Canterbury Council's Freshwater Management Challenged In Court
Article – RNZ
The first of two back-to-back court cases challenging the Canterbury regional council's freshwater management begins at the Christchurch High Court today., Senior reporter
The first of two back-to-back court cases challenging the Canterbury regional council's freshwater management begins at the Christchurch High Court today.
The Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) will ask the court to quash a rule in the regional plan which allows certain farming discharges as a permitted activity.
Senior researcher Anna Sintenie said ELI will argue the rule – which allows the discharge of nutrients onto or into land to be a permitted activity in some circumstances, but can result in contaminants entering water – breaches the Resource Management Act.
She said the council should be protecting the health of Canterbury's waterways and people for generations to come, but has instead been 'illegally permissive' of activities that have led to significant pollution.
The organisations will be back in the High Court the following week, as ELI seeks to have a consent for the Mayfield Hinds Valetta (MHV) irrigation scheme deemed unlawful.
In 2021, the council granted MHV Water Ltd a consent to discharge nitrogen over more than 58,000 hectares in the Hinds/Hekeao Plains.
Sintenie said the organisation is seeking a similar outcome as they won in 2024, when the court found the council had unlawfully granted a resource consent for the neighbouring Ashburton Lyndhurst Irrigation Ltd irrigation scheme (ALIL), and quashed the consent.
The regional council and ALIL have appealed the decision.
She said in the wake of the court's findings in the ALIL case – that the council's decision to grant the discharge consent breached the RMA, and that the council had failed to consider other relevant policies requiring it to avoid adverse effects on indigenous biodiversity and the 'natural character' of coastal and freshwater environment – ELI took another look at the council's water management and protection.
The group will also argue the council failed to consider the potential impacts on local drinking water supplies, and should have notified the community.
It was just down to the court's timetabling that the cases had been scheduled back to back, Sintinie said.
But it was no coincidence the organisation was scrutinising the Canterbury Regional Council's decison-making, consent management and protection of freshwater.
'We've had a focus on water quality outcomes in Canterbury because we can see there's a significant nitrogen pollution issue in the region.
'We believe in this context of significant pollution, there's a high responsibility on ECan [the regional council] to be sure it's properly managing these issues.'
The majority of the country's freshwater is located in Canterbury (about 70 percent), as is the bulk of the nation's irrigated land.
The council declined to comment while the cases were before the court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
6 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Environment Court case highlights wetland protection challenges in Northland
A recent Environment Court case in Northland has underscored the legal and ecological complexities of wetland protection. The case comes amid a national debate over wetland definitions as the Government pushes ahead with controversial changes to how wetlands are defined under the Resource Management Act.
Scoop
19 hours ago
- Scoop
Select Committee Announces Support Of Law Changes That Will Prevent Councils From Restricting Harmful Pollution Of Water
A select committee report released today demonstrates Coalition parties support law changes that would prevent local government from being able to control pollution even when it is causing serious harm, say freshwater campaigners. 'The damage these changes would cause must not be underestimated. This is not only an attack on the health of our environment but also democracy as the proposals seek to give greater power to polluting industries and write local government out of regulating harmful pollution of freshwater,' says Choose Clean Water spokesperson Tom Kay. 'It beggars belief when you consider that the National-led Government came to power claiming to be champions of localism - they've thrown that out the window completely.' For freshwater, two parts of the Environment Select Committee report are most significant; the proposals on Section 70 of the Resource Management Act and changes to farm plans, including more Ministerial control. Currently, Section 70 says that councils cannot allow pollution that would cause 'significant adverse effects on aquatic life' as a permitted activity. This means regional councils cannot allow for potentially polluting activities to happen without them going through a consenting process to assess whether they can avoid, remedy, or mitigate their impacts, even where an environment they want to operate in might already be polluted. The Coalition parties support doing away with this and allowing polluting activities to go ahead, as long as the place those activities are occurring is already polluted and as long as there will be some reduction in that pollution over time. 'But it doesn't make sense. It is laughable that the report suggests you could grant a consent for an activity to add pollution to a place or continue polluting it now as long as it reduces its pollution by a bit, later. Why would we say 'We'll make a waterbody really sick now so we can nurse it back to health over decades'!? Make it make sense.' Even with standards for these permitted activities, campaigners regional councils will struggle to ensure they are sufficient to reduce or avoid 'significant adverse effects on aquatic life' and will face significant lobbying to minimise any standards. 