Review recommends Environment Canterbury be sacked
Two independent reviews have just been released. The first is of the Far North District Council, and has found they have overcome most of their long-standing previous problems, and no intervention is needed.
But a very different fate is recommended for Environment Canterbury (the Canterbury Regional Council):
The Review Group has therefore come to the conclusion that an entirely new institutional approach is needed for the management of freshwater in the Region. This will involve a fundamental reform of the structure of decision-making within the Region for all freshwater-related matters. The Review Group recommends that the Government create a new Canterbury Regional Water Authority (CRWA) to assume all water related responsibilities in the Canterbury Region. This recommendation reflects the fact that issues associated with water management in Canterbury will be enduring and will therefore require the full and on-going attention of a specialist body.
So first they recommend they lose their most important function – water management.
But further:
The Review Group therefore recommends that the existing council be replaced by a temporary Commission as soon as practicable under special legislation. This Commission will give ECan and the Region breathing space to allow the CWRA to be soundly established.
In other words, sack the Council.
The Government is going to consider the recommednations, before responding.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:46 am
The bunfight here is hydro versus irrigation, but I don’t know which side the Regional Council was supporting. Anybody got details?
February 19th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Good move. ECAN have pursued a political agenda over water, lost every Environment Court and Resource Mgt hearing (rakaia-Selwyn and Selwyn – Waimak) and then refused to implement the Commissioners’rulings.
Staff have pursued their own agendas and sought to ingratiate themselves with their political masters, ignoring good science and being blatantly obstructive.
The new authority should not be able to employ any of the current ECAN employees and instead should look at where the real expertise lies – the private consultants, many of whom are hounded out ex ECAN senior staff.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:42 am
I was a bit shocked when this was released. If ECAN does lose water managment then it also loses the main reason why it exists. That may not be a bad thing becuase there an awful lot of landowners in canterbury tired of paying ever increaseing ECAN and also district council rates on top of that and lets not forget central govt taxation as well.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:46 am
If only the gummint can fire the City Council as well, putting a married couple in, all may become well again in Godzone.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:51 am
The planning framework under the RMA is the real problem. Canterbury needs a true tradeable water permit scheme. Currently there is a ‘goldrush’ to get consent applications in first – and a lot of the dissatisfaction is around this arbitrary allocation. No consideration of best possible economic use. Tradeable permits work well for limited resources (e.g. fisheries).
February 19th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
sigh. And Canterbury Regional Council was created out of the old Catchment Board, which looked after water resources!
Plus ca change, plus ca meme.
Maybe a good outcome _might_ be good water management, but I suspect that even more mining of what water there is will occur.
February 19th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Oh, and grumpy, most of those consulting staff you mention were head-hunted from ECan. Most of the groundwater people there are very very good, some of the best internationally, which is why it seems to be a training ground for many of the consulting companies.
And the Environment Court has tended to side with the developers, in decisions that many of us who know something about water resources leave us shaking our heads.
Oh, and I do not work at ECan. I sometimes work with ECan, sometimes with the consultants.
February 19th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
‘Environment’ Canterbury have presided over the commercialisation and quality degradation of the water supplies in Canterbury in a way that, from the outside, looks rather cozy.
I think the key to understanding the mentality behind Canterbury attitudes to resource allocation lies in the province’s history, and the continuing love affair with the right schools, social standing, and being seen to be in with the right people.
ECAN may have excellent consulting staff, but I think the problem lies with the personal priorities of the final decision makers. A government-appointed body with outside representation may not go down well with the parocial locals, but it may produce decisions more in line with government intentions for the resource.
Bulk commercial users are currently getting pretty much free access to a disproportionate amount of a communal resource.
February 19th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Well then, David of Christchurch, why has ECAN just offered the Rakaia Selwyn group a credit of $2-300,000 on their costs for the RMA Hearing?
That is a write-off (or loss).
The staff may be technically good but they have allowed themselves to be manipulated by the seat warmers with an agenda.
February 19th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
I don’t think many would argue that the currently ECan is a disgrace. The level of self interest shown by the current representatives is nothing short of appalling.
Why councillors who hold water consents are allowed to vote on matters relating to these is beyond me.
As we have local body elections later this year I’m not really sure that the government needs to do anything, I think the rate payers of Canterbury will have something to say about all this when they are at the ballot box.
Maybe DPF would be kind enough to point out who is currently in charge of ECan and his links to the National Party are.
February 19th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Why councillors who hold water consents are allowed to vote on matters relating to these is beyond me.
Because they have exemptions from the auditor general on the grounds that the value of their consents are small something like $500 or so. One councillor who doesn’t (and is forbidden from voting as a result) has a water consent with the value of at least $10,000
February 19th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Maybe DPF would be kind enough to point out who is currently in charge of ECan and his links to the National Party are.
Alec Neil has been in charge of ECan for less than six months. His predecessor was the long serving Sir Kerry Burke who supported the other team.
February 19th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
FWIW I haven’t exactly been following the politics of the water rights (I know there was a problem but I dunno what the positions of the respective sides are) but Kerry Burke’s stunt has left me less than impressed. On the issue of conflict of interests over water rights, he released part of the auditor-general’s warning that there was a conflict of interest but for some curious reason he didn’t release the part where the auditor-general said that the councilors concerned could apply for an exemption.
February 19th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Maybe we could recruit Frank Bainimarama to show us how to do a coup properly? You mobilise the army, then you march in. Don’t warn your opponents who can get organised. Then you suggest you will have elections in a year or two, but keep cancelling them because you are concerned about democracy. When the judges suggest it is illegal you retire them all and take away their pensions. If the press say anything you arrest them. If you run out of money, you ring up the Chinese. This and the one we saw in Auckland last year- just amateur.
February 19th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
water, elected representatives, money.
something got in the way.
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:29 pm
It’s worth noting that ECan has improved its performance so that it now processes 90% of consents within the require time frames. (Funny how little press coverage that has received.)
One of the drivers (or excuses) for the review of ECan was the infamous mayors’ letter (a collection of shocking poorly written letters, full of errors). Mayor Bob Parker was the ring leader behind the letters — a political power play to expand the empire perhaps? The report notes that, ‘Christchurch City’s desire to become a unitary authority and master of its own (expanded) destiny continues to detracting from the relationship [with ECan]. (Report p65)
It is also interesting to note that of the 6% of non-compliant consents issued by ECan, 64% are held by local authorities. No wonder the mayors are grumpy – they can’t pollute at will.)
If three politically appointed commissioners replace the regional councilors, the ratepayers of Canterbury will lose their elected representation until 2013. Where is the democracy in that?
Although the council may appear dysfunctional, the report states, “…the governance of ECan is functional and enables it to meet its statutory obligations. Mostly, the tensions that exist arise from differing political perspectives and not from any functional dysfunction.” p51
Water is gold. John Key wants to remove obstacles to irrigation and water storage (Speech 9 Feb 10 Statement to Parliament). David Carter, one of the committee considering the report, thinks there is huge potential for far more irrigation in Canterbury (Country Life interview, National Radio).
If all the water functions are stripped out of the Regional Council a few questions should be asked such as – who will benefit, how much water will be damed and/or removed from the region’s rivers (the demand is virtually limitless), and what environmental checks and balances will there be? Furthermore, won’t it be even more confusing / expensive / fragmented having three agencies issuing consents (e.g. local authorities, ECan, and a new water body), and how will the new agency be paid for? (It won’t be cheap setting up yet another agency).