christchurch and New Zealand. From one of the places on the list for a ‘clean heat’ chimney replacement post-Canterbury earthquake, this new blog aims to add insightful progress reports.

Specifically, will credible ‘new left’ representation be made available to 2011 voters? …

Watch this space.

Kia ora ~ Rik

10-Feb-2011 04:16pm NZDT, as I post, at depth 9.34 km, a magnitude 4.0 aftershock thumps the house

Below is a picture and link to live interactive incident map of of the earthquake that struck Canterbury, New Zealand on the 4th September (7.1).

canterbury-earthquake interactive Map

http://s1.demos.eaglegis.co.nz/Flex/earthquake-christchurch/

The Map Contains the following:

• Earthquakes And Aftershocks From GNS
• Lifelines Information From ECAN. These Are:
• Priority Sites, Bridges, Power, Major Storage Sites, Routes
• Structure Incidents, Road Closures, Curfew Areas, Restricted Areas
• Shake Maps From USGS
• LIVE Information From New Zealand Hearld
• LIVE Crowd Sourced Information From Google Maps
• Aerial Imagery Provided By ArcGIS.com

Click the slider and ZOOM In To See More Information (or use your scroll on your mouse)
Use The “More” Button To Toggle Layers On/Off

Email: ts@eaglegis.co.nz With Feedback & Queries

Copyright © 2010 ECan, Esri, and Eagle Technology Group Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Cairn of river stones in Cathedral Square

The protesters made a cairn of stones from South Island rivers, and this will remain in Cathedral Square until regional councillors are elected again.

“Symbolic stones tell everyone
that we abhor what has been done.”

Regarding the mining issue, John Key and Gerry Brownlee have tried to give the impression that NZ is divided “50/50″, which seems an obtuse statement considering the size and sophistication of the protests, both on the street and as expressed through social networking sites (there’s a Facebook group if you haven’t joined already, or you can “like” the “ours not mine” thingee). Brownlee noted that mining already happens on conservation land, as if that were somehow justification for further exploitation. Mostly though there are calls that it will benefit the economy, although what “economy” means in this context has not been elaborated on. Any guesses why?

Sadly, it looks like there will be no more election with regards to Ecan until 2013.

Links

NZ Herald article on the mining protests

Greens articles on the mining issue + submission

or…send a submission via “Don’t undermine NZ” (Greenpeace)

A discussion about the debate “To Mine or not to Mine” that was televised on Back Benches

Our water, our vote

Many people come to government to try to support a good cause. They don’t realise the one who has to determine which good cause is to be supported is the democratically minister of the day. And quite a lot of departments, not slinging off at their professionalism but say DOC, you get a lot of people who join DOC because they know they want to save a kakapo and if not a kakapo it will be the lesser spotted whatever. And if the lesser spotted whatever is not on the minister’s list of priorities they’ll find it hard to do.

A key part of the role of senior public servants is to explain to them well it is the minister who has to take the heat in public about that and the public servant really isn’t just employed to follow their own interests and if they want to follow their interests they can go and work in the private sector like anyone else. . .

. . . No public servant should be zealous about the particular cause they’re interested in. They should be zealous about democracy and respecting the law. . .”

This is an extract from Mark Prebble’s  discussion with Kathryn Ryan on Nine to Noon.

He was referring to central government but Kiwiblog’s posts on why ECan was sacked  and ECan vs its own commissioners show what he says should also apply in local government.

Some of the officers have at times adopted more of an advocacy role than a neutral advisory role. …

The regional councillors have been replaced by commissioners. Very little has been said yet on the need for a change of staff as well but unless there is a change of attitude and/or personal the problems in ECan will continue.

I wrote about this topic a few weeks ago (incidentally, that post was read by the largest number of all my posts over the past year – thanks for the feedback from so many people) and you can read my arguments – which still stand  – here.

At the time of writing that post, I had this perhaps naive belief that, with all the concern and anger that this stitched-up process (the Creech report) and the idea of getting rid of a democratic institution for political and economic reasons, the government might back down or at least leave the better parts of Ecan’s work and other water management strategy work in the region intact.

Oh dear, how really naive of me! The National/ACT government (or Hide, Smith and Key in particular) went even further than they’d intimated. Not only did we see the Canterbury Regional Council (the proper name for Ecan) written out of existence through a late-night bill passed under urgency (I understand), but we also saw a whole lot of other new laws that close off a whole raft of democratic activities and careful policy developments related to environmental protection.

It seem that there are now no avenues left for the people of Canterbury to have a formal say in how the region’s precious water resources will be allocated, and how its special landscape, soil and water can be protected from further environmental degradation.

Even if there is no immediate massive handout of water to an unsustainably growing dairy industry, the manner in which this has been done ensures that citizens will remain distrustful of this government for many years to come. This may prove to have been a very silly strategy in the long term, Mr Key.

My arguments remain the same – that democracy is too precious and hard won to be made subservient to economic efficiency and unchecked growth; that the growth of the dairy industry in Canterbury is unsustainable and a dairy industry crash – leading to more of the infrastructure and land being sold to overseas interests – is almost certain within the next 5-10 years; and that the Canterbury environment is seriously at risk in the face of this unchecked growth and pollution.

I’ve had little time for Hide, who is more intent on personal power and influence than most other politicians. I’ve had mixed feelings about Smith, who sometimes seems sincere in his efforts to improve environmental outcomes but then sometimes flies off aggressively on a tangent. And until now I’ve held Key in cautious respect – but since his handling and control of the Ecan/water issue, and his slippery advocacy for a mining boom, he’s slid down seriously in my estimation.

So what can be done now by those of us worried about this water takeover by the government and its big dairying friends? I suspect all that’s left is to support those people who are trying to oppose the trend through whatever official channels that this now limited democracy provides. And to keep making as much noise as I can whenever the appropriate opportunities arise.

For those not following these developments, a rough background. Ecan is a body elected by the people of Canterbury to develop and enact policy around all sorts of environmental issues in the region, including water, air, soil, transport, rivers, etc. Most ordinary residents don’t have much to do with it, but developers, farmers and environmentalists certainly do.

For all sorts of reasons, the NZ government chose to act on complaints from mainly developers and local government mayors about Ecan’s governance and performance. It appointed an ex-politician of its own persuasion, Wyatt Creech, himself a director of a dairying firm, to investigate and report back. No one was surprised when he said Ecan should be sacked and replaced by people who would be, almost certainly, more sympathetic to development and dairy farming.

Creech said Ecan has been too much focussed on the environment at the expense of the easier use of water, particularly for dairying. Hello . . . . isn’t that what Ecan means? Environment Canterbury?

Ecan has been criticised for years for being tardy in granting consents to developments that depend on the supply of water, from dams, rivers and wells. These criticisms, of course, have always been from developers – most people concerned about the environmental impacts are glad that someone is taking time to investigate and act cautiously. The wish of developers and many farmers has been (and from Creech, still is) that Ecan should be more like a rubber stamp, simply checking that an applicant can show the water exists and giving the tick.

Dairying is now huge in Canterbury, and demands for more irrigation are building all the time. Unsurprisingly, we’re told that Ecan has to deal with many times more resource consent applications than any other similar body in New Zealand, while the resource itself, the water, remains finite – and more limited with each application approved. No wonder they’ve been finding it hard to fulfil demands placed on them.

Without some care being taken, the whole region could easily become one giant dairy farm and every drop of available water allocated for industrial dairying (plus all the new electricity to power the pumps). Someone needs to make sure a proper balance is kept.

I am not against development, as long as it’s sustainable and balanced. I am against development purely for the sake of it. I am against the economic prerogative outweighing the environmental prerogative.

Until recently I lived for many years near the Heathcote River in Christchurch, and I had seen year by year the decline in water levels in that river during drier months. I’ve heard and read concerns about many other Canterbury waterways, both the flow volume and the quality, but the Heathcote I know of directly. It’s a signal that all is not well, and that water use inland is affecting areas beyond the immediate places of abstraction.

My concerns about the government’s attack on Ecan are several.  In no particular order:

1.  It’s bad for democracy that a government can replace a democratically elected body with its own appointments, especially for a body which has such a vitally important role for the whole of the Canterbury community. All public bodies have flaws, inefficiencies, political infighting, just as all large corporations do. It’s part of being a democracy and a free economy.

Taking the alternative to its logical limit, all we need is one elected god to run our country and we all do as told by the people he/she subcontracts. That’s efficient – so was Nazism. I’d rather have flawed but human representative government than efficient dictatorship.

2.  The over-emphasis on dairying in New Zealand genuinely worries me. Dairy products are commodities, the prices and costs for which go up and down with world supply and demand. It suffers from booms and busts. It’s doing pretty well right now, but only a year or two ago we had dairy farmers fretting about prices dropping to the point where their operations were becoming unprofitable.

Today more than ever we need to be developing a balanced economy, where booms and busts can smooth each other out as much as possible. Some Canterbury land may not currently be kind to perhaps sheep farmers or croppers, but there will be times when the pendulum will swing. To me, it’s plain daft to rely too much on dairying. Haven’t we yet learned the lessons of the boom times and the bad times in all sorts of industries?

3.  I will believe and aver to my dying day that there is no point in making great economic gains if the environment in which we want to enjoy their benefits is spoiled. Balance is the keyword.

4.  One of Ecan’s jobs is (or should be) to try to ensure all development is sustainable. By this I don’t mean the common, sloppy use of the word “sustainable” as a synonym for “green” or “environmentally friendly”. I mean it literally – the activity or development can be sustained into at least the medium future. It can keep going, in the good times and the bad. It doesn’t depend on the latest boom or bubble (such as house trading or borrowing as a way of making us richer).

To my mind, building more and more and more bigger and bigger dairy farms across the landscape of the region leads eventually to an unsustainable economy, as well as an unsustainable environment.

For all these reasons, and for a few others that I can’t think of right now, I believe Ecan should be encouraged to continue its work and further develop its water management strategy which, from all reports, is a most promising development in itself.

ECan is offering the government what its chair Alec Neill describes as an olive branch.

They’re suggesting the government appoint a commissioner-advisor to manage the region’s water.

They also recommend an external advisory group be set up to assist the commissioner and councillors.

“We’ve come up with what we believe ticks all the boxes for the Government to carry out their direction as to water but allows for the community to retain elected representation.”

The intention was for ECan elections to still go ahead this year, Neill said.

The advisory group would comprise two members of Local Government New Zealand’s regional affairs committee, one Ngai Tahu representative, one member of the Canterbury Mayoral forum, Neill and the commissioner-adviser.

The review panel’s recommendation to sack the council and appoint a commissioner would have requried legislation.

ECan’s offer would mean there is no need for that, provide an opportunity for improved water management in the region and still allow council elections in October.

This isn’t as radical as the review panel’s recommendations but it would retain democratic elections and enable action to improve the region’s water management much sooner than any changes which required legislation.

The need for improved management of Canterbury’s water is urgent and if ECan’s plan was accepted work could start immediately.

However, I didn’t realise that while the government can appoint a commissioner if requested to do so by a regional council, it would take a change of law for that to happen without the council’s request.

That makes me a bit more cautious about the idea.

Another reason for caution is that the district councils which were so unhappy with ECan before are much happier with the improvements since Alec Neill became chair. That gives me more confidence that ECan may be able to come up to scratch without the need for a commissioner.

But whether or not a commissioner is appointed the need for action from ECan is urgent.

The last water consent for water takes from the Waitaki River was North Otago Irrigation Company’s in 2002.

There are now around 40 applications to take water languishing in the system. That includes applications to renew existing consents among which are farmers with businesses built on irrigation who are in limbo until their consents are renewed.

This sort of delay in processing consents is unacceptable.

Whether or not a commissioner is appointed I have concerns that the size and population make-up of ECan is part of the problem.

The population base is in Christchurch and while people there ought to be concerned about their air and water quality I can understand that they might not even think about the Waitaki River about three hours south of the city. 

Yet that river is vitally important for the country because it generates about half our hydro power. The river and its lakes also provide recreational opportunities for tourists, boaties and fishers.

It’s also important for farming because it provides water for around 70,000 of irrigation.

But many of us who live just a few kilometres away from the river are in the Otago Regional Council’s area not ECan’s and so have little or no influence on policies affecting it and us.

ECan has failed miserably in its responsibilities for water management in the region where it is of most importance. The report says:

The issue of freshwater management (both ground and surface water) is the single most significant issue facing the Canterbury Region.  The Review Group acknowledges that the scale of the issues being addressed in terms of water availability and quality in the Canterbury Region and the scale and nature of competing demands for that resource is significantly greater than that confronted by other regional councils throughout New Zealand. They are correspondingly of much greater significance to the nation’s well-being.

There are four major river catchments in the region but the Waitaki is the only one with an allocation plan and that was imposed on Ecan by central government when Project Aqua showed up the council’s shortcomings.

The creation of an entirely new specialist entity is, we believe, the only way that the Government can be certain that it has an institution capable of dealing with the complexities involved in resolving freshwater issues in the Canterbury Region. The Authority would assume responsibility for all of the functions of Environment Canterbury related to the management of freshwater in the Region.  This includes:

• Addressing the complexities involved in balancing the competing interests for the relevant resources.
• Producing relevant plans for the allocation and management of water resources and water quality within a timeframe to be specified in the legislation.
• Allocation, monitoring and enforcement of consents relating to water.
• Addressing the water quality issues that are currently the responsibility of Environment Canterbury.

The Review Group also recommends that the council be replaced by a temporary Commission.

Both recommendations are wise.

All the territorial authorities in the Canterbury Region have been complaining about ECan for years, so too have many of the groups and individuals who’ve had to deal with them.

There has been a welcome improvement since Alec Neil took over as chair last year but the Review Group thinks the problems are too deep-seated to be solved by the existing council which is still divided.

The government has yet to consider the recommendations but I wonder if a complete reorganisation of local authorities in the region might result.

The city and district councils have been looking at a unitary authority. A supercity based round Christchurch and a provincial council further south, perhaps?

Some of them still are, but others are green and productive, thanks to irrigation.

Which looks better is a matter of opinion but I prefer the green and admire the increased productivity farmers are getting from it.

Some of the irrigated farmland which would have struggled to support a few sheep is now able to feed bulls. These bulls no doubt have the same sort of outputs as dairy cows, but there is a major difference between the Upper Clutha farms and the dairy operations proposed for the Mackenzie Basin and that’s scale.

The bulls grazing paddocks beside the Tarras-Luggate road number in the low 10s. The Mackenzie dairy proposals are for nearly 18,000 cows.

In announcing that he’s calling in the consents for these big operations, Environment Minister Nick Smith said that stock will produce effluent similar to the amount produced by a city of 250,000 people.

That’s an awful lot of waste and helps explains why Environment Canterbury received around 5,000 submissions on the applications for resource consent.

Some were about animal welfare which do not come under the Resource Management Act and I’d be very surprised if any of the concerns were valid. Keeping cattle indoors may not be the way we’re used to farming here but it doesn’t by itself constitute any welfare issues.

Some were about what irrigation and dairying would do to the views. That is entirely subjective, what some regard as beautiful productive paddocks, others will see as blots on the landscape.

Although, it’s not just about how the landscape looks but what’s happening to it. Those travelling through at 100 kilometres an hour don’t appreciate the environmental damage that unrelenting heat and wind can do.

In the January 2-8 Listener, Simon Williamson of Glenbrook Station, was asked about the cost to the landscape of irrigation. He replied:

“I don’t see how it detracts. A green foreground and brown hills. Before it would have been a brown foreground and a dust storm.” *

Many of the other submissions were on the potential threat to water quality and these  submitters are on stronger ground.

Housing the cows as is proposed in the applications allows the farms to have much more control on the dispersal of effluent than if the stock was grazing pasture. But systems are only as good as the people who operate them and can never be fool-proof.

Besides, whether inside or out, these cattle will produce a lot of effluent. The Minster’s appointees will have to be satisfied that there is no danger to water quality from it and that may be very difficult to guarantee.

It is the applicants’ land but their right to do what they will with it doesn’t extend to polluting our water.

* The Williamson quote isn’t online, but the rest of the feature from which it came, Mainland dust-up, is on line and well worth a read.

Update: Federated Farmers media release on the calling in is here.

The Government will need to act quickly if it is to follow ECan’s advice, with a decision on two call-ins needed by January 15 and a ruling on the third needed a week later.

Call-ins enable the Government to make a decision, bypassing the lengthy Environment Court process.

The applications have engendered a lot of interest – and more than 3,000 submissions, on the applications.

Many of them may be based on emotion rather than fact and many are based on animal welfare which does not come under the Resource Management Act.

But the content and quality of submissions is beside the point.

People have made submissions and while the consent process may be slow, it will give them an opportunity to have their say.

It is then up to the hearing panel to consider all views and make a judgement consistent with the RMA.

This application may have national implications. Is that a good reason for the government to call it in or is it just an excuse for ECan to pass on the work and let someone else deal with what will be a controversial decision?

Former Deputy Prime Minister Wyatt Creech, Doug Martin of MartinJenkins and Associates and independent consultant Greg Hill will look at ECan’s resource management performance.

Civil engineer Doug Lowe, consultant Julie Clausen and economist Alison Dalziel will look at the regional council’s governance, policy functions and relationships with other councils.

Two sets of rules and two sets of people to deal with adds to costs, delays and frustrations.

With some of its catchment coming under the Otago Regional Council and the rest under Environment Canterbury, the Waitaki District Council, and its residents, are able to compare the two authorities.

Time after time, they have more problems with ECan than with the ORC.

Difficulty dealing with ECan is not peculiar to the WDC. Other local authorities and ratepayers have also had problems and 10 mayors wrote to government with their criticisms.

Environment Minister Nick Smith and Local Government Minister Rodney Hide have ordered two inquiries into ECan. One under the Resource Management Act which will look at its resource consent performance. The other under the Local Government Act will look at governance and policy functions.

Newly elected chair Alec Neill has responded sensibly  to this:

“Since I was elected, I have made it very clear that the council will work constructively with both central government and local councils,” he said.

Asked by the Otago Daily Times if he agreed with the ministers’ comment about “poor performance”, Mr Neill said he wanted answers rather than deny the council may have problems.

He was not going to get into “slagging matches” with the ministers.

The Government had information regarding ECan’s performance with resource consents.

In the 2007-08 financial year it was ranked the worst of 84 local authorities by processing only 29% of consents on time.

Since then, it had made changes which had dramatically im-proved its performance.

“I’m not in denial. There have been areas which have been unsatisfactory. If there remain areas which are unsatisfactory, I’m anxious for those to be addressed,” he said.

Regional Councils have wide ranging powers. Any problems they have internally or in dealings with other local authorities and the public add to costs and frustrations.

Mr Neill has met all mayors in the region since his election and there is more confidence that relationships between ECan and other councils will improve.

Regional Councils are supposed to be putting their energies into ensuring soil, air and water are protected, not wasting their time and our money on politics as has been happening. These reviews will help get Ecan’s focus back where it ought to be.

A farmer sent the regional council a letter.

The reply came with an account for $20.82.

When she queried this she was told, that’s what ECan is now charging for letters it sends.

The rebellion was led by South Canterbury councillor Mark Oldfield.

The loss has set up a showdown vote on September 24 when councillors will consider removing Sir Kerry as chairman and, if that is resolved, they will have to elect a new chairman.

It’s been a long time coming.

Problems with his leadership have been fomenting for years, aggravated by a rural urban divide which often resulted in seven councillors on each side of a debate.

The result of the 2008 local body elections led to an impasse when an even number of councillors supported the two candidates for chair – Sir Kerry and Alec Neil. That was settled when Mackenzie councillor Bronwen Murray supported Sir Kerry, even though she had said she would not when seeking election.

Problems have not been confined to those round the council table. Ecan is deeply unpopular with people rural people, especially those south of Christchurch where it’s popularly known as ECan’t.

Relationships between Ecan and  district councils in the region are fraught. They have deteriorated so far that the district councils are investigating the possibility of ceding from ECan and forming a unitary authority.

The Waitaki District is divided between the Otago Regional Council and Ecan. The Waitaki District Council and residents regularly complain that it is much more difficult to deal with Ecan than the ORC.

Complaints about  Ecan gained credence when it was found to be the worst performing of all councils in the Ministry for the Environment’s biennial Resource Management Act survey.

Problems run deep among councillors, staff and the people they are supposed to serve. A new chair may help relationships but it will be difficult to solve the underlying problem of a council split by political affiliations and dominated by Christchurch, a large urban area which appears to have no understanding of, or sympathy for, the needs of the rural hinterland.

The Press backgrounded some of the issues here.

The Rakaia Selwyn Consent Review covers 620 existing consents of all sizes, we are one of the smallest consents with only 10ha and a consent of 5 l/s, many of our neighbours are huge farming corporations, unfortunately eCan is insisting we all jump through the same hoops some of which are very expensive, no consent holders will gain anything from this review and most will loose a great deal of their current annual allocation.

It should be noted with alarm that whatever the results of this review it WILL be inflicted on all other consents throughout the eCan’t region in the coming years and other district authorities will use the same results in their areas, this is a National problem.

The next step we face is to have our case presented to a set of commissioners to decide on each consent, the full cost of this falls on the consent holder and is very expensive per minute. Pay up or shut up is the clear message from eCan’t.

What eCan wants is to inflict a water use restriction based on their WQN9 usage plan which results in around 50-60% of the water that is needed to grow large deciduous trees or grass! The figures vary depending on where you are situated.

There is a newly available alternative to WQN9 available from Aqualink and Irrigation New Zealand that is much more realistic and closely matches the results we are seeing in our orchard, I can work these figures for people or burn the CDs or DVDs if requested via   walnut (at) mermadale (dot) com

For our orchard WQN9 offers 56,000 cubic metres per season whereas the Aqualink model offers 90,000 cubic meters both are based on intensive pasture with 80% efficient irrigation, my research indicates that Walnuts need 1.1 times this figure. You can see from these figures that we will struggle to grow good Walnuts, if any, using the WQN9 figures if the Aqualink figures are correct.

The Aqualink figures have been internationally pier reviewed so should be scientifically acceptable, time will tell if eCan can live with these figures which looks doubtful at the moment.

I would welcome any irrigation or evaporation figures from other walnut orchards world wide, please get in touch by email or post a response to this discussion. The more evidence we have the greater the chance of obtaining a realistic consent.

The future of our industry depends on getting these figures right please lobby your MPs and region counsellors to let them know that WQN9 could be the death of tree crops in New Zealand.

As a minimum I strongly suggest that you join Irrigation New Zealand, they are a strong voice and do listen to all their members and are acting to change eCan on the issue of WQN9.