'This opens the door to more and worse pollution. Pollution that harms aquatic life inevitably has an impact on human lives, either directly due to illness or through impacts on livelihoods or taking away the things with love about the places we live in.' The Coalition parties in the select committee also support changes that would bypass regional councils' role in controlling pollution through farm plans. Farm plans have been a largely unsuccessful attempt to reduce the impact of farming on the country's freshwater over the last decade or more. In regions where they have been used, like Canterbury, they have been found to be unable to stop the degradation of communities' waterways and drinking water sources. 'Not only is the value of farm plans in controlling pollution highly questionable,' says Kay, 'the Select Committee's proposal is to give Government the ability to support farm plans written and audited by polluting industries rather than regional councils, and to allow the Minister for the Environment to make the decision on which industry groups can play this role. This keeps regional councils at arms length from attempts to control pollution through farm plans, effectively writing them out as regulator.' 'This Government has demonstrated it has close and inappropriate relationships with some industry bodies. Having a Minister be responsible for such a decision opens the door to undue influence and allows for industry to capture the whole process around farm plans. We're watching it happen now. This proposal effectively writes local government out of their regulatory role of controlling pollution.' 'It has never been clearer that the National-led Government is working for the polluters and not for the public. Our communities will pay for this through the impact on our quality of life, our drinking water sources, our opportunities to swim or fish, our pride in our beautiful environment, and our ability to be involved in local decision making.'
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
Legal Experts Sue Climate Minister Over Glaring Holes In Emissions Plan
Press Release – Lawyers for Climate Action Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and co-applicant the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) allege the Governments plan fails to meet key requirements of the Climate Change Response Act. A coalition of legal experts has launched major legal proceedings against the Minister of Climate Change, alleging that the Government's emissions reduction plan fails to fulfil basic requirements of the law. 'Under the Climate Change Response Act, the Government has to put in place a credible emissions reduction plan for Aotearoa that will meet our climate targets and set us up for success,' says Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc Executive Director Jessica Palairet. 'Yet, in the face of warnings from our Climate Change Commission that there are 'significant risks' around whether New Zealand will meet its climate targets, the plan misses the mark. It takes a high-risk, forestry-led approach to emissions reductions. Our law requires more.' Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and co-applicant the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) allege the Government's plan fails to meet key requirements of the Climate Change Response Act. 'As it stands, the Government's emissions reduction plan will carry huge consequences for our country. We don't take this step lightly, but the plan needs to be challenged,' says Ms Palairet. Under the Climate Change Response Act, governments must set an emissions reduction plan every five years. These plans outline economy-wide policies and strategies for meeting corresponding emissions budgets – which are stepping stones towards achieving our 2050 net-zero target. In 2024, the Government published the second emissions reduction plan, which will be operative from 2026 – 2030. Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and ELI challenge decisions relating to both the first emissions reduction plan (2021-2025) and the second emissions reduction plan (2026-2030). ELI's director, research and legal, Dr Matt Hall says 'the Government cancelled 35 climate policies and actions which were part of the first emissions reduction plan – without consulting the public first, as required by law. It then put in place a second emissions reduction plan which is almost devoid of actions or policies for reducing emissions at their source.' The NGOs allege that the second emissions reduction plan is unlikely to ensure emissions stay within the budget, has an unrealistic approach to risk management, and assumes that 95% of the planned emissions reductions will occur by themselves without policies or strategies. Instead of focusing on reducing emissions at source, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts instead relied heavily on offsetting the country's emissions with forestry plantations. 'This was despite warnings from the Climate Change Commission that tree planting is no substitute for reducing emissions at source. It locks-in vast pine plantations for future generations, and runs up against our obligations under the Paris Agreement. The science is clear that forestry is important, but it's not a substitute for reducing our combustion of fossil fuels,' says Dr Hall. Dr Hall says the Minister was required to publish a sufficiently detailed plan that could assure the public New Zealand will meet its emissions budget. The Government's plan does not give confidence; in our view, it is neither credible nor capable of achieving the purpose, which is to reduce emissions'. Lawyers for Climate Action NZ's Jessica Palairet says, 'The Minister has made the pathway for achieving the third emissions budget incredibly difficult. Left unchallenged, it will be a huge burden for the future.' 'We believe it is necessary to take this case to protect the interests of the public now and in the future, and to test these important legal provisions for the first time.' The application for judicial review has been filed with the High Court and is awaiting a court date. Notes:
