Dear Canterbury Regional Council,

This is a duplicate request from 23 July, but I would like to response to come to FYI.org.nz

I am writing to seek clarification regarding Environment Canterbury’s approach to granting resource consents for water takes in catchments that, as I understand, have already exceeded the allocation limits set out in the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan.

Specifically, I have the following concerns and questions:

1.Non-complying activities
I have reviewed several notification reports from your website where it is stated:
"I note that this activity is classified as non-complying and therefore the decision maker has full discretion when considering the effects of the activity on the environment."
Could you please confirm:
*How many consents for non-complying activities have been granted in over-allocated catchments without public notification in the past five years?
*Were these decisions considered consistent with the Regional Plan’s intent and the RMA?

2.Notification obligations
My understanding is that under the RMA, where an application has or is likely to have adverse effects that are more than minor, it should be notified. Furthermore, the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan states that non-complying activities are generally inappropriate, and certain rules prohibit new water takes when limits are reached.
*How is the decision to not notify reconciled with the requirement to consider environmental effects and community involvement in over-allocated zones?
*What is the rationale for granting such consents when the plan clearly intends to limit or prohibit new water takes once limits are exceeded?

3. Duty to address over-allocation
Given the Plan’s intent to prevent unsustainable water use, does Environment Canterbury consider itself responsible for actively managing and reducing over-allocation?
*What steps are being taken to ensure compliance with the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan allocation limits?
*If consents are being granted contrary to these limits, how is this reconciled with the direction in the Plan and the requirements under the RMA?

I raise these questions as someone who is concerned about the sustainable management of Canterbury’s water resources and the integrity of the planning framework designed to protect them.

Yours faithfully,

Allan

Dear LGOIMA,

Could I please have clarification of this question:

Notification obligations

My understanding is that under the RM Act, where an application has or is likely to have adverse effects that are more than minor, it should be notified. Furthermore, the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan states that non-complying activities are generally inappropriate, and certain rules prohibit new water takes when limits are reached.

How is the decision to not notify reconciled with the RM Act requirement to consider environmental effects and community involvement in over-allocated zones?

What is the rationale for granting such consents without being notified when the plan clearly intends to limit or prohibit water takes once limits are exceeded?

Warm regards,

Allan

Dear LGOIMA,

How is the decision to not notify reconciled with the RM Act requirement to consider environmental effects and community involvement in over-allocated zones?

What is the rationale for granting such consents without being notified when the plan clearly intends to limit or prohibit water takes once limits are exceeded?

Warm regards,

Allan

Dear LGOIMA,

For non-complying activities ( i.e. no resection of discretion), like the over one hundred you have kindly supplied :

How is the decision to not notify reconciled with the RM Act requirement to consider environmental effects and community involvement in over-allocated zones?

What is the rationale for granting such consents without being notified when the plan clearly intends to limit or prohibit water takes once limits are exceeded?

Warm regards,

Allan

Yours sincerely,

Allan

Dear LGOIMA,

I am a little confused by your response.

Each of the consents on the list you provided must have addressed public notification, given they are non-complying and located in over-allocated aquifer zones.

Let me rephrase:
For the last 10 non-complying water take consents granted in over-allocated aquifer zones, what were the specific grounds for deciding not to notify the public, considering:
The proposed takes exceed plan allocation limits (i.e., the effects are more than minor), and
Under section 95A and 95B of the RMA, public or limited notification is required unless adverse effects are no more than minor and no special circumstances exist.

Given the plan limits were already exceeded, on what basis was it determined that:
a) The adverse effects would still be “no more than minor”?
b) The situation did not constitute “special circumstances” under the RMA?

Surely, continued allocation beyond plan limits does constitute special circumstances at the very least?

Step 3: if not precluded by step 2, public notification required in certain circumstances
(7) Determine whether the application meets either of the criteria set out in subsection (8) and,—
(a) if the answer is yes, publicly notify the application; and
(b) if the answer is no, go to step 4.
(8) The criteria for step 3 are as follows:
(b) the consent authority decides, in accordance with section 95D, that the activity will have or is likely to have adverse effects on the environment that are more than minor.
Step 4: public notification in special circumstances
(9) Determine whether special circumstances exist in relation to the application that warrant the application being publicly notified and,—
(a) if the answer is yes, publicly notify the application; and

Warm regards

Allan