Facts & Fictions

Fiction: 40 cumecs is too much water to take out of the rivers.
Facts:

• The minimum flow level of the Waimakariri is fully protected by the Waimakariri Regional River Plan (developed by Environment Canterbury in 2004), while the levels of the Rakaia are protected by a National Water Conservation Order. The CPW scheme will operate in accordance within the provisions of these regulations.
• The ‘takes’ that CPWL has applied for are not continuous and simply represent the maximum amount of water the scheme could take at one time, when the rivers’ flows could support that take. The scheme’s annual average take would only be 9 cumecs from the Waimakariri and 4 cumecs from the Rakaia Rivers.
  
  Whenever the Waimakariri and Rakaia do experience low flows, farmers’ water supply will be augmented by stored water from the reservoir.
• CPWL has, and continues to consult extensively with Fish & Game on the scheme’s potential effects on fishing. Initial technical investigations indicate the CPW scheme is unlikely to affect the number of salmon running up either river.
• If the CPW scheme fails to gain the necessary resource consents to proceed, individual farmers or groups of farmers will continue to apply for water from both rivers. This means that, irrespective of what happens to the CPW scheme, all water available for allocation (up to the limits set by the Rakaia National Water Conservation Order and the Waimakariri River Regional Plan) will ultimately be allocated to individual farmers or small groups of corporate farmers.
  
  What’s more, because these private irrigation schemes are smaller, their supporting information does not have to meet such high thresholds as those required of CPW. This was recently evidenced by applications from corporate dairy farmer Synlait for 6 cumecs from the Rakaia and Ngai Tahu’s application for 3.6 cumecs from the Waimakariri River.

Fiction: It’s not appropriate for a private company to be seeking requiring authority status.
Facts:

• The CPW scheme is not a private scheme – it is a public scheme for community and regional benefit. The consents for the scheme will be owned by the CPW Trust, which is a charitable trust established by Christchurch City Council and Selwyn District Council.
• Many other irrigation schemes have been given approval as requiring authorities in recent years, including the South Canterbury Waterways, Doubtless Bay Water Supply Company and North Otago Water Harvesting and Irrigation Company.
• In line with the public ownership aspect of CPW, the scheme will be specially developed to allow for a range of recreational and enhancements aspects including a major off-road mixed walking / cycling track and an artificial white-water kayaking course on the outlet of the storage lake.

Fiction: CPWL has failed to consult with affected parties.
Facts:

• In the last five years, CPWL has held an estimated 100 meetings with everyone from potential water users, landowners, conservationists, outdoor enthusiasts, township committees, tangata whenua and other landowners who will potentially be affected.
  
  Meetings were first held with landowners in the Waianiwaniwa Valley, which will be flooded by the scheme’s proposed water storage reservoir, in August 2001 and continued in 2003 and 2005.
• The proposed site of certain structures cannot be confirmed for some time because more technical works must be completed. In particular, this applies to landowners potentially affected by the location of the distribution races. A preliminary indication of the siting of these was outlined in Central Plains Water’s water use resource consent applications, lodged with ECan in November. However their final layout is yet to be confirmed because the more definitive land use consent applications are still being worked on and will be lodged with Selwyn District Council later this year, around April.
  
  Central Plains Water is currently undertaking extensive work to define the locations of distribution races more accurately. This includes acting on initial feedback that suggests, in some areas, it is more appropriate if the races are sited away from main roads and, for example, run at the back of properties or along boundary fences between farms.
  
  Consultation with landowners is an ongoing process that will continue up until the hearing and on through the construction phase.

Fiction: The Waianiwaniwa valley is was unsuitable for a landfill because it was on a fault line, so it’s obviously not suitable for a storage lake and dam.
Fact:

• There are no known major earthquake fault lines in the Waianiwaniwa Valley. A minor fault was found when it was put forward as a potential site for what is now the Kate Valley Landfill. This was problematic for that project because leachate could potentially seep into underground water supplies. However the fault in question is not an issue for the CPW scheme because its reservoir will be filled with water not refuse. Also, this minor fault is situated further up the valley, several kilometres from where CPWL proposes building the dam.
  
  Of note, many dams such as the Clyde Dam are safely constructed on minor faults.

Fiction: There’s is no need for such a large scheme. Small scale storage on individual farms is a better option.
Fact:

• In order to provide the same level of irrigation reliability, CPWL’s research shows that the costs of creating storage on individual farms is much higher than the central storage reservoir that CPWL proposes to build.

Fiction: Nitrates from dairy farms will end up in Christchurch’s drinking water.
Fact:

• The scheme is not expected to affect the quality of Christchurch’s drinking water supplies. That’s because most of the city’s water is drawn from aquifers that are ‘recharged’ from an area well outside the scheme area (north of Christchurch), from rainwater and drainage from the lower reaches of the Waimakariri River. The slope of the central Canterbury plains means that any excess irrigated water will tend to flow underground to the southeast, towards Lake Ellesmere / Te Waihora, rather than east towards Christchurch.

Fiction: It’s inappropriate for the Christchurch City Council to have invested in the development of the scheme plans to help farmers living well beyond the city’s boundaries
Fact:

• While some Christchurch ratepayers questioned the merits of their council investing in an irrigation scheme beyond their city’s boundaries, City Councillors were well aware that Canterbury’s rural sector accounts for 60-70% of Christchurch’s economic activity and that Canterbury farmers spend around $750 million every year on goods and services provided by Christchurch businesses.

Fiction: The proposed dam and storage reservoir represents a danger to Coalgate residents.
Facts:

• The dam will be constructed so that it meets the stringent safety guidelines established by the International Committee of Large Dams, which sets the benchmarks for dam safety throughout the world. The guidelines will be applied throughout the investigation, design, construction and operation phases.
• The resource consents will not be granted unless the Commissioners are satisfied that community interests will be adequately safeguarded.

Fiction: Canterbury’s groundwater resource is in crisis because of farming activity – the CPW scheme is going to make this situation worse.
Facts:

• The reality is the complete opposite. Because CPW will deliver water to farmers’ gates, the majority of farmers involved in the CPW scheme who currently irrigate from groundwater will no longer pump water from underground aquifers – this will allow downstream groundwater systems to return to higher, more natural levels.
  
  In some parts of the plains, recharged aquifers are estimated to rise by as much as 20m as a direct result of the CPW scheme. This will be particularly beneficial to many rural households who rely on ‘house wells’ for their drinking water. Recent media coverage that  “…about two dozen shallow wells in central Canterbury have run dry, leaving people without water to drink or for showers” (The Press, 01/02/06), “I’ve never seen so many people ringing up saying their well has gone dry” (ECan groundwater scientist Russel Sanders reported in The Press 31/01/06)

© Copyright Central Plains Water Ltd 2004