Artists’ Water Protest Show by Murray Rodgers

Murray Rodgers writes about the problems and dangers we face in our society if we allow the reckless exploitation Canterbury's water resources to continue. The following article outlines some of the issues that we as a nation must face.

Murray has also written an acclaimed book, "Canterbury's Wicked Water" can be readliy purchased by contacting Murray (see details below)

“Recommended reading, and even better send a copy to your local politicians and decision makers! In fact, deliver it by hand!” Fish & Game New Zealand

Ronald Wright in his book, “A short history of progress” (Published 2003) suggests that the 10,000-year experiment of settled human life will stand or fall on what we do or don’t do now and that we need to move our horizon from the short to the long term.

He said: we need to move,

“…from recklessness and excess to moderation and the precautionary principle. We have the tools and the means to share resources, clean up pollution, dispense basic health care and birth control, set economic limits in line with natural ones. If we don’t do these things now while we prosper, we will never do them when times get hard. Our fate will twist out of our hands. And this new century will not grow very old before we enter an age of chaos and collapse that will dwarf all the dark ages in our past. Now is the last chance to get the future right.”

What he said of the planet is in many ways pertinent to us here in Canterbury concerning how we manage our water.

It’s fair to say that my generation in NZ has been the most fortunate of all generations. But we have not been as diligent as we should in nurturing our democracy. We are not looking after the best interests of the people who will follow us. We lack sustainable purpose.

Earlier this year, The Ministry for the Environment published a paper titled “A new start for fresh water” - echoing what the Water Rights Trust (WRT) wrote to the MfE Chief Executive, Barry Carbon, and his Minister, Marian Hobbs, in 2002. The MfE has published a great many papers on water over the last eight years or so – they have a particular skill in publishing papers. Our successive governments seem to have a somewhat lesser skill in actually turning such papers into action. There has been a singular lack of leadership from government on matters pertaining to fresh water. This lack of leadership extends for several decades back in time and shows a lack of concern for the long-term consequences of our actions. This has allowed various economic activities to destroy many waterways throughout NZ, and particularly, here in Canterbury.

The MFE paper notes that the issues to be faced include:
• Recognition of strong links between land use intensification, water use and water quality decline
• Recognition of gaps in the processes, information, scientific and technical capability needed to manage water well
and that management measures are needed to address these issues.

These words were just as true in 2001 - when those initiating the WRT first came together - as they are now. They were just as true in 1969 when GR Fish published his paper drawing attention to the issue- as they are now. (Lakes: The value of recent research to measure eutrophication and to indicate possible causes,) There is something comforting about a big bureaucracy where responsibility is diluted among many – it is tempting to become part of it – to settle into the gentle pace and assume all will come right in the end. But the bland acceptance by many that we just nibble away at the elephant isn’t doing what is necessary. It is still there in the morning, the next and the next after that. Still growing.

The conventional wisdom that is embodied in our current legislation and institutions is leading us to where we must not go. Canterbury is at a tipping point where we face long term degradation of our water resources and the associated social and economic consequences – if indeed, we have not already tipped beyond recovery. The magnitude of changes to how we manage the interface between economic and environmental imperatives on a sustainable basis -- has yet to realised by many.

The half-way measures of our governments, Fonterra and Federated Farmers towards ensuring that our rivers, streams and lakes are fit for contact recreation and we can drink the water from our aquifers are simply not good enough. At best they will only defer the inevitable damage to our community’s wellbeing from having to live with contaminated waterways. In short, we have been extremely slow to take on board the foolhardiness of our current path - which means we may well end up with the worst of all possible worlds – spending large amounts of money in a futile bid to solve the problem while our waterways continue to degrade.

For, despite all the discussion around these issues over the last 9 years that the WRT has been involved, cows are still defecating in some Canterbury waters; lowland streams run dry; the behaviors that cause the ongoing rise in nitrate levels in ground and surface waters are expanding – not contracting. Many Canterbury lowland streams are unsafe for human contact because of toxic algal blooms over summer months and other forms of bacterial contamination. Lakes Ellesmere and Forsyth are badly polluted.

The Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS) was signed off by the Christchurch City Council earlier this week, and should have sign off from all Canterbury Territorial Authorities by the end of next week. The CWMS is an initial step on the path towards achieving the required changes. The strategy represents a collaborative effort involving Maori, rural, environmental and recreational interests and has been under development for nearly 10 years. But current processes continue to drive ahead resource consent applications, in conflict with the CWMS, thus putting better and more efficient options for managing our water at risk of being sidelined.

The question that seems to remain unasked by MfE officials and our politicians - is what is happening to our remaining pure water resources - while consents for more water abstraction continue to be issued, and dryland areas continue to be converted into irrigated pastures – without the controls in place stipulated as being necessary by the CWMS. This question has been at the front end of Water Rights Trust (WRT) concerns right from the start, and has driven our persistent series of requests to government for a moratorium on new consents to take water for irrigation. Why these requests continue to be declined remains a mystery.

The proposals of Hurunui Water Project to place a couple of dams on the Hurunui River don’t recognise the alternative means of providing water to North Canterbury farmers being considered under the strategy. The greening of the Mackenzie Country is continuing at pace, with associated issues of pollution from dairy farming and destruction of a region of huge environmental significance. Central Plains Water is intent on proceeding with applications for its major irrigation plans that do not seem to take into account the measures necessary for the revitalisation of Lake Ellesmere, or the ecological health of its lowland streams.

