This has been the Green Party’s modus operandi for transport for as long as I can remember, and it was encouraging to hear a visiting expert advocate for this sort of future forward planning specifically for Christchurch. We could be the best practice model for New Zealand and enjoy the many economic, health and community benefits that a multi-modal transport system would create.

As my colleague Julie Genter has pointed out, spending money on improved walking, cycling and public transport infrastructure is far more cost-effective than putting more money into highways.

Mr Litman gave the example of supporting local businesses. Suppose you could walk to your local shops, to more of the services and activities you wanted to access, instead of needing to drive a car – you wouldn’t need to spend as much on petrol (supporting foreign oil companies) and would instead have extra funds that could be spent on supporting local businesses (in Todd’s case, supporting micro-breweries).

A community where people walk and cycle more will be a healthier community. Todd  Litman asked the Christchurch audience an interesting question, “who here, as children, were chauffeured to school by your parents?”  I didn’t see any hands raised, though there could have been 1 or 2. He then asked, “and who here, is now driving their children to school?”,  a large section of the audience raised their hands.  Todd continued “but do children nowadays not have the same number of legs that their parents had?”. He made a very good point, especially given the National Government’s destructive proposals for Christchurch school closures and mergers.

Education Minister Hekia Parata’s agenda for Christchurch will result in fewer schools, and those left will be super-sized.  More students will have to go by car or bus rather than being close enough to walk, scooter or bike to.  We know we have a growing obesity problem in New Zealand. We need to allow the same healthy start for today’s students that many of us enjoyed by having local neighbourhood schools that kids (and parents) can walk to.

New Brighton mural by the Suffra-jests

Multi-modal transport design also promotes community cohesion.   Todd Litman said that in Victoria B.C, walkability is the city’s most valuable asset.  It is an easy city for tourists to explore, and for  locals greater foot traffic encourages more social interactions. People say hello when they walk which they can’t in a car. This promotes community cohesion, security, and ultimately more liveable communities.

We could have all this in Christchurch. We have the perfect conditions for it, a very flat city (easy for cycling and walking) that is in the process of being redesigned. A Green transport plan for Christchurch would focus on multi-modal transport design that is inclusive, safe and accessible.

I attended a presentation by newly established Transparent Hawke’s Bay at the start of the council meeting.  In the 10 minutes they were allowed, Pauline Elliott, Tom Belford and John Cheyne called on regional council to hit the ‘pause’ button on the Ruataniwha project for at least six months. This is to allow due diligence on behalf of the community, and an independent assessment of the environmental and financial assumptions HBRC is using to push the dam.

Transparent Hawke’s Bay’s call is sensible given the huge risks the Ruataniwha scheme represents to rivers, water quality and ratepayers. Cost estimates have ballooned well past $250 million, with the regional council proposing to borrow heavily to fund its $80 million for the scheme.

Ngati Kahungunu, Hawke’s Bay Fish and Game, and Friends of the Tukituki have made similar calls for a pause to HBRC’s headlong rush to lodge resource consent applications for the scheme.

With Council having spent more than $8 million on the scheme to date (with $3 million of this coming from the Ministry of Primary Industries) engineering and consultants doing project reports have been the scheme’s major beneficiaries.

Directors of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company (HBRIC), the council-controlled organisation tasked with advancing the dam, also have their hands out. At last week’s council meeting they asked for a big increase in their director fees.

As  Bay Buzz’s Tom Belford reports HBRIC chair Dr Andy Pearce asked for a $44,125 increase in his fees to $65,625 per annum and raises of $22,500 each (to $37,500 each per annum) for fellow directors Jim Scotland and Sam Robinson, as well as fees for three expert ‘committee members’.  The fact that Council’s chief financial officer, whose electronic signature was on the council agenda paper requesting the increase, had neither read nor signed the paper, prompted questions from councillors and meant no decision was made.

Transparent Hawke’s Bay has recently asked the Auditor- General to review  the lack of information provided to ratepayers before HBRC signed off its long term plan last year, with its major funding commitments for the Ruataniwha scheme.

The Kaipara community is grappling council debts of around $50 million after decisions by its council breached the requirements of the Local Government Act.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council may be on a similar path. A thorough investigation by the Office of the Auditor-General would be timely.

Kathleen and Brian Reid applied for a marine reserve at the Dan Rogers site close to the entrance of Akaroa Harbour more than 17 years ago, in December 1995. Despite many obstacles they kept their vision alive to protect the dramatic sea cave, underwater cliffs and harbour waters and have finally seen the Minister of Conservation agree.

Along the way Kathleen and Brian have politely overcome opposition from recreational fishers, kept the project alive through a Maori Land Court process, and took a High Court case to successfully challenge former Conservation Minister, Kate Wilkinson’s decision to decline the reserve application.  Others would have been daunted. They kept going and everyone who cares about the marine conservation has much to thank them for.

The reserve will protect the sea cave and underwater bluffs which are a legacy of the harbour’s volcanic history. On the surface the waves drag at giant kelp, Hector’s dolphin can delight visitors by riding the bow waves of vessels and New Zealand fur seals can haul out on rock platforms in the area.  Underwater, there are huge room sized boulders at the base of the sea with rocks encrusted with a colourful mosaic of coralline algae, sponges, sea tulips, hydroids and sea squirts.

Around 10 % of Akaroa harbour will be protected by the reserve. It will complement the Akaroa Harbour taiapure established in 2006 over nearly 90% of the harbour to enable Maori customary use and management. In 2005 a decision by the Māori Land Court meant that the reserve site was excluded from the taiapure.

Marine reserves have been established beside taiapure elsewhere, such as Horoirangi near Nelson. It might not be the optimal solution and we need to look at better ways to provide for both Māori and Pākehā marine management in an integrated way.

The reserve site is already popular with tourism operators. Its protection will consolidate Akaroa’s reputation as a nature tourism destination where visitors can go sea kayaking, swim with dolphins and take wildlife tours to see Hector’s dolphin, spotted shags and white flippered penguin.

Dan Rogers reserve is only the second marine reserve on the South Island’s east coast. At  475 ha, neither it nor the nearby 250 ha Pohatu marine reserve on Banks Peninsula are large. The fact that it has taken 17 years to establish shows we need to do much better for marine conservation.  With Dan Rogers,  New Zealand only has 35 marine reserves.  There were no new marine reserves gazetted in 2009/10 and 2010/11 and only one in 2011/12.

We need more collaborative marine protection forums such as those which developed marine protection options for the Sub-Antarctic Islands and the South Island’s West Coast. And we urgently need new marine reserves legislation which encourages marine protection for a broader range of reasons than just scientific study.

Nearly every study on water quality shows that land use intensification leads to water pollution. Yet the Government removed the provision in the National Policy Statement on Freshwater that would have required a resource consent for land use intensification.

This means that a lot more land use intensification is going to happen with no check on its impacts, and our waterways will get worse.

The frustrating thing, is that eventually we will decide that we have  intensified our land too much, that we have too many dairy cows and use too much water and fertiliser and that we need to cut back in order to have the clean rivers that New Zealanders want and deserve.

At that time, people who are converted their land to dairying will want to be bought out. And we won’t have enough money to pay them all out.

Right now, farmers are converting to dairying in areas in which we already have too much pollution. They are converting in areas such as the Mackenzie Basin which aren’t suited to dairying because of its low rainfall, high water quality and the native grasses and shrublands which will be destroyed  to farm cows.

1000 cow dairy farms are being established in drought prone areas with light stony soils where large amounts of artificial fertiliser and water from our rivers have to applied to just grow grass.  Right now people are allowed to choose a livelihood that later we will later say is unsustainable.

It is not all the farmers’  fault. It is  the Government’s for not recognising that there are limits to how much pollution our soil and waterways can absorb. It is banks for being blinkered to the environmental and financial risks of such capital intensive farming  and unsustainable debt levels it creates.  New dairy farmers with massive debt seek to maximise milk production to service their debt, often at the environment’s expense.

The Government is on the one hand paying for pollution clean-up, while on the other hand making the water pollution problem worse.

It’s not okay.

Trustpower’s Matahina Dam on the Rangitaiki River.

TrustPower has a resource consent to operate the dam to hold water in Lake Matahina when demand for power is low, and to let it through to generate power during peak demand. TrustPower is allowed to let the river levels below the dam drop to 40 cumecs which is already pretty low.

In 2009 TrustPower applied to renew its consent, and wanted to halve the minimum flow from 40 cumecs to 20. These lower flows would have drastic effects on the river’s health and  mauri, its ecology and people’s enjoyment of the river for fishing, boating and whitebaiting. And there would be less water to dilute the discharges from Fonterra’s Eltham dairy factory. There has been strong and unified opposition to the company’s proposal from iwi, recreationalists and farmers.  It seems nobody wants the river lowered except TrustPower.

The Bay of Plenty Regional Council listened to the community’s concerns. While it agreed to TrustPower’s application to operate the dam for a further 35 years, it ruled that the minimum flows should remain at 40 cumecs.  Showing an astonishing disregard for public views and the health of the Rangitaiki TrustPower appealed the Council’s decision.

Locals say TrustPower’s rapid changes to the amount of water it releases through the Matahina Dam help cause serious riverbank erosion.

