Before Hearing Panel Proposed Natural Resources Plan for the Wellington Region. The Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act)

Transcription

1 Before Hearing Panel Proposed Natural Resources Plan for the Wellington Region Under The Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) In the matter of Proposed Natural Resources Plan for the Wellington Region: Hearing Five Beds of Lakes and Rivers, Wetlands and Biodiversity, & Discharges to Land Between Greater Wellington Regional Council Local Authority And Masterton South Wairarapa District Council Submitter S367 and Further Submitter FS30 Statement of David Richard Hopman Dated 26 March

2 Qualifications and Experience 1 My full name is David Richard Hopman. 2 For my qualifications and experience and other introductory comments, please refer to paragraphs 1 to 3 of my statement of evidence for Hearing Stream One, dated 4 May My statement is given in support of Masterton District Council s ( MDC ) submission on the Proposed Natural Resources Plan for the Wellington Region ( PNRP ), specific to the issue of Beds of Lakes and Rivers, Wetlands and Biodiversity, & Discharges to Land. Primary Issues 4 Specific to Hearing Stream Five, there are two primary issues for MDC, being the provisions relating to discharge of wastewater to land, and Rules R121 and R122 relating to drain clearance and vegetation removal. Scope of Statement 5 The purpose of my statement is to provide background information to assist the hearing panel in understanding the practicalities of the technical and operational context within which MDC drain maintenance activities occur. This statement should be read in association with that of Ms Whitney and Dr Keesing. Drain and Vegetation Clearance 6 As I understand, the approach in the PNRP appears to provide for some clearance activities within drains and modified streams and rivers as a permitted activity. Specifically, Rule R121 provides for sediment and vegetation removal from drains and highly modified streams as a permitted activity, while Rule R122 provides for vegetation removal (and associated sediment or bed material attached to the roots of the vegetation) from the bed of any river or lake as a permitted activity. 7 The primary concerns MDC has with the drain and modified river and stream 2

3 provision are that they are complex, prescriptive and unworkable in nature. In addition, the provisions fail to recognise or provide for the clearance of stormwater drains or water races and as a result, as outlined in the evidence of Ms Whitney, consent is required for a full discretionary activity under Rule R129 for sediment and vegetation clearance within the stormwater drains and water races. 8 The lack of certainly as to the activity status and the prescriptive nature of the rules has wide ranging operational cost and timing implications for MDC in terms of compliance. 9 To provide the panel with context as to the impact of the PNRP watercourse sediment and vegetation clearance provisions, I will outline the purpose of the network of drains, water races and modified stream/rivers, and the existing clearance activities. Purpose 10 The existing stormwater and drainage network within MDC is comprised of a mixture of stormwater drains, and modified streams for the purpose of providing drainage for the Urban area. Although not designed for the flood events and stormwater purposes, water races also serve as cross country drainage for rural properties. The Opaki Water Race continues to function as a stock water race, while the decommissioned Te Ore Ore Water Race still fulfils an important land drainage function. Current Maintenance Activities 11 MDC acknowledges that the responsibility for drain maintenance is primarily the landowners. However, this is problematic in the instance of the Urban drains and modified streams where multiple owners with differing abilities have responsibility. MDC has therefore undertaken maintenance of drains/streams to ensure the free flow of stormwater and prevent localised flooding of residential properties. 12 In order to illustrate the difficulties associated with maintenance of road drains and these highly modified urban streams, I wish to discuss two specific incidents that MDC has had to deal with. 13 The first relates to the Manania Road drain and the outcome of cleaning in line 3

4 with the PNRP rules. The second is the recent process MDC had to go through in order the clean the Kuripuni Stream. Manaia Road Drain 14 The Manania Road drain runs along Manaia Road (left side on photo) to the south west of Masterton. The drain has a large catchment, including from the urban area of Masterton itself, and is classified in the plan as a class 6 river. 15 Responsibility for the maintenance of the drain is split between MDC and GWRC. GWRC deals with the day-to-day maintenance of the drain as part of their wider flood control responsibilities, while MDC responds to flood events and other emergency type works. 16 In March this year, Masterton experienced a heavy rainfall event. This was anticipated thanks to good weather forecasting and MDC and GWRC contractors took the time to clean the drains and drain sumps around the district in order to help prevent any localised flooding. This is a normal precaution when advance warning is provided. 17 GWRC cleared the Manaia Road drain in accordance with the PNRP rules, by clearing out the middle third of the drain and leaving the sides untouched. 18 However, this had the effect of creating a channel down which water could flow at relatively high speed. As the rainfall event progressed, the flows increased to 4

5 such an extent that the two thirds of the weeds left in place sloughed off the banks and moved downstream. This mat of weeds and sediment then blocked culverts and caused extensive localised flooding. 19 The picture below illustrates the nature of the problem; 20 In response to complaints, and in order to prevent the public road from becoming flooded, MDC contractors attended the blockage, physically removed the weed mat and disposed of the material to landfill. 21 I believe that this is illustrates how the proposed methodology in the PNRP is poorly conceived and does not recognise the realities of drain maintenance. Not only was this property subjected to localised flooding, but the two thirds of the vegetation left in situ has simply been scoured off by water moving through the centre channel. The limited cleaning has therefore served no useful purpose as this remnant habitat has gone. 22 This additional work and disruption would have been avoided if the drain had simply been cleaned appropriately in the first place. 5

6 Kuripuni Stream 23 The second situation I wanted to highlight is the Kuripuni Stream. 24 The Kuripuni Stream runs through the western suburbs of Masterton, and is primarily spring fed. An approximately 830m length of the stream runs through a residential area, with 42 individual properties bordering it. Under the Land Drainage Act 1908, these properties have collective responsibility to clean and maintain their stretch of stream. However, this is impractical for many residents either due to access, ill health or the cost of hiring a contractor. 25 The photographs below illustrate the nature of the Kuripuni Stream. The main channel is restricted by weeds growing on a thick substrate of sediment. Residential properties are in close proximity, making access difficult. I note that the silt can be half a metre deep in places, making it difficult and dangerous for residents to enter the stream to clean it. 6

7 26 During heavy rainfall events, the flows in the stream increase and, where constrained by weed growth and sediment, the stream backs up and floods resident s properties. 27 Numerous complaints have been received by both MDC and GWRC, culminating in a petition received by MDC in late 2017 requesting that Council carry out the maintenance work. Prior to this, MDC had been seeking to have individual property owners maintain their own stretch of stream, but this had limited success for the reasons I have mentioned above. 28 My staff and I met with and discussed the problem with GWRC planning and scientific officers, who agreed that the only practical solution was to have MDC carry out the work. However, due to the rules in the PNRP, MDC needed to obtain a Resource Consent to do so. 29 I note that although GWRC carry out flood control work in larger rivers in the region, there is no interest from the river control group to become involved in these difficult areas. We were advised that we were unable to carry out the work under their Global consent. By default, the responsibility came to sit with MDC. 30 The PNRP rules were discussed, and were agreed to be impractical by all parties, and unworkable by Councils contractor. Entering a narrow, confined stream bed via private property with heavy equipment, to then only remove weeds and sediment from one half of the stream would have been futile. The 7

8 remaining sediment would simply have been washed further downstream and caused more flooding at the next rainfall event. 31 It was acknowledged that the cleaning operation would cause adverse effects to the streams ecology, but it was agreed with the GWRC planner and ecologist that the preferable option was to enter the stream once, carry out the work promptly and then allow the stream to recover over time. The Resource Consent was therefore sought and granted on this basis. 32 The need to seek and obtain affected parties consent from all 48 landowners and occupiers, as well as both Iwi groups added further time and costs to the process. Although all parties, including both Iwi, eventually signed off on the proposal, at least two weeks of my staff time was taken up in pursuing these and ensuring all was in order. Further requirements to get approval of the process with GWRC ecologist, then with the GWRC monitoring officer and then to obtaining a photographic record of the stream before the work started resulted in the entire process taking approximately 5 months. 33 At the time of writing this evidence, the work is being carried out. The effect and effectiveness of the work is not known at this point in time, but I believe that the cleaning will not need to be repeated for some years at least. 34 MDC faces a similar problem with the maintenance of other urban streams (the Makoura Stream, the Town Stream) and the Opaki Water Race. As the proposed rules are impractical, there will be a requirement to obtain a Resource Consent from GWRC to carry out further maintenance work. This will cause unnecessary costs, complexity and delay to what should be simply routine. 35 The rules in the PNRP do not appear to acknowledge that drainage infrastructure is critical and an essential function for urban areas. I consider that the rules in the PNRP have added unnecessary costs and complexity to what should be the routine maintenance of these services. I also note that in discussions with GWRC, the proposed rules received little or no support from their consenting and ecology staff. 36 The two examples that I have provided to the Commissioners (Manaia Road and Kuripuni Stream) illustrate that the effective cleaning of drains and modified streams cannot be achieved within the proposed methodology. In order to continue to maintain these assets adequately, Council s will be forced to apply 8

9 for a series of Resource Consents, and in doing so incur unreasonable and unnecessary costs and delays. Wastewater 37 As outlined in the evidence of Ms Whitney, I am supportive of the recommended amendments for the rules relating to the discharge of treated wastewater from wastewater networks to land, and the removal of the overly onerous and inflexible conditions. However, a permitted status remains the Council preference. Concluding remarks 38 I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today and to voice the concerns of MDC with the PNRP as notified. 39 In my opinion, while artificial watercourses (being drains and water races) can have similar values to natural waterbodies in terms of having some ecological, and amenity values, these values vary considerably. The critical nature of the drains and watercourses in terms of the functioning and wellbeing of communities for stormwater and flood protection purposes is significant and should be reflected in the PNRP rule framework. 40 During the preparation of the draft plan, the Council proposed including a comanagement principle for watercourses ensuring both ecological and property protection. This principle should be reflected by changes in the plan s rules as outlined in Ms Whitney s evidence. David Hopman 26 March