BOARD of INQUIRY Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal in the MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and in the MATTE

Home , Lake Rotoaira, Moawhango River, Mount Ruapehu, Whangaehu, Whangaehu River

BOARD OF INQUIRY

Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991

AND

IN THE MATTER of a Board of Inquiry appointed under s149J of the Resource Management Act 1991 to consider the application for resource consents by Watercare Services Ltd to increase abstraction of water from the Waikato River.

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF HANNAH JANE RAINFORTH

18 June, 2021

INTRODUCTION

1. My name is Hannah Jane Rainforth.

2. I am an uri of Ngāti Rangi, Te Āti Haunui ā Pāpārangi, and Ngāti Hauiti.

3. I hold the degree of Master of Science in Restoration Ecology and a Bachelor of Arts majoring in Māori Studies, both from Victoria University of Wellington. I graduated from Te Panekiretanga o te Reo, The Institute of Excellence in Māori Language at the Eastern Institute of Technology and hold a Pōkaitahi Ngā Muka o te reo o Whanganui (Certificate in Whanganui Reo) from the Universal College of Learning.

4. I have 13 years’ experience as an environmental practitioner, specialising in providing freshwater, resource management and biodiversity services to iwi and hapū.

5. I am a Kaupapa Taiao Specialist at Kāhu Environmental Ltd. As part of that role, I have developed and executed freshwater monitoring plans for iwi and hapū for topics such as sewage spills and diquat use. This monitoring involved both ‘Western’ science and tailored kaupapa Māori assessments. I have also developed iwi-led stream restoration plans, conducted fish rescues for stream dewatering projects, undertaken īnanga spawning surveys and trained hapū members in īnanga spawning survey techniques. I have run workshops on the numerous kaupapa Māori assessment tools now available, and produced a synthesis of these tools and frameworks for councils and iwi and hapū.

6. Both in this role and in previous roles, I have facilitated wānanga to teach iwi and hapū members about freshwater monitoring techniques, and run workshops on how to design monitoring programmes that answer iwi and hapū needs.

7. I am a member of the New Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society

Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

(NZFSS), have previously been the editor for the Society, and served on the Executive Committee. As part of that role, I helped establish what is now called Te Wai Māori – the collective of Māori members of NZFSS.

8. Prior to joining Kāhu Environmental, I was Pou Taiao/Environmental Manager for Ngāti Rangi Trust. In that role I was involved in assessments and negotiations on the flow regime for the Eastern Diversion of the Tongariro Power Scheme, which I refer to in this evidence. As Pou Taiao, I lead the development of Ngāti Rangi’s Taiao Management Plan, and was involved in hydroelectricity resource consent applications in the rohe. I helped establish continuous monitoring of key parameters in the mainstem of the Whangaehu, developed a monitoring app for use by iwi members, trained iwi members on how to assess fish passage issues and undertook fish surveys throughout the rohe.

9. I participated in the Land and Water Forum and was a technical advisor to the Iwi Leaders Group for Freshwater of the Iwi Chairs Forum. As a representative of that group, I also served on the Reference Group for National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) 2014 and participated in the development of the National Objectives Framework for that iteration of the NPSFM.

10. I have also worked as a freshwater ranger for the Department of Conservation, and as Acting Technical Support Officer Freshwater.

11. I am a Trustee for Ngā Tangata Tiaki o Whanganui, the post settlement governance entity for Te Awa Tupua, the Whanganui River Claims Settlement. I am also a member of Te Pae Toka, the governance relationship group between Ngāti Rangi and RAL. I regularly participate in the Whanganui annual iwi wānanga, Te Tira Hoe Waka and other iwi hui and wānanga.

Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

CODE OF CONDUCT

12. I confirm that I have read the Expert Witness Code of Conduct set out in the Environment Court's Practice Note 2014. I have complied with the Code of Conduct in preparing this evidence and agree to comply with it while giving oral evidence. Except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person, this written evidence is within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed in this evidence.

13. As a member of the New Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society, a constituent organisation of the Royal Society of New Zealand - Te Apārangi, I am also bound by the Royal Society of New Zealand Code of Professional Standards and Ethics in Science, Technology, and the Humanities.1

SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

14. I am appearing on behalf of Ngāti Rangi, for Ngā Waihua o Paerangi Trust. I am a descendant of Ruapehu and whakapapa to all the rivers impacted by the Tongariro Power Scheme (TPS) – the Whanganui, the Whangaehu and the Rangitīkei. This evidence covers the relevance of the water diverted through the TPS to the Waikato River to water allocation in the Waikato, the impacts of those diversions on Ngāti Rangi, and relevant planning considerations.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

15. The Tongariro Power Scheme (TPS) diverts the headwaters of the Whangaehu, the Rangitīkei and the Whanganui into Lake Taupō and on into the Waikato River.

16. It is Ngāti Rangi’s aim to see the waters of the Whangaehu returned to their rightful waterbodies.

1 https://royalsociety.org.nz/assets/Uploads/Code-of-Prof-Stds-and-Ethics-1-Jan-2019-web.pdf Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

17. It is my opinion that the impact of the TPS diversions on the water availability in the Waikato River has not been sufficiently assessed by the applicant. The natural flows in the Waikato River need to be calculated before any further resource consents for water takes are considered.

18. A rough calculation of the amount water added to the Waikato River through the TPS is 35.6 m3/s. If this amount is removed from the Q5 of the Waikato Coastal Marine Area Water Allocation Calculation catchment, the Q5 would drop from 187.9 to 152.3 m3/s. The allocable flow would drop by 3.57 m3/s to 15.23 m3/s.

19. Based on the Q5 that still contains the water diverted from the TPS, the applicant’s Mr Bassett has estimated that between 3.24 m3/s and 7.74 m3/s remains available for allocation, depending on the time of year.

20. Given that I have roughly calculated that the allocable flow could drop by 3.57 m3/s, this would mean for part of the year the Waikato may already be over-allocated. For the remaining part of the year, only 4.17 m3/s may be available for allocation. Clearly, the TPS impacts on the availability of water in the Waikato, and this influence needs to be removed before any further water is allocated or consented.

Planning Considerations 21. The NPSFM is a relevant matter which the BOI must have regard to when considering this application under s104(1((b)(iii).

22. The NPSFM contains objectives and policies that direct protection and avoidance. The Court has found in other cases that policies that direct ‘protection’ or ‘avoidance’ can be read as being ‘akin to bottom-lines’.2 Because the NPSFM is directive and sets cultural and environmental ‘bottom-lines’ that are relevant to achieving the

2 Environmental Defence Society v New Zealand King Salmon Co Ltd [2014] NZSC 38.[132] Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

purpose of the Act3 the level of regard had to those policies should be very high.

23. The NPSFM also requires WRC to undergo a process to change its plan to reflect the directions set in the NPSFM, most notably to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai.

24. Giving effect to Te Mana o te Wai is a responsibility of this BOI, and that obligation does not wait until the WRC has completed a freshwater plan change.

25. Policy 11 of the NPS requires that future over-allocation is avoided. Take limits must be set in the future regional plan, before the end of 2024. These limits must provide for environmental flows and levels4 which in turn must achieve environmental outcomes5 that provide for the values of the waterbody6.

26. All parts of the future, NPSFM-compliant water allocation regime, including minimum flows, take limits and rule frameworks must achieve the environmental outcomes for the waterbodies. These environmental outcomes must give effect to Te Mana o te Wai, provide for ecosystem health, indigenous species, mahinga kai and any Māori Values identified by tangata whenua.

27. This must occur in both the Horizons Region (affecting the source awa for the TPS) and in the Waikato Region. Because of cultural effects, Te Mana o te Wai and values that will be identified by us as Ngāti Rangi that must be provided for in the future regional plan, it is highly likely that the amount of water diverted from Ngāti Rangi’s rohe and therefore flowing in the Waikato will reduce.

28. The Ngāti Rangi settlement, Rukutia te Mana, requires that decision makers working under RMA must recognise and provide for Te

3 RMA s45(1) 4 3,17(1)(a). 5 NPSFM 3.16(2)(a) 6 NPSFM 3.9(3) Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

Mana Tupua and Ngā Toka Tupua7. Ngā Toka Tupua are the intrinsic values for the Whangaehu.

29. Also under Rukutia te Mana, the catchment strategy Te Tāhoratanga o Te Waiū will be developed. This must be recognised and provided for when a local authority is developing or changing planning documents that relate to the Whangaehu8. Te Tāhoratanga may also lead to a reduction in or cessation of water diverted to the Waikato.

30. A resource consent granted now whose term extends beyond the meaningful life of the next NPSFM-compliant plan and the development of Te Tāhoratanga will frustrate whatever regime is in put in place to achieve Te Mana o te Wai and recognise and provide for Te Mana Tupua and Ngā Toka Tupua.

Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River 31. The Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River gives policy direction on the outcomes sought for the Waikato River. It gives direction to the RPS and the regional plan and is part of the RPS.

32. Objectives in the Vision and Strategy that are of particular relevance to the concerns of Ngāti Rangi are E, F and G. An integrated approach requires consideration of the water in the Waikato River that is diverted through the TPS, and the impacts on not only on Ngāti Rangi but also on Waikato River iwi and hapū, who have had the responsibility of protecting the mouri of our waters thrust upon them.

33. Ngāti Rangi also contend that the adoption of a precautionary approach requires decisions on resource consents to be cautious about the potential future effects that may arise as a result of the reduction in the amount of water entering the Waikato River through

7 Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Act 2019, Part 3, Sub-part 1, s. 109 8 Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Act 2019, Part 3, Sub-part 4, s. 124

Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

the TPS.

34. Further, that decision-makers recognise and avoid adverse potential cumulative effects, including those of over-allocation.

Regional Policy Statement 2016 35. The RPS requires decision-makers to properly consider the relationship of tangata whenua with the wai, and their role as kaitiaki. Because of the TPS, this includes Ngāti Rangi, even though Ngāti Rangi are not tangata whenua in the Waikato.

36. The RPS also includes direction to avoid over-allocation and to phase it out. It is my opinion that allocating water to this or any other resource consent may result in future over-allocation unless the TPS impacts are properly accounted for.

Municipal supplies 37. It is my opinion that Policy 8.6 of the RPS, which appears to provide for over-allocation for domestic or municipal supplies should be given very little weight.

Regional Plan 38. The importance of removing the influence of the Tongariro Power Scheme on flow statistics and water take allocations is already acknowledged in the Waikato Region Plan, in Standard 3.3.4.27 f) and Method 3.3.4.8. It is my opinion that because the effects of the Tongariro Power Scheme are still present below Karapiro, the principles driving this Standard and Method should still apply. Despite this Standard and Method, resource consents are still being considered without removing the influence of the TPS.

Relief sought 39. Ngāti Rangi seeks that the application be declined until such time as:

(i) a full technical assessment of the impact of the additional water diverted through the Tongariro Power

Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

Scheme on natural flows has been conducted and that;

(ii) that assessment has been utilised to make changes to the water allocation framework of the Waikato Regional Plan.

Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

INTRODUCTION

40. Firstly, to our whanaunga in the Taupō and Waikato awa catchments, tēnei te mihi. Ngāti Rangi acknowledges your support as we join this kaupapa, and acknowledge that we are speaking as an iwi affected not because we have mana whenua in the rohe, but because our waters have been diverted and join with yours. Nōu ēnei whenua, ka tū mātou ki konei i runga i te ara whanaunga, ā, i runga hoki i te rere o te wai e kawe nei i ā mātou mihi ki a koutou katoa.

41. Secondly, who are Ngāti Rangi? Ngāti Rangi are the descendants of Paerangi, the God of the Milky Way. We connect directly to the mana of the Gods and of Mount Ruapehu. This metaphysical connection comes from the beginning of time and flows in the veins of the descendants