It is foolhardy to allow the CWMS to be pre-empted by actions being committed to under the existing inadequate legislation. Yet that is precisely what is continuing to happen. The CWMS is still only a piece of paper – yet to be given legislative authority; and yet to be fully embraced by the wider community. The credibility of the CWMS may be threatened if government does not move swiftly to provide the legislative mandate it requires. The strategy cannot work in part. It has been developed to be implemented across the region to provide an integrated approach to water management. That is its major strength, but it is also vulnerable to being undermined by those in the region who don’t like its discipline.

Why, we might well ask, is all this so important anyway? Why don’t we just muddle along, as we are doing and when we can’t drink our groundwater, simply put down deeper wells, or treat it. Why don’t we forget about our lowland streams and lakes and write them off? Why don’t we go hell for leather to intensify farming and enjoy the economic rewards that come with that? Dams on the Hurunui? Why not? Full scale factory farming in the Mackenzie country? It’s the way we have usually done things in the past – where there’s an easy buck to be made, to go for it. Enjoy the party while it lasts.

Well, let me suggest a good reason why not. It is because we don’t have to do those things to improve our economic future. We don’t have to put our regions recreational, social and cultural heritage up for grabs. Even if we had no other economic option for growth, it would still be an inexcusable thing to do – given the value of our environmental reputation in a world where such value can only increase if we act wisely. We are at a stage where the value of our tourism industry is at risk in being undermined – after many years of silence, the tourism industry has finally acknowledged this risk.

The argument is not simply between growth or no growth in the rural sector. It is between undisciplined growth and sustainable growth. To continue to seek economic growth that is unsustainable is not only incredibly short-sighted and selfish; it is just plain stupid. If limiting economic and population growth in our region,is necessary - then we must do that. I don’t want to earn the derision of my grandchildren from being part of a generation that allowed the destruction of our environment to occur. Simply doing our best under existing mindsets is clearly not enough. We must find out what is required to move us all to a sustainable way of life and act accordingly. If we do not have the fortitude for what lies ahead, then we should recognize that now - and continue as we are to milk the cow for all she’s worth – and place the CWMS at the back of the cupboard - otherwise we end up with the worst of all worlds. Having said that, I do have a firm belief that with the right leadership we will lift our aspirations and behavior to capture the best of both worlds.

These are the reasons why I have supported the CWMS. The conventional wisdom of our society may just be starting to change and the CWMS is playing a groundbreaking role in that change. That role will inevitably expand to other aspects of community adjustment to a sustainable way of living that extends beyond water issues.

We urgently need a vision that protects and builds on New Zealand’s environmental competitive advantages. How we manage our water has much to do with this vision. Such a vision must sit within a much broader vision for our country that recognises sustainable social, cultural and economic aspirations of all New Zealanders. How we resolve our water issues in Canterbury is a first step towards such a vision.

Many of the requirements for sustainable management of our water resources that have been advocated by WRT are embodied much more eloquently in the CWMS. The fundamental principles on which the strategy is based are robust, and if upheld would ensure sustainable development of our water resources. Reliable water supplies to farmers through storage, plus improved efficiency of distribution would be a major lever to ensure compliance to regulations. Time based targets are in the process of being finalised – but targets are useless currency unless they lead to timely new behaviours – and therein lies the Achilles heel, if there is one, of the CWMS. Our success depends on the rigour and commitment we bring not only to setting the targets and standards but above all, in our approach to achieving them. This is where clear government commitment to the strategy is crucial.

Perhaps the most significant lesson the WRT has drawn from dealings with the bureaucracy and its political masters over the last nine years relate to the flaws in how our democracy presently functions when it comes to dealing with complex issues that have long term consequences. Canterbury’s Wicked Water is a plea to politicians to get off their backsides and take the hard decisions – we have dallied around for far too long on these issues while the costs of inaction continue to mount. Canterbury’s Wicked Water presents the argument for adjusting our governance structures and behaviours fitting to a sustainable future – concerning issues that stretch far beyond our immediate concerns over water.

If we can resolve how we deal with our water problems, we will be better equipped to deal with these other issues too as we move towards a truly sustainable society. The book is also a tribute to a great many people for the constancy of their support to the WRT. Our work has always been stimulating and, at times it has been rich and exhilarating and occasionally, fun - as we discovered our common belief in our mission.

It has also been hugely frustrating - we have often questioned ourselves as to whether the rest of the world is on the right path - and we are the ones who are out of step – that we couldn’t recognize the nature of what constitutes good sense, even if we fell into it. Each time we were drawn back to the conclusion that what we are seeing is right, fair and accurate - and that if we don’t act swiftly the people of the future will have to pay a huge price – if indeed, they still have the opportunity to pay it. In short, we must not allow ‘our fate to twist out of our hands’ as Ronald Wright suggests may happen.

I would like to close with a brief comment on the current review of ECan. That Canterbury had an emerging problem in managing its water resources met with vehement denial by the ECan Chairman and CEO when we first approached them on this issue early in 2001.
That denial continued for a number of years, despite unequivocal evidence from staff reports of growing nitrate contamination of groundwater across the region, and the worsening state of our lowland streams.

The appointment of Bryan Jenkins has seen a huge shift in ECan’s attempts to deal with the issues. But real progress has been impacted by lack of legislative support in managing cumulative impacts and dealing with the allocation of water – especially in achieving the right balance between environmental and economic imperatives. The WRT has pressed successive Ministers for the Environment for recognition that ECan is being required to act in the absence of a National Policy Statement and National Environmental Standards on water that should have been in place following the RMA in 1991.

This situation has contributed to the open conflict between pro-development and pro-environment councillors, and the conflict between TA’s and ECan, exacerbated by the sheer volume of consents to be processed, and the litigious nature of many consent applications

It is hard to imagine the CWMS reaching its present stage without the hugely competent input from Bryan Jenkins and his team. I hope the present review of ECan does not see baby thrown out with bathwater.