If Trustpower can be persuaded to see reason, rather than wanting more profit at the river’s expense, the health of the Rangitaiki could improve. The recently formed Rangitaiki River Forum is tasked with preparing a plan for the river and it wants to improve Murupara’s sewage treatment for example. Forum members represent Ngati Whare, Ngati Manawa, Ngati Awa and Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau and the regional and district councils.

A low flow trial in December 2009. Flows were reduced to 26 cumecs, not as low as Trustpower wants.

With a gentle gradient and few rapids the Rangitaiki is an easy river to paddle below the dam with river vistas of pine trees, farmland with some native forest and many sites important to iwi.

On my trip I met many great river users on my day on the Rangitaiki and the community came out to celebrate the river together in Te Teko for a shared lunch afterwards. This is clearly a community which feels very strongly about their precious awa and they are prepared to stand up and fight for it in the Environment Court. They deserve our support for a positive outcome, for the river and the people.

A fence would be good here.

Mouth of the Rangitaiki

He captured perfectly the disconnect between what this Government is doing and what New Zealanders actually want.

The National Government’s chipping, or hacking, away at our environmental laws, our conservation staff, and our local democracy is a disaster for our environment and our economy.

I also gave a presentation at this event which you can watch here.

The Bill seeks to remove blanket tree protection rules from Auckland and other city and district plans. This has attracted many submissions. The Government thought it had done this with the 2009 changes to the RMA but fortunately the Environment Court decided otherwise.

Image: Rodney_F (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Auckland Council sought a declaration from the Environment Court to test what the law change meant. In a comprehensive decision released in May 2011, the Environment Court ruled that trees in managed natural areas within the city’s urban limits such as Titirangi in the Waitakere Ranges were “a group of trees” and were therefore protected under the plan rules.

So National, egged on by ACT, is trying again with the 2012 RMA Bill which appears intended to override the Environment Court decision.  If the Bill becomes law it would mean that there would be no planning controls on people felling urban trees unless each individual tree was specifically identified in a schedule in the relevant council plan.

Under the Bill it would no longer be enough for councils to identify trees of a particular species in a defined area; or trees with defined characteristics such as being over 5 metres high or for a resource consent to be needed to fell or damage then.

This permissive approach is incredibly short sighted. Urban trees are the lungs of our cities and towns. Trees provide oxygen, and filter and absorb pollution. They increase our wellbeing in so many ways – where better to escape the sun on a hot day than in the shade of a large, leafy tree; or as a child to stretch, move and test oneself?

Urban trees help regulate temperature and reduce the heat island effect created by large buildings and expanses of concrete and asphalt. They add movement and green to the streetscape and make walking more pleasant. Urban trees provide a sense of place and permanence in a neighbourhood, they were here before us and may outlive us.  Their presence is a tribute to the foresight and care of previous inhabitants.   They help create a liveable city for us and for tui, blackbirds and a host of plants and wildlife.

Trees protect the land, hold together banks and cliffs and reduce soil erosion. Think of the strong, twisted roots of pohutakawa which seem to defy gravity while their branches frame sea views. They soak up rain and reduce stormwater runoff.

In forward thinking cities such as Melbourne, the Council is developing an Urban Forest Strategy to increase tree cover in the city. That’s light years ahead of National and ACT’s narrow world view which puts individual property rights ahead of community wellbeing. I look forward to hearing submissions challenging that view from those who value our urban trees.

Good things take time.

The Government has called the RMA changes the largest shakeup of environmental legislation in a generation yet they are only allowing five weeks for the public to have a say on the proposals which will form the basis of the next bill to change the Act. And people are expected to comment at the same time on the changes to water management within four weeks.  As the chair of Southland Regional Council has said the water report says a lot about collaboration but the Government is not showing that spirit in the 20 working days it has allowed for submissions.

A member of the public who attended the first meeting in Dunedin emailed us to say,

“officials expressed their surprise at the turnout (est. 100 people) which exceeded their number of handouts; despite little advance notice of the meeting. All of the 20 or more questions from the public were critical of aspects of the proposed changes and showed the audience were well-informed and many were annoyed by the poor consultation process.”

If the Government was really interested in what all New Zealanders have to say it would make more effort with the consultation, give people more time, and do it properly.

EDS described the proposals as “deeply troubling” and potentially lowering environmental standards in New Zealand. So shortly after releasing a discussion document, Environment Minister Amy Adams moved to shut down debate by labelling anyone critical of the changes as “out of touch” and “scaremongers.”

The Green Party expects such accusations from a Minister in a Government which fails to recognises that a sustainable well-functioning economy requires sound environmental management.  But it was a very cheap shot by the Minister to attack respected environmental organisations such as the Environmental Defence Society (EDS) and Forest and Bird.

EDS has published a suite of thoughtful reports on topical environmental issues. These analyse the operation and effectiveness of existing legislation and policy, draw on international experience, and recommend constructive improvements. EDS is well ahead of Government agencies such as the Ministry for the Environment and Primary Industry, with its thinking and policy work around oceans management, marine mammal protection, marine reserves and landscape management for example.

Between them EDS and Forest and Bird have published various RMA guides  and run numerous seminars to improve public understanding of the Act and give community organisations and individuals more skills to get involved to protect the neighbourhoods and places they love.

The Department of Conservation’s retreat from advocacy under the RMA, in the face of budget cuts and its ” Conservation for Prosperity” strapline has left Fish and Game and environmental NGOs such as EDS and  Forest and Bird providing a thin green line against high impact and poorly conceived development.

They are having to do work that DoC should do but isn’t.   EDS is appealing the EPA’s decision to allow salmon farming in areas where the Marlborough Sounds Plan prohibits it, and Forest and Bird is going to court to protect the unique coal measure ecosystems of the Denniston Plateau for example.

These organisations know firsthand how the RMA operates and its strengths and flaws. Their analysis deserves attention, not attacks from the Minister.

Unless of course the Minister’s comments and the very short (four week) consultation period signal that the discussion document and the MFE roadshow are a cynical exercise in going through the motions of public “consultation”.

The Minister must engage constructively with the public response to the discussion document and not ignore feedback and steam ahead regardless.

Further negotiations with a CERA staffer but the answer was still “NO” for the group to access the Square.

The Government’s Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) decides who can get access beyond the Army guards and security fence. CERA allows chaperoned Red Zone bus tours which include the Square and a portable pie cart.  It allows car parking but not free speech.

Yesterday CERA CEO Roger Sutton withdrew permission for myself and Green MP Mojo Mathers, Labour MP Ruth Dyson and 10 members of Canterbury’s OurWaterOurVote to visit a cairn of riverstones in the Square.

We had finalised the meeting point and time with CERA. We were liaising over the number of hard hats and high vis vests required when Mr Sutton rang to say the permission was withdrawn unless his Minister, Gerry Brownlee agreed.

Our access the Square was cancelled once CERA learnt that we wanted to lay a wreath on the cairn to commemorate the ineptly titled Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2012 becoming law this week. The Act removes Cantabrians’ right to vote and elect regional councillors to represent them for another three years.

The cairn is on public land in the Square owned by Christchurch City Council. But CERA’s sweeping powers means it can decide what happens in this most symbolic of public spaces. CERA allows and facilitates VIP and tourist bus tours to the Square but it disallows any criticism of Government policy which media may cover.

The Cairn – in the distance.

Thousands of people helped  build the cairn in 2010 after Government passed the original ECan Act which dismissed regional councillors and weakened water conservation orders as they apply to Canterbury rivers and lakes.

The cairn has survived more than11,500 earthquakes. It is potent and silent symbol of the power of the people and public unease about our loss of democracy and mismanagement of our rivers and aquifers.

Open spaces or subdivisions?

We know New Zealanders want our neighbourhoods and wild places protected from unwise development, just as respected organisations such as EDS and Forest and Bird do. The Government doesn’t seem to agree. It has given you the opportunity to tell them they are wrong. That you want to be able to stand up for the places that you hold dear.

What the Government wants to do to the RMA is not okay. National’s proposals include:

-       weakening the core environmental protection principles at the heart of Act and its sustainable management purpose. This would make it harder to stop environmentally destructive projects;

-       increasing the ability of Ministers to interfere and direct councils to changes their regional and district plans. More decisions will be made in the Beehive, instead of in local communities.

-       allowing Ministers to push through projects and ignore environmental impacts if they want to;

-       allowing certain types of resource consents (mining perhaps?) to not be publicly notified so there is no chance for the public to say and decisions are made in secret.

-       severely curtailing the role of the Environment Court

-       limiting public involvement in resource consent decisions to reduce the costs to property developers, miners and others.

The Minister is right when she says that “and it is now time for the Government to step-up[.]” But instead of stepping up to help developers how about the Environment Minister standing up for the environment instead of further weakening the RMA ?

The Government is only allowing a very short time until 2 April to comment on the proposals. The Ministry for the Environment’s schedule of public meetings is here. Remind the Government that we want to be able to protect the places we love by making a submission or speaking out at a meeting.

Bill Kerrison, Mr Tuna

New Zealand’s longfin eels are one of the world’s largest eel species. They have swum up our rivers for around 23 million years. As a species they are more ancient than humans. Yet in just a few centuries our careless destruction of their habitat and overfishing means that longfin eels they are now threatened with extinction.

Eels have an extraordinary lifecycle which hydro dams completely disrupt.  Bill has saved mature eels from being killed as they are pushed against the steel gratings of a dam’s water intake as they try to migrate downstream to make the long journey to near Tonga to spawn. He has transported young elvers upstream after they have drifted as larvae across the ocean, escaped predators while tiny glass eels in our estuaries only to find their journey upstream barred by the huge rock and concrete structure of dam walls.

Bill’s parents had a small commercial fishing boat in the Hauraki Gulf and Bill grew up on the boat.  He describes at age 15 being fascinated by seeing huge eels flicking around the piles of the Thames wharf when they tied up to unload.

Trustpower’s Matahina Dam on the Rangitaiki River.

Sixty seven per cent of our indigenous fish species are classified as threatened or at risk of extinction, including longfin eel which have a threat ranking of “declining.” Bill Kerrison still finds many young elvers  at his catch and transfer sites but very few large eels.  Eels only breed once in their life.  If the number of longfins declines further, and too few eels are able to migrate to Tonga to spawn successfully, the population could plummet to extinction.

Bill has spent decades doing all he can to save eels and inspire others. His and wife Ruby’s modest home on a hilltop near Galatea in the Bay of Plenty is a mecca for freshwater ecology students and eel lovers.  They have recently located two houses to build a lodge to house visiting students and eel researchers from Auckland ‘s AUT and elsewhere.

Arizona based artist Stephanie Bowman is also passionate about eels. Since June 2011  her social art project “Velvet” the Travelling Tuna Tapestry has inspired schools and community organisations to learn about and seek to protect longfin eel. People around the country have added new panels to the tapestry making “Velvet” longer and longer. “Velvet” is now hanging in the Bush City Kiosk at Te Papa before coming to Parliament on Tuesday 19 March when the petition to save longfin will be presented. You can sign the petition here.

Bill’s and Stephanie’s efforts on behalf of tuna are inspiring. To improve the outlook for longfin we need to protect our remaining wild rivers so eels have free passage to and from the sea to migrate, spawn, avoid any new hydro dams in rivers where eel are found, clean up our rivers, especially our lowland rivers, and end commercial eel fishing.

The commercial catch for eels was 418  tonnes  last year. That’s too high given the declining population and when some eels appallingly end up as pet food.

Last year National made major changes to the Local Government Act so that the purpose of local government was no longer the promotion of the community’s social, economic, environmental   and cultural wellbeing but the provision of cost effective infrastructure, services and regulation.

Now Sports Minister Murray McCully proposes to offload the financially troubled Eden Park onto Auckland Council  with the risk of ratepayer bailouts being needed.

In Christchurch Minister Brownlee and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority  are pushing an extravagant covered 35,000 seat stadium  on citizens as part of the Christchurch rebuild.

There are much higher priorities for council funds (such as the many yet to be repaired community halls, swimming polls and other facilities. The city already has a perfectly adequate “temporary” rugby stadium in Addington which is not always filled, even for Crusaders matches.   A new uncovered 35,000 seat stadium would cost a jaw dropping $220 million and a covered one even more.

Ministers McCully and Brownlee obviously have a much broader interpretation of what is a core council service than Dr Nick Smith.  The Eden Park offload highlights the irrational and ideologically driven nature of National’s changes to local government  legislation.

Councils are accountable to citizens who elect them. Instead of meddling in local government and directing what projects and services councils should provide, National should let councils make their own decisions. Those decisions should focus on providing the services that communities need:  from  drinking water to social housing  to libraries and effective public transport.   As Dunedin City Council has found to its cost , a stadium can be an expensive luxury.

Councils can currently afford the infrastructure costs associated with new subdivisions and other land developments by charging what is called a “development contribution”. This helps pays for infrastructure and essential services such as new roading, street lighting, running water and the extension or upgrading of sewage and stormwater systems.

Development contributions currently make up about 4% of the total cost of building a new house in Auckland.  Capping them and removing planning controls which establish urban limits in order to facilitate more greenfield subdivision is not the solution to housing affordability  that the Government claims.

If councils cannot recover from land developers the real costs of bringing essential infrastructure and services to new homes and commercial developments, then those costs would have to be met by increased rates, reduced maintenance, or cuts to other council services and budgets.

Once again National is interfering with local government’s ability to set their budgets and manage the services they provide with no decent justification. It is favouring one sector, property developers, at the expense of the wider community and their wellbeing.

The Government is accepting submissions until 15 March 2013. Find more information here http://www.dia.govt.nz/better-local-government.

Sign at the Waitara River mouth.

In 2007 Taranaki’s Waitara River ranked dead last on the Ministry for the Environment recreational river water quality league table. ). It came in 73rd out of 77 in NIWA’s league tables published in 2010. Both times elevated levels of E. Coli were the main cause of the low ranking.

So the Waitara was an obvious candidate for our Dirty Water Tour, highlighting community initiatives to clean up our rivers, lakes and estuaries. Paddling such a dirty river, however, was not an altogether attractive prospect. The hot sunny day and a very warm welcome from Cathy, Emily, Robbie, Margaret and other members and supporters of Friends of Waitara changed that.

The Methanex Plant looms above the Waitara River.

Despite the looming chimneys of the Methanex plant on its south bank the Waitara is a beautiful river with recent plantings of flax, coprosmas and other natives and the tide enhancing the flow in the lower reaches.

The flotilla included a beautiful waka ama.

On a hot summer’s day, what better place to cool off than the local river ? As our flotilla of waka ama and kayak paddled downstream, we saw others enjoying the water.  They included two rowing skiffs with coaches calling instructions to their student crews, a couple on paddleboards, water skiers, two sea kayakers, swimmers and a dozen or more kids doing spectacular leaps from the main road bridge, oblivious to the elevated e-coli levels. I hope no one went home sick. If the river were cleaner, then more people would swim.

River dare-devils. Would you swim in this?

Riverbank stones exposed by the low summer flows had a thick silty crust. Tonnes of soil have washed from the land into the river, smothering aquatic habitat. Despite Taranaki Regional Council’s (TRC) progressive riparian planting scheme, many more kilometres need to be planted to buffer the river.

River stones crusted with silt. Soil belongs on the land not in rivers.

It has been a long and hard battle to improve the health of the Waitara and the adjacent coast. There are no longer cases of typhoid and dysentery associated with poor sewage treatment as there were in the late 1960s. The former CWS meatworks in Waitara is now a smallgoods factory. The river no longer runs red with offal and freezing works waste. But intensive dairying in recent decades has substantially increased the nutrient and pollution load.

Waitara resident, Trevor Dodunski says, “As a child I used to be able to drink the water in our streams. The streams coming off the mountain [Taranaki] are no longer crystal clear. You used to be able to see the rocks at the bottom of pools 6-8 feet deep. You can’t now. We used to get so much of our food from the river and the land. You used to be able to find eels, trout and cockabullies in abundance. You can’t now. The state of our rivers today is a disgrace

Sewage from Waitara township and industrial discharges (from the Motunui and the Methanex plants) from an ocean outfall still foul Te Atiawa’s famous offshore reefs and the ability to gather kai there, even if TRC claims otherwise. Locals say surfers suffer from infected sores and cuts.

Waitara resident, Trevor Dodunski, “The streams coming off the mountain [Taranaki] are no longer crystal clear.

Waitara River with Mt Taranaki in the background.

Friends of Waitara got the resource consent conditions improved in the recent resource consent hearings. Appallingly TRC is charging them $12,000 towards the cost of external hearing commissioners. I have written to TRC asking the council to waive the charge. With the district council operating the outfall, councillors should not be deciding the resource consent to operate it.

Fishing at the Waitara Mouth.

Friends of Waitara are working hard to improve the river’s health and community’s enjoyment of the river. As part of the paddle I was pleased to “open” new two comfortable wooden seats on a riverbank reserve. Taranaki Regional Council said the seats would cost $6000. Gifting their time, Friends built them for around $700. They make a lovely place to contemplate the river but those who care for the river will not spend long resting there.

Friends and supporters of Friends of Waitara and one of the two riverbank seats they built.

This January alone there have been more than 20 such warnings. The one that takes the cake however is the high bacteria count in Marlborough’s Taylor River forcing an annual raft race to take place on dry land, along the riverbank.

Here are some results of a quick search:

Hawkes Bay, Tukituki; Wellington, Waipoua; Wellington, Ruamahanga; Wellington, Hutt River; Wellington, Henley Lake; Canterbury, Lake Ellesmere; Canterbury, Selwyn River; Canterbury, Ashley River; Canterbury, Opihi River; Canterbury, Pareora River; Nelson, Matakitaki River; Nelson, Mangles River; Nelson, Matiri River; Nelson, Buller River; Manawatu, Oroua; Manawatu, Tokomaru; Manawatu, Mowhanau Stream; Manawatu, Kaikokopu Stream (Print version only); Manawatu, Waikawa Estuary (Print version only); Otago, Lake Waihola; Southland, Aparima River; Southland, Waikaia River; Southland Mataura River.

We shouldn’t have to worry about whether we are going to get sick if we go swimming in our lakes, rivers and estuaries.

We need clean water rules through a stronger National Policy Statement and national environmental standards. When it’s hot we want to be able to head down to the river for a swim just as we did when we were young.

Promoters claim that the Department of Conservation (DoC) will soon decide whether Milford Dart Ltd’s application for a proposed 11.3km private bus tunnel from the Glenorchy end of the Routeburn track to the Hollyford Valley near Te Anau goes ahead.

Our six minute film “National Park or National disgrace” is a reminder  of why the tunnel proposal is a lose-lose for our national parks, our clean, green reputation, tourism businesses and the Glenorchy and Te Anau communities.

If you haven’t done so already, please write to Prime Minister John Key (j.key@ministers.govt.nz) and DoC Director-General Al Morrison (amorrison@doc.govt.nz) with your reasons why the tunnel should not go ahead.

Please share the film and the need to write.

Community organisations Stop the Tunnel and Save Fiordland have extensive information on the issue.

Increasing tourism revenue is about slowing visitors down so they stay longer and spend more. Air New Zealand understands this and is promoting the “stunning natural surroundings” of Great Walks such as the Routeburn Track in its inflight magazine and on its website.  National needs to get it, too.

Former Conservation Minister Kate Wilkinson was keen to avoid dirtying her hands with an unpopular decision on the Routeburn Track tunnel. She off-loaded decision-making responsibility onto DoC officials.

This is despite the tunnel proposal and its large waste rock dump affecting two National Parks (Fiordland and Mt Aspiring), one of our three World Heritage sites and being contrary to National Park management plans and policies. These statutory documents were prepared with considerable public input and signed off by the local conservation boards, the New Zealand Conservation Authority and the Minister.

The tunnel’s impact on a world famous Great Walk and internationally significant public protected lands mean the Minister, not a second tier DoC official, should decide the outcome.

As Minister of Local Government, Dr Nick Smith was an enthusiastic interventionist – axing an elected regional council to promote irrigation development in Canterbury and drafting legislation to significantly increase Ministerial powers to direct and interfere with local councils.

As the “new” (recycled) Minister of Conservation, Nick Smith needs to intervene for conservation rather than development, to save the Routeburn and Hollyford valleys and our national parks from such a large and destructive private commercial project.

Government Ministers, not officials, made the decision to save Lake Manapouri in the 1970s. If the Minister is not prepared to stand up for the public interest in our National Parks and reject the Routeburn tunnel, what is the point of having a Minister ?

Please write and ask the Prime Minister and Director-General to say NO to the Routeburn tunnel.

Mangroves on the Matakana

The Matakana River and estuary, the proposed marina at Sandspit and nearby Whangateau Harbour were the focus of this Dirty Water Tour.

Improving water quality in the river requires a significant upgrade of the existing Matakana sewerage system which is at capacity. It collects primary treated wastewater from septic tanks and filters it through a wetland before discharging poor quality wastewater into the river 300 metres downstream of the wharf. High levels of stormwater infiltration during wet weather can lead to discharges which exceed the consented volumes.

Auckland Council’s plans to “solve” Matakana sewage problems by piping wastewater to the existing Jones Road treatment plant near Omaha risk increasing the nutrient loading on nearby Whangateau Harbour.

Whangateau Harbour is the most natural mainland estuary in the Auckland region. A nationally important scientific reserve with regenerating kahikatea forest and saltmarsh wetlands fringes part of the harbour’s southern arm.  It is increasingly popular for snorkelling, and has some of the best cockle beds in the Auckland region. The cockles help sustain an array of wading and shorebirds and fish and their ability to filter impressive amounts of seawater each day is a major reason for the harbour’s clear water.

Whangateau has been closed to cockle takes since 2009 when there was a mass die off in the shellfish. The annual cockle survey organised by Whangateau Harbourcare suggests the beds are gradually recovering.

Roger Grace sampling cockles on the Whangateau Harbour

I was lucky enough have living legend, marine biologist Dr Roger Grace as a guide. It was fascinating  exploring the sandflats at low tide with Roger pointing out the sandy depressions where eagle rays had fed and explaining how they siphon up seawater and use it like a high pressure water drill to expose shellfish.

Safeguarding Whangateau’s existing high water quality should be a priority. Adding Matakana’s sewage to the Omaha plant and irrigating the sandy Omaha golf course with more treated effluent risks significant nutrient leaching into the harbour. As part of its 10 point plan Whangateu Harbourcare instead proposes that wastewater be treated in the catchment where it is generated. Less “convenient” in the short term  but more sustainable in the long term.

Our Matakana flotilla included the memorable Wendy House on a pontoon boat. It has a mooring in the estuary and at high tide it rests on the mudflats. Al, one of our trip participants, who designs and builds these modular boats, is no fan of the proposed Matakana marina which I have written about previously.

Wendy’s pontoon boat

Estuaries are prone to sedimentation. With the Matakana and Glen Eden rivers meeting the sea at Sandspit, a marina here risks burdening ratepayers and residents with a disfigured estuary and the costs of dredging and maintenance. The stories of other marinas at estuarine sites, such as Westpark and Milford Marinas, have been ones of bankruptcy (in the case of Milford Marina on the North Shore) and high dredging costs.  The controversial Whangamata marina is now being dredged regularly with local councils and ratepayers expected to foot the bill.

Sedimentation on the estuary at Sandspit

In 2011, Michael Taplin wrote a paper entitled Marinas Private Asset-Public Liability which he presented to the Hauraki Gulf Forum. It contains some telling information about the ongoing cost of marina dredging to ratepayers. Dredging of the Westpark Marina in the Waitemata Harbour is reported to cost a whopping $800,000 per year (referenced within Michael’s paper).

Auckland Council needs to recognise the many values of the estuary at Sandspit and rethink the consent it has given for a poorly conceived development.

Many thanks to Roger, Frances, Mike, Al and others for a great day on the Matakana River and Whangateau Harbour and for their efforts to protect these special places as individuals, and as part of Whangateau Harbourcare, Forest and Bird and other groups.

The Resource Management (RM) Reform Bill is the National Government’s latest attack on the legislation which governs how we treat nature.  Earlier in 2012 we have had the Exclusive Economic Zone and Extended Continental Shelf Act – extending environmental protection out into the EEZ. Or it would if that was its purpose. Unfortunately it’s not. Regulations under the  EEZ Act may see  high risk offshore oil exploration being  a permitted  or controlled activity (where the EPA can’t say no but can only  impose conditions).

Then we had the Crown Minerals Bill 2012, which gives the Minster for Energy and Resources joint decision making power over applications to mine on conservation land. The Minister for Conservation remains in the loop but given this Government’s support for mining and willingness to put the interests of industry before conservation the Minister of Energy’s views will prevail.

And at the end of 2012 we have the  piecemeal and ad hoc RM Reform Bill. It has been introduced with no public discussion or consensus on what the aims of “reform” should be. It tilts the playing field further in favour of development.

The bill promotes speedy decisions by councils at the expense of good decisions and restricts access to the Environment Court, including on the Auckland Combined Plan.  National is attempting to silence opposition to its “dig it, drill it, mine it, irrigate it” agenda by making it harder for NGOs to advocate for the environment.

The Bill will also make it harder for councils to have plan policies and rules to control intensive land uses such as intensive agriculture to protect our lakes, rivers and groundwater. This is because of new criteria for s32 assessments under the Act which give great weight to the economic impacts in any cost benefit analysis. We should be working to clean up our waterways not making it more difficult for councils to introduce regulation.

The OAG report is evidence that councils are responding to their communities’ needs in a responsible manner. Its conclusions show up the eccentric and ideologically driven nature of National’s changes to the Local Government Act 2002 which Government pushed through Parliament recently.

Councils prepare long term plans every three years to outline their spending priorities over the next 10 years. These are audited by the Office of the Auditor General.  The OAG’s expectation is that, “local authorities should be planning for the delivery of important community services in prudent and sustainable ways.”

The OAG report is pretty positive about how councils are doing, saying that they are generally reducing or deferring spending and stabilising or reducing overall debt.  As the report notes:

“Overall, local authorities are planning to live within their means, and they are not raising rates to unreasonable levels to do this. They are planning to raise more debt during the next 10 years to fund capital expenditure. This capital expenditure is often associated with the need to upgrade systems to meet new standards (for example, for water quality and the development of public transport systems). However, many local authorities are also expecting to repay some or all of this debt during the 10-year period of the LTPs. Net income almost always stays positive, and local authorities stay well within the golden rule of fiscal policy that governments should borrow only to invest.

“Local authorities have a diverse range of circumstances and community requirements, each with its own demands. Local circumstances have led to arrangements that might appear unusual (for example, levels of debt). However, on closer examination, these arrangements are generally fit for purpose rather than imprudent.”

National’s changes to the Local Government Act 2002 removed the promotion of community social, environmental, economic and community wellbeing as one the two purposes of local government and replaced it with a much narrower purpose. This restricts councils’ ability to prioritise according to community needs. Former Minister Dr Nick Smith claimed councils’ poor spending decisions were driving up rates.   The OAG report underscores the flimsiness of National’s arguments.

We are now turning our focus to the next tranche of attacks on local government to be introduced next year.