Mackenzie waterways saved from cubicle cow farmers

Would-be cubicle cow dairy farmers have been denied water consents.

The overriding concern of the independent commissioner panel was the likelihood of significant pollution fouling the relatively pristine waterways of the southern lakes and rivers.

The commissioners highlighted the delicate and porous nature of Mackenzie soils.

They were at times highly critical of the robustness of the research presented by consultants such as GHD which contributed to the main body of evidence presented by Mackenzie Water Research Limited.

It was set up in 2008 by the three largest applicants, Southdown Holdings (associated with cubicle cow developer John Peacocke of Tauranga), Five Rivers and Pukaki Irrigation (there were 33 applicants in total).

But the commissioners ruled that Mackenzie Water Research Limited had failed to convince them that consents could be granted with conditions without causing cumulative water quality effects.

The commissioners also rejected an experimental process called “adaptive management”, which essentially means granting consents and then adapting management if adverse effects are subsequently monitored.

“The monitoring programme as proposed would be unlikely to detect adverse effects, and if it did, it could be too late to institute meaningful mitigation options.

“We do not think the experimenting with adaptive management in these catchments is consistent with a precautionary approach given the significant consequences to water quality and aquatic life.

The commissioners made extensive field trips and flew over the catchment that includes Lake Ohau, Pukaki, Benmore and Tekapo and the associated rivers.

“The land-based visit provided graphic evidence of the degraded and unstable nature of the surface soils of these flood plains. We took several core samples by auger on the plains to assess soil moisture holding capabilities and nature of the subsoil characteristics, in every case we were struck by the dry powder nature of the soil structure.”

The commissioners did not accept objectors’ views about adverse landscape effects (“greening” of the area), but focused on the water quality issues.

The ruling is available on the Environment Canterbury web site.

It is expected to be appealed by the dairy farm developers. They have already spent nearly $3 million collectively for costs associated with their applications

The political fallout is likely to result in further negative perceptions about the regional council, Environmental Canterbury.

However, the process has been conducted under commissioners appointed by Environment Minister Nick Smith last year when he sacked elected councillors due to disgruntled farming interests.