tukituki catchment proposed plan change 6 · [email protected] level 10, 215 lambton...

FURTHER SUBMISSION FORM

www.epa.govt.nz

Tukituki Catchment Proposed Plan Change 6 Section 149F of the Resource Management Act 1991, Form 16C

To:

Environmental Protection Authority Email: [email protected]

Level 10, 215 Lambton Quay Fax: 04 914 0433

Private Bag 63002, Waterloo Quay

Wellington 6140

This is a further submission on the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s Proposed Plan Change 6.

It is important that you complete all sections on this form and that the EPA receives this submission before the closing date and time for further submissions - 5.00pm, Friday 30 August 2013.

Privacy statement

Your personal information included in Part A of this form, will be held by the EPA, 215 Lambton Quay, Wellington.

The information provided will be used by the EPA for the administration of the Tukituki Catchment Proposal Board

of Inquiry process. Copies of your full further submission will be provided to the Board of Inquiry and the applicant,

and the original submitter, and may also be provided to other parties in the process. Other than your name, your

personal contact information will not be published on the EPA website. You have the right to access and correct

personal information held by the EPA.

Your name, the information in Parts B and C of this form, and any attached information will be published on the

EPA website, and made available to members of the Board of Inquiry, the applicants and the public for use in the

processing and consideration of the Tukituki Catchment Proposal.

Note: If the submitter is a company, full business contact details will be publicly available.

All information held by the EPA is subject to the Official Information Act 1982.

http://epa/edrms/nsp/Documents%20and%20Settings/parrk/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/7GA9L77X/www.epa.govt.nz

mailto:[email protected]

ioanet

Typewritten Text

FS022

ioanet

Text Box

Federated Farmers of New Zealand, 103411

2

Tukituki Catchment Proposed Plan Change 6 Further Submission Form

August 2013 EPA0284

How to make a further submission

Further submission forms are available from http://www.epa.govt.nz/Resource-management/Tukituki or can be

requested by calling 0800 577 566.

The EPA can receive submissions:

• online using the online further submission form available at www.epa.govt.nz/Resource-management/Tukituki; • by email to [email protected], (if smaller than 10MB), with the subject line: Further submission:

(your name), Tukituki Catchment Proposal Proposed Plan Change 6;

• by fax to (04) 914 0433, with the subject line: Further submission: (your name), Tukituki Catchment Proposal

Proposed Plan Change 6;

• in hard copy or on an electronic storage device (if larger than 10MB) either:

o posted to the Environmental Protection Authority, Tukituki Catchment Proposal, Private Bag 63002,

Waterloo Quay, Wellington 6140; or

o delivered in person to EPA Head Office, Level 10, 215 Lambton Quay, Wellington. The further submission must be in writing in the prescribed form, and be received by the EPA no later than 5.00pm, Friday 30 August 2013.

You must send a copy of your submission to both the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the original submitter no later than five working days after you have served your submission on the EPA. The EPA will provide you with contact details for the original submitter upon receipt of your further submission.

You can send your further submission to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council either:

• online by selecting to automatically send the applicant a copy of your submission from the online further

submission form;

• by email to [email protected] (if smaller than 10MB);

• by fax to (06) 835 3601; • in hard copy or on an electronic storage device (if larger than 10MB) either:

o posted to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Private Bag 6006, Napier 4142, Attention: Helen Codlin; or

o delivered in person to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, 159 Dalton Street, Napier, marked for the

attention of Helen Codlin.

Where to get help preparing your further submission

If you have questions about making a further submission, or you do not understand this form, please contact the

EPA by phone on 0800 577 566 or by email at [email protected].

Alison McEwan from Langley Twigg Law has been appointed as an independent ‘Friend of Submitter’. The Friend

of Submitter is available to help you with information on the board of inquiry process and making a further

submission. You can contact the Friend of Submitter on 0800 020 008 or via email on [email protected].

http://www.epa.govt.nz/Resource-management/Tukituki

http://www.epa.govt.nz/Resource-management/Tukituki






4


August 2013 EPA0284

Part B

3. Further Submitter Eligibility The following persons are eligible to make a further submission on the matter under section 149F(3). If you do not

fit one of the categories below, you cannot make a further submission.

Please tick which category/categories apply to you:

A person representing a relevant aspect of the public interest

(Please provide an explanation in the space provided below)

Federated Farmers represents farmers in the Hawkes Bay region.

A person who has an interest in the proposal that is greater than the interest of the general public

(Please provide an explanation in the space provided below)

The local authority

5


August 2013 EPA0284

4. Further Submitter Position This is a further submission in support of, or in opposition to (as noted below) a submission or submissions originally made on the Hawke’s Bay Regional

Council’s Proposed Plan Change 6 to the Regional Resource Management Plan. Further submissions cannot be made on the notice of requirement and/or the

applications for resource consents.

Original submitter name

Original Submission number

Support or oppose the original submission

The particular parts of the original submission that I / we support / oppose are:

The reasons for my support / opposition to the original submission are:

Please indicate the decision you seek*:

Please see Federated Farmers attached Further Submission.

* NB: the decision you seek can be to allow or disallow the whole or part of the original submission

6


August 2013 EPA0284

* NB: the decision you seek can be to allow or disallow the whole or part of the original submission

Please use additional pages if required.

7


August 2013 EPA0284

Part C 5. Do you wish to speak at the hearing? All further submissions will be considered by the Board of Inquiry.

As a further submitter you may speak about your further submission at the hearing. You need to advise us if you

are intending to speak.

The hearing is open to the public, and anyone is welcome to attend to listen.

If you indicate on your further submission that you do not want to speak at the hearing, you will not receive further

correspondence from the EPA until the draft decision report is sent to you. However, all information will be

available on the EPA website.

Please indicate if you want to speak at the hearing.

I / We do not wish to speak about my / our further submission.

OR

I / We wish to speak about my / our further submission

If others make a similar submission, I / we will consider presenting a joint case with them at the hearing.

I / We wish to present in Maori / Te Reo.

Please be aware that if you wish to speak at the hearing, a lot of information such as hearing schedules, board directions and

reports, will need to be sent to you in accordance with your preference for receiving information. Note: If you do not select one

of the above options, the EPA will assume you wish to speak about your further submission.

6. Do you intend to provide expert evidence? This section of the submission form relates only to people who want to speak at the Board of Inquiry hearing. If you

do not wish to speak at the hearing, you do not need to complete this section.

An expert is a person who through training or experience is a skilled practitioner in a particular subject and is able

to give professional evidence on that particular subject. All experts are expected to comply with Environment Court

Practice Note 2011 (available at http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/environment-court/legislation-and-

resources/practice-notes/practice-notes), and be prepared to be cross-examined. The Board will determine what

weight is given to any material put before it.

Do you intend to have an expert support your submission at the hearing?

No, I / we have no expert witnesses (please go to section 9).

No, I / we have no expert witnesses, but I consider I have expertise to be considered an expert (please fill

in the table on the next page below).

Yes, I / we have expert witnesses (please fill out the table on the next page below).

http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/environment-court/legislation-and-resources/practice-notes/practice-notes

http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/environment-court/legislation-and-resources/practice-notes/practice-notes

8


August 2013 EPA0284

If you consider yourself to be an expert or intend to provide evidence from expert witnesses please outline the

areas of your/their expertise. If possible provide their names, or state their name is to be confirmed (TBC).

If you require further space, please attach additional pages.

Name of witness Area(s) of expertise Phone number Email address

To be confirmed.

7. Authority to act Please tick to confirm you are authorised to represent all persons making this further submission.

I / We confirm that I / we have authority to sign this further submission on behalf of all persons named on

this form.

Rhea Dasent 30 August 2013.

Signature Date

Signature of further submitter, or person authorised to sign on their behalf is required.

Note: A signature is not required for electronic (email) further submissions.

Please ensure you have completed all questions on the form. Unanswered questions may require clarification.

Before you send in your completed submission, please check that you have provided the following key information:

• Contact details (name, address, phone and email address) • Your further submitter eligibility • Your position on original submission(s) • How you would like to receive information • If you wish to speak about your further submission at the hearing

1

FURTHER SUBMISSION

To: The Environmental Protection Authority

Further The Tukituki Proposal

Submission on:

Date: 30 August 2013

Further Federated Farmers of New Zealand

Submission by:

Federated Farmers wish to be heard in support of our submission.

2

Federated Farmers Further Submission to the Tukituki proposal.

FURTHER SUBMISSION TO THE TUKITUKI PROPOSAL.

To: The Environmental Protection Authority

Further Submission to: The Tukituki Proposal

Further Submission by: Federated Farmers of New Zealand

Submission Number

Submitter Name

Statement Number

Support/ Oppose

Reasons for Further Submission

Decision Sought

C6 New New Provision in Change 6

17

Dairy NZ 1

Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that the importance of land use in the Tukituki for rural food production needs to be recognised.

That the submission be accpetde.

23

Forest and Bird Society

Central Hawke’s Bay

2

Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to add a new provision that acknowledges cadmium and heavy metals in soil. Our opposition is on the basis that Plan Change 6 is intended to address water quality, and not soils.

That the submission be rejected.

24

Forest and Bird Society

Hastings/ Havelock North

10 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to impose a new farm management approach to maintain or improve water quality and a controlled status. Our opposition is on the basis that controlled status for farming is impractical and onerous, and that improving water quality will not achieve sustainable management as economic wellbeing will suffer.


3


34

Hawke’s Bay Fish & Game Council

31 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to identify outstanding water bodies in the Tukituki catchment, and include new provisions for their maintenance and

enhancement. Our opposition is on the basis that we

support Council’s position as outlined in the Section 32 report that this is a task to be done at a region-wide basis, as opposed to a catchment level.


66

Te Taiao Hawke’s Bay Environment Forum

12 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to list and protect outstanding water bodies in the Tukituki

catchment. Our opposition is on the basis that we support

Council’s position as outlined in the Section 32 report that this is a task to be done at a region-wide basis, as opposed to a catchment level.


C6 OBJ TT1

22 Fonterra Co-Operative

Group Ltd 1 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that an additional clause is included in the objective to recognise that the Plan Change outcome is to enable people and communities access to water to provide for their social and economic wellbeing. This will achieve sustainable management.

That the submission be accepted.

34

Hawke’s Bay Fish & Game Council 40 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to amend Obj TT1(d) to include all wetlands and not just natural wetlands. Our opposition is for the reason that the inclusion of artificial wetlands will discourage their formation, and that resources are better directed at natural wetlands that will benefit most from protection provisions.


4


41

Irrigation New Zealand Inc 1 Support

Federated Famers agrees with the submitter that Objective TT1 needs to recognise and provide for the socio-economic contribution of food and fibre production in the Tukituki catchment.


64 Silver Fern Farms

1 Support

Federated Famers agrees with the submitter that Objective TT1 needs to enable economic wellbeing in order to achieve sustainable management.


376

Mr Apple New Zealand Ltd 2 Support

Federated Famers agrees with the submitter that Objective TT1 needs to enable the use of land and water for primary production in order to achieve sustainable management.


378 Dairy NZ

9 Support

Federated Famers agrees with the submitter that Objective TT1 needs to recognise that scoioeconomic wellbeing relies on access to water and the ability to carry out food production.


384

Horticulture New Zealand and Others

3 Support

Federated Famers agrees with the submitter that Objective TT1 needs to be amended to enable the use of land and water for food production and other forms of primary production.


C6 OBJ TT2

41 Irrigation

New Zealand Inc 2 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that OBJ TT2 needs to provide for an integrated approach to water management when discussing the improvement of water quality.


5


283 Ruataniwha Water

Users Group 5 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that OBJ TT2 needs to provide for an integrated approach and reasonable time limits to water management when discussing the improvement of water quality.


C6 OBJ TT4

34

Hawke’s Bay Fish & Game Council 45 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the relief sought by the submitter to amend the objective to reduce existing abstractions, and to restrict transfer of consents. Our opposition is on the basis that reducing existing abstractions could lead to adverse effects on economic and social wellbeing. Transfers need to be enabled as the cumulative effect on the catchment is minimal, but for individual takes the ability to use more water as it is transferred from a property where need is reduced will have positive effects on individual social and economic wellbeing.


41 Irrigation


Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that when discussing the avoidance of new allocations, that this excludes the renewal of existing consents. Renewal of existing consents is vital for those water users.


22 Fonterra Co-operatvie

Group Ltd 3 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that Objective TT4 needs to specify that it’s is the consent holder that decides that their consent is surrendered or not renewed, current wording is unclear that it could be the Council that decides.


6


C6 OBJ TT5

283 Ruataniwha Water


Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that the footnote limiting community irrigation schemes to those that can service over 5,000ha is restrictive. The area of land or the size of a property irrigated is not a determining factor with respect to the efficient use of water.


384 Horticulture

New Zealand and Others

7 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that the footnote limiting community irrigation schemes to those that can service over 5,000ha is restrictive and should simply provide for schemes where they improve efficient allocation and use of water regardless of size.


C6 POL TT1 Policy TT1 (Surface water quality limits, targets, indicators)

21 Fertiliser Association

of NZ Inc 5 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that POL TT1(a) needs to change wording from “avoid” toxicity and focus instead on meeting accepted risk levels that are appropriate for that sub-catchment. Avoidance may not always be possible in a sustainable management context, and focussing on meeting an appropriate target provides a positive goal.

That the submission is accepted.

384 Horticulture


16 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that POL TT1 needs to set limits and targets that still provide for the maintenance of existing landuses and enhancement of primary production where limits are not exceeded. Land use and production occur throughout the Tukituki and contribute to people and communities wellbeing, and should be maintained or enhanced.


7


C6 POL TT2 Policy TT2 (groundwater quality limits)

34 Hawke’s Bay

Fish & Game Council 53 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to amend Policy TT2 to recognise connection between groundwater and surface water. The connections, where they are and how they operate, need to be better established and evidence-based before being included in this policy.

That the submission be rejected

C6 POL TT4 Policy TT4 (implementing nitrate-nitrogen limits)

17 Dairy NZ 12 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that Policy TT4 needs to enable the use of existing industry farm planning tools so there is no unnecessary duplication on farms.


21 Fertiliser Association of New Zealand Inc.

8 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that Policy TT4 include a requirement to facilitate a working group approach between the Regional Council and primary sector groups to develop industry good practice. Collaboration is vital to ensure good management practice is workable and practical to apply on farm while achieving desired results.


34 Hawke’s Bay


Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought that a dissolved inorganic nitrogen limit be applied throughout the Tukituki catchment


34 Hawke’s Bay


Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to delete reference to using an alternative model to Overseer for calculating nutrient budgets. This is because the policy needs to remain flexible to enable uptake of newly developed models that could improve on and supersede Overseer


8


34 Hawke’s Bay


Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to delete TT4.1(b) which currently requires industry good practice. Industry good practice is an important tool that will work towards achieving the desired outcomes while enabling landowner and stakeholder buy-in. The variability of good practice is an asset, as it will improve over time as new methods and technologies are developed.


34 Hawke’s Bay


Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to delete TT4.1(c) because the submitter considers that methods will be ineffective. Industry good practice and time to develop this practice is an important tool to achieve the desired outcomes.


283 Ruantaniwha Water


Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that footnote 11 is amended to include reference to alternative models may be used as well as Overseer. This will be consistent with POL TT4.1(a).


384 Horticulture


27 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that any alternative models to Overseer should be approved for use by industry as well as by the Regional Council in POL TT4.1(a). It is important that good practice is practical and acceptable to industry for it to work effectively.


C6 POL TT5 Policy TT5 (implementing phosphorus limits and targets)

34 Hawke’s Bay


Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to amend POL TT5.1(d) so the timeframe for stock exclusion is reduced to 2017. A timeframe of 2017 is not achievable as stock exclusion requires fencing, alternative water supply and changes in management.


9


34 Hawke’s Bay


Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to include a new clause in POL TT5.1(d) to set an environmental effect threshold for stock access that is permitted. Stock access has been restricted by the policy and allows access only in limited situations where it is necessary for weed control and crossings, so the environmental effect has already been addressed.


28 Harker, Jeremy 1 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that sheep are removed from the stock exclusion requirements. Normal sheep behaviour is to avoid standing in water or in boggy areas, so the problem of trampling and stirring up sediment on the bed is not an issue.


389 Hunter, James 3 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that sheep are removed from the stock exclusion requirements. The cost to the individual of fencing for sheep is high, while the benefits for the community in the potential reduction of phosphorus is low because sheep are not a significant source.


11 Irrigation


Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that sometimes terrain can impede stock exclusion measures, and that a Farm Environment Plan be used to demonstrate to Council if this is a reason why exclusion may not be feasible for a farm.


304 Environmental

Defence Society Inc 33 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to amend POL TT5.1(d)(iii) for all stock crossings to be bridged or culverted. This is impractical as some crossings are used infrequently and the cost of a bridge or culvert will not outweigh the benefit.


10


304 Environmental


Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to require a contaminant management plan. Federated Farmers is unclear as to what this means, whether individual farms will all be required to have such a plan, or what the plan intends to achieve. Farm Environment Plans as discussed throughout the plan change seem to address this submitter’s concern.


C6 POL TT6 Policy TT6 (use of production land)

21 Fertiliser Association of New Zealand Inc

32 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that the consent timeframe needs to be extended to promote business confidence in investment and growth. The proposed 5 year term is too short to enable confidence.

That the submission is accepted.

22 Fonterra Co-operative

Group Ltd 15 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that POL TT5 is amended to enable the Supply Fonterra scheme agreement to be used as an alternative to the Farm Environment Management Plan to demonstrate compliance. This will avoid unnecessary duplication.


34 Hawke’s Bay


Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to amend Pol TT6 so that matters are complied with rather than regarded when considering consent applications. Matters in the policy enable consent applications to be assessed on their individual merits and so outright compliance is not appropriate in this policy context.


11


34 Hawke’s Bay


Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to amend Pol TT6.1(a)(vii) to require riparian planting instead of ensuring appropriate riparian management occurs. The current wording should be retained as it enables other management than planting only, and recognises that it may or may not be appropriate or achievable for any individual property.


291 Hawke’s Bay

Regional Council 2 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to add a new clause to TT6.1 to impose a three year lapse period on consents to discourage speculative land use. Section 195 of the RMA already has a five year consent lapse timeline, which allows for consent holders to make progress towards carry out the consented activity in other ways, such as raising capital or developing their business. There is no need for a three year lapse period.


304 Environmental


Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to amend Pol TT6 so that matters are complied with rather than regarded when considering consent applications. Matters in the policy enable consent applications to be assessed on their individual merits and so outright compliance is not appropriate in this policy context.


304 Environmental


Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to provide for common expiry dates for consents throughout the catchment. Term of consent needs to provide for enough time to give the consent holder some business certainty, for consents that are applied for at different times to be given the same expiry date will negatively impact on later consent applications who will be given a lesser term.


C6 Table 5.9.1A Table 5.9.1A (catchment-wide surface water quality limits and targets)

12


32

Hawke’s Bay Environmental Water

Group 17 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to have temperature limits for aquatic ecosystems and trout spawning added to the Table. Table 5.9.1A already has a limit for temperature that it be suitable for sustaining aquatic habitat, and this allows the temperature to be appropriate for it’s location throughout the catchment. There is no need for further specification as the table is to apply catchment-wide.


32

Hawke’s Bay Environmental Water

Group 19 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to have total suspended solids, soluble inorganic nitrogen, sediments-contaminants and heavy metals standards added to the Table. Table 5.9.1A is intended to apply catchment-wide and therefore the relefi sought is inappropriate here, and Table 5.9.1B is more specific as it sets limits and targets for specified zones which addresses the submitter’s concern.


C6 Ch 5.9.3 POLs Gen Chapter 5.9.3 TT Water Quantity Policies - General

394

Irrigation New Zealand Ltd

2 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that the minimum flows set in Tables 5.9.3 and 5.9.5 need to take into account two possible scenarios – one of the Ruataniwha Dam going ahead, and one without the dam in place. There is still uncertainty whether the dam will be granted resource consent or not and it would be inequitable and sustainable management would not be achieved if the minimum flow levels were increased and yet access to water via the dam did not occur. This would have a major impact on the wellbeing of individuals and their communities if access to water for primary production did not occur because minimum flows were increased.


13


C6 POL TT7 Policy TT7 (minimum flow limits)

29

Hastings District Council

4 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that access to water for irrigation during a drought emergency should be enabled when this does not cause irreparable damage to the environment. During a drought, severe or irreparable damage can be done to crops (such as horticultural trees which are considered a capital asset) and sustainable management is not achieved when such assets are damaged and this has lasting impacts on economic wellbeing of individuals and communities. The ability to make such decisions according to the circumstances needs to be imbued within the policy framework.


34


101 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to delete the exclusion to minimum flows for in-stream dams, and to apply minimum flows to permitted takes as well as consented takes. In-stream dams are intended to store water and enable taking of water when un-dammed river flows would otherwise be lower, so minimum flows that have been developed for the river are inappropriate for the in-stream dam. Permitted takes are enabled because they are so important to wellbeing of people and communities, and do not cause a level of adverse effects that is unacceptable. It would be inappropriate to apply minimum flow reduction or cessation conditions to permitted takes such as domestic and animal drinking supply that are enabled under Section 14(3)(b) of the RMA..


14


304

Environmental Defence Society Inc

49 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to apply minimum flows to all takes including permitted takes Permitted takes are enabled because they are so important to wellbeing of people and communities, and do not cause a level of adverse effects that is unacceptable. It would be inappropriate to apply minimum flow reduction or cessation conditions to permitted takes such as domestic and animal drinking supply that are enabled under Section 14(3)(b) of the RMA..


C6 POL TT8 Policy TT8 (allocation limits)

34


108 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to amend POL TT8 so allocation limits are no longer based on existing volume of consented takes as the submitter considers that this will not achieve sustainable management. Enabling existing takes to continue within the policy framework is an important factor in achieving sustainable management, because economic and social wellbeing that relies on the existing takes will be provided for.


283

Ruataniwha Water Users Group

21 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that the recognition of the interconnectedness of groundwater and surface water should be specified that this is in certain locations. This will allow evidence-based recognition rather than applying this assumption to the entire catchment.


15


C6 Table 5.9.3 Table 5.9.3 (minimum flow limits)

378

Mr Apple New Zealand Ltd

16 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that the timeframe for the transition period needs to take into account when the community irrigation scheme is implemented. The assumption that the dam will be consented and then implemented may not occur, and the minimum flows will have a substantial impact on water takes and wellbeing if there is no alternative water source available.


34


109 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to provide for 90% habitat retention for critical species throughout the catchment. 90% protection may not provide for economic and social wellbeing if water takes are reduced to meet this level. Environmental protection needs to be balanced with other wellbeings in order to achieve sustainable management.


C6 Table 5.9.4 Table 5.9.4 (surface water allocation limits)

41

Irrigation New Zealand Ltd

14 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that when setting in the Table the information needs to be robust and sound, and incorporate all factors not just the economic impact on pasture-based production. Sustainable management will not be achieved unless economic and social impacts of increased minimum flows are assessed on a wider basis of production types.


16


34


110 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to provide for new allocation limits that do not exceed 30% MALF, and incorporate permitted takes into the surface water allocation limits. Any reduction in existing limits will have a negative impact on existing water users. Permitted takes are enabled because they are so important to wellbeing of people and communities, and do not cause a level of adverse effects that is unacceptable. It would be inappropriate to apply allocation limits to permitted takes such as domestic and animal drinking supply that are enabled under Section 14(3)(b) of the RMA..


C6 Table 5.9.5 Table 5.9.5 (groundwater allocation limits)

34


111 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to provide for new allocation limits that do not exceed 30% MALF, and incorporate permitted takes into the groundwater allocation limits. Any reduction in existing limits will have a negative impact on existing water users. Permitted takes are enabled because they are so important to wellbeing of people and communities, and do not cause a level of adverse effects that is unacceptable. It would be inappropriate to apply allocation limits to permitted takes such as domestic and animal drinking supply that are enabled under Section 14(3)(b) of the RMA.


34


113 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to amend footnote 29 to include community irrigation schemes in allocation limits. In-stream dams are intended to store water and enable taking of water when un-dammed river flows would otherwise be lower, so allocation limits that have been developed for the river are inappropriate for the in-stream dam.


17


C6 POL TT9 Policy TT9 (implementing minimum flows and allocation limits)

34


114 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to include new criteria which requires water efficiency to be maximised. Water efficiency is best defined by the water user


34


115 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to restrict the transfer of consents to reduce over allocation. Transfer of existing consents should be enabled because it will not increase the total amount allocated in the catchment so will have a neutral effect on water quantity, but will provide a substantial benefit to individual water users.


34


116 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to incorporate permitted takes into the surface water allocation limits. Permitted takes are enabled because they are so important to wellbeing of people and communities, and do not cause a level of adverse effects that is unacceptable. It would be inappropriate to apply allocation limits to permitted takes such as domestic and animal drinking supply that are enabled under Section 14(3)(b) of the RMA..


41

Irrigation New Zealand Inc

19 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that policy TT9.1(b)(i) needs to specify that it’s is the consent holder that decides that their consent is surrendered or not renewed, current wording is unclear that it could be the Council that decides.


18


304


59 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to require reductions in takes as a method of phasing out over-allocation. It is unclear what the submitter intends: the Council should not determine what volume the resource user should apply for, nor should users be required to reduce the amount of water that their consent allows them to take. Water take volumes are necessary for that business and to reduce these without the consent holder’s agreement is inequitable.


378

Dairy NZ 24 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that policy TT9.1(b)(i) needs to specify that it’s is the consent holder that decides that their consent is surrendered or not renewed, current wording is unclear that it could be the Council that decides.


384


46 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that increases in the volume of the rate or take should be enabled by the policy, when this increase in appropriate and implements good management practice. The ability to expand production is important to the economic wellbeing of people and communities and should be available as an option where appropriate. This will achieve the maintenance or enhancement of primary production, which is identified as a primary value in the Tukituki catchment.


19


C6 POL TT10 Policy TT10 (high flow allocation limits)

384


53 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that times of minimum flow are provided for (A Block), times for maximum flow and winter storage are provided for (C Block,) but there is no provision for times on the shoulders of these seasons (B Block). We agree with the submitter that POL TT10 needs to define a B allocation block to provide for water storage options outside the area of the Ruataniwha water storage scheme above the median flow.


C6 POL TT12 Policy TT12 (transfers)

34


128 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to place limits on when transfer of consents can occur, including conditions on water efficiency. Transfer of existing consents should be enabled because it will not increase the total amount allocated in the catchment so will have a neutral effect on water quantity, but will provide a substantial benefit to individual water users.


304


68 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to require transfer of a consent to go through a resource consent process. The consented activity has already gone through such a process, and the transfer will not incur any further adverse effects on the catchment as the new consent holder will also have to comply with the consent conditions.


20


C6 POL TT13 Policy TT13 (enabling community irrigation schemes)

41

Irrigation New Zealand Inc

23 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that the limiting of community irrigation schemes to those that can service over 5,000ha is restrictive and should simply provide for schemes where they improve efficient allocation and use of water regardless of size.


75

Wilson, Gerald and Thomas

8 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that the limiting of community irrigation schemes to those that can service over 5,000ha is restrictive and should simply provide for schemes where they improve efficient allocation and use of water regardless of size. This is an unnecessary restriction of opportunity to have smaller schemes.


C6 POL TT14 Policy TT14 (consent categorisation and durations)

75


9 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that the 5 year consent duration in Policy TT14.1(c) is inequitable compared to the 35 year duration for community schemes, and does not provide confidence to consent holders.


38

Holden, Duncan 2 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that the 5 year consent duration in Policy TT14.1(c) does not provide confidence to consent holders and should be increased.


C6 Rule TT1 Rule TT1 (production land use)

17

Dairy NZ 28 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that existing industry systems and programmes are currently in place and that existing nutrient budgeting under these should be considered to meet requirements the rule.


21


22

Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd

43 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that the existing stock exclusion and stock crossing obligations for dairy farmers under the Supply Fonterra programme are an accepted alternative to Rule TT1(e), (f) and (g). We also agree with the submitter that te farm environment plan prepared under Supply Fonterra or the Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord is accepted as an alternative to This is an example of industry good practice being implemented as required by policies in the Plan Change.


11 Irrigation


Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that sometimes terrain can impede stock exclusion measures, and that a Farm Environment Plan be used to demonstrate to Council if this is a reason why exclusion may not be feasible for a farm.


304


79 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to change the activity status for production land use from permitted in Rule TT1 to controlled. Primary production is vital to the wellbeing of people and communities in the Tukituki catchment, and is an appropriate landuse. The permitted status reflects this importance while also placing restrictions and obligations on this landuse to achieve desired outcomes, so the submitter’s concerns about compliance are already addressed. Permitted status also does not mean that monitoring needs to be foregone.


22


C6 Rule TT2 Rule TT2 (production land use not complying with Rule TT1)

304


Not numbered

Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to include a prohibited activity status in Rule TT2 for activities that do not meet Rule TT1 standards and result in over-allocation. Prohibited status is extreme and inappropriate, and will not achieve sustainable management as it will negatively impact primary production and wellbeing of people and communities.


C6 Rule TT3 Rule TT3 (water takes)

304


89 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to delete TT3 because the submitter considers permitted status of the filling of agricultural spray tanks is “rewarding” an activity that was a breach of the operative Plan. Federated Farmers considers that the permitted status is an appropriate recognition of an activity that is necessary for production and has minimal adverse effect.


384


65 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that the permitted status to fill spray tanks should not be limited to tanks used for agrichemicals, but should also include fertiliser sprays as a similar activity.


C6 Rule TT4 Rule TT4 (water takes)

22

Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd

46 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that restricted discretionary status will be appropriate. Matters of restricted discretion then can be clearly identified and listed.


23


17

Dairy NZ 37 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that a restricted discretionary status for some activities is appropriate, as the jump from permitted to discretionary has no intermediary for renewed consents and consents for water use on dairy farms such as for cooling or wash-down.


384


67 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that restricted discretionary status will be appropriate. Matters of restricted discretion then can be clearly identified and listed.


C6 Rule TT5 Rule TT5 (water takes not complying with Rules TT3 and TT4)

304


93 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought to amend the activity status in Rule TT5 to prohibited. Prohibited status is extreme and inappropriate, and will not achieve sustainable management as it will negatively impact primary production and wellbeing of people and communities.


C6 Glossary New New meanings to be added to Glossary

362

Sage, Eugenie 4 Oppose

Federated Farmers opposes the submitter’s relief sought for a new definition of intensive farming to be 8 or 9 stock units per hectare. Stocking rates and stock density are not an accurate portrayal of intensive farming. High stocking rates can still maintain pastoral farming and are a matter of management methods.


24


C6 Schedule XXI Schedule XXI Records to be kept for nutrient budgeting

75


14 Support

Federated Farmers agrees with the submitter that the requirement to provide annual accounts in (e) and invoices and receipts (f) to the Council will be a breach of business privacy and should not be insisted on.


25


Federated Farmers is a not-for-profit primary sector policy and advocacy organisation that represents the majority of farming businesses in New Zealand. Federated Farmers has a long and proud history of representing the interests of New Zealand’s farmers. The Federation aims to add value to its members’ farming businesses. Our key strategic outcomes include the need for New Zealand to provide an economic and social environment within which:

Our members may operate their business in a fair and flexible commercial environment;

Our members’ families and their staff have access to services essential to the needs of the rural community; and

Our members adopt responsible management and environmental practices.

This submission is representative of member views and reflect the fact that resource management and government decisions impact on our member’s daily lives as farmers and members of local communities.

Federated Farmers thanks the Environmental Protection Authority for considering our further submission to Tukituki proposal.