Inteligencia emocional

In response to the Lynton and Pine Grove decision, ECan created an adaptive management45

programme to address uncertainties with groundwater management in the Rakaia-Selwyn zone. The Restorative Programme for Lowland Streams first aimed to establish “clear annual limits on the amount of water every consent holder in red zones can abstract…[and] to vary those limits year-by- year depending on how much water is in the groundwater system”. It would also require every “consent holder to measure how much water they are taking by metering their wells”. The

43 _{The original consent application was for 5.1Mm³ of abstraction. The Court reduced the amount Lynton and}

Pine Grove dairy could abstract to 3.64Mm³ (pp. 54-55 [sec 200-203]).

44 _{This will be discussed in the next case study.}

45 _{Adaptive management was defined by Sara Singleton (2002, p.58) as a strategy “that allows for continual}

Programme also aimed to “control the rate of abstraction from wells that directly affect lowland stream flows to ensure abstraction does not cause streams to go below minimum environmental flows” (ECan, 2006, p.1).

Shortly after the announcement of The Restorative Programme for Lowland Streams, a bulk application for 71 groundwater consents in the Rakaia-Selwyn zone was assessed by ECan

commissioners (Claridge, 2006, p.4)46_{.The appointed commissioners decided to grant 69 of the 71} consents for a ten year period against the wishes of ECan (Eleven, 2007a, p.3).The commissioners decided to reject applications for groundwater consent from the shallowest aquifer47 _{because they} believed these abstractions would affect lowland stream flows greater than abstractions from deeper aquifers (ECan, 2007). This decision was influenced by Aqualinc’s Canterbury groundwater model, which assumed that deeper aquifers are separated from lowland streams by several semi-permeable layers. ECan’s Chief Executive Bryan Jenkins was disappointed with the decision. Commissioners advocated The Restorative Programme for Lowland Streams by describing it as a “suck it and see approach” (Eleven, 2007b, p.2).The “suck it and see approach” refers to the adaptive management rules set on the consents, which meant that abstraction could continue while the effects of this abstraction were being monitored. By contrast, Bryan Jenkins argued the commissioners should have employed an “anticipate and avoid” strategy by restricting further abstraction until all the cumulative effects of existing consents were known.

6.5.2.1. Explaining the success of the Rakaia-Selwyn 69.

ECan officers attempted to justify zonal limits during the Rakaia-Selwyn hearing which ultimately led to the granting of 69 of 71 consents. Matthew Bubb (personal communication, February 29, 2012) and Ian McIndoe (personal communication, April 17, 2012) both reported in research interviews that ECan officers refused to accept the possibility that ECan’s figures for sustainable allocation of

groundwater could be challenged. The resource consent commissioners concurred with Bubb and McIndoe. The commissioners argued that ECan adopted an advocacy role by attempting to decline all of the consent applications (Milne, Russell, & Ryder,2007, p.6 [para 24]). In the commissioners’ view, there was insufficient monitoring data to support ECan’s conclusion that deeper aquifers were already fully allocated and that further allocation would affect lowland streams (Milne et al., 2007, p.56 [para 263]).

The decision to grant 69 extra consents in the Rakaia-Selwyn red zone confirmed the weakness of ECan’s groundwater management system. ECan responded by hiring hydrologist Paul White to review the case (White, 2009). White argued that ECan’s approach was “suitably conservative” but

46 _{ECan appointed commissioners Philip Milne (environmental lawyer), Wayne Russell (hydrogeologists), and Dr}

Greg Ryder (aquatic ecologist) to hear the case

ultimately unsuccessful (White, 2009, pp. i-ii). Why was ECan unable to justify its groundwater limits to the commissioners? White noted the debate between consent applicants and ECan over the effect of abstracting from deep aquifers on lowland streams. Consent applicants, using Aqualinc’s

Canterbury groundwater model, argued the effect of abstracting from deeper aquifers would be negligible on lowland streams. By contrast, White argued that groundwater abstraction in deeper aquifers could cause decline in shallow aquifer flows (that feed lowland streams), but that the pathway of flows between shallow and deeper aquifers was still unknown (White, 2009, p. i). Given this, why did the commissioners allow the abstraction?

White offered several explanations. First, aquifer identification is relatively easy near the coast, but in the upper-plains aquifer identification is more difficult and the “hydraulic boundaries between aquifers are not well defined” (White, 2009, p.60). Hydrologists therefore experienced difficulty in identifying the flow of water between deep and shallow aquifers, whereas identifying the flow between shallow coastal aquifers and lowland streams was easier. Despite this, research by Bruce Hunt and David Scott (2007) confirmed in layered aquifer systems abstraction from deeper aquifers will lead to flow changes in shallower aquifers. Second, White (2009, p.61) argued that ECan’s bathtub model, which assumed that aquifers were connected, was “not suitable for assessing local effects of groundwater use, for example the effects of pumping on neighbouring wells”. White noted that bathtub models are commonly used in hydrogeology when the geological structures of aquifers are unknown. However, bathtub models are only suitable at assessing the effects of groundwater use at certain scales. The sub-regional scale of the Rakaia-Selwyn hearing suited Aqualinc’s Canterbury groundwater model over ECan’s regional bathtub model. In the words of the commissioners, ECan’s use of the bathtub model did not differentiate “between the [consent] applications on the basis that some would have less impact than others depending upon their location and the size of take

involved” (Milne et al., 2007, p.11 [para 52]).

ECan expected the commissioners to conclude that abstractions from all aquifers will affect levels of the shallowest aquifer and thus levels in lowland streams. The commissioners decided there was a degree of uncertainty with this claim. As a result, commissioners were happy that the effects of new abstractions could be assessed and mitigated through ten year consents, metering the abstractions, and placing adaptive management rules on the consents. In sum, Aqualinc’s Canterbury groundwater model, by conceiving of Canterbury’s upper-plains aquifers as semi-permeable, was able to justify some abstractions (such as those in deeper aquifers) over others. Furthermore, unlike ECan’s bathtub model, the Canterbury groundwater model was able to assess the effects of singular abstractions.

Aqualinc’s Canterbury groundwater model also identified greater recharge into the Rakaia-Selwyn groundwater zone from the Selwyn River. Thus, the applicants argued there was more groundwater available for abstraction than ECan was aware of (see Table 8).

Table 8 Water inputs to the Rakaia – Selwyn Groundwater Zone (White, 2009, p.67, as reported by Anthony Davoren during the Rakaia-Selwyn hearings).

Component ECan Applicant’s assessment

(million m³/yr) (million m³/yr)

Dryland rainfall recharge 370 370

Irrigation recharge 55 55

Rakaia surface water irrigation

recharge 5 24

Selwyn River 0 100

Total 430 549

50 per cent of land-based recharge

for allocation 215 274

It would appear that Aqualinc’s Canterbury groundwater model was more compatible with the requirements of the RMA than ECan’s bathtub model. First, the RMA requires regional councils to measure the effects of activities on the environment. When resource consents are granted with certain conditions – such as a limited time period, water metering, adaptive management (limiting abstractions during low flow years), and pumping tests to monitor levels between aquifers – the

effect of upper-plains abstractions on lowland streams can be identified, calculated, and mitigated. By contrast, ECan’s bathtub model argued that because aquifers were interconnected the effect of abstractions were all similar. Due to the scientific uncertainty of this claim, commissioners chose to monitor the effects of abstraction rather than to restrict abstraction. Second, ECan can establish limits to cumulative abstraction under the RMA through regional planning documents (such as the proposed NRRP). However, ECan acknowledged that its groundwater rules were interim (despite

being included in the draft NRRP water chapter), and this allowed applicants to use the Aqualinc groundwater model to investigate variables (for example, Selwyn river recharge) to stretch ECan’s interim limits. Applicants had gone beyond the variables of ECan’s first zonal order and concluded that the effects of extra abstraction from deep upper-plains aquifers would be negligible on lowland streams. In conclusion, Aqualinc’s Canterbury groundwater model provided commissioners with a means to make decisions on individual consents in accordance with the RMA’s effects-based mandate. The result was that commissioners granted consent for groundwater abstraction despite ECan’s zonal limits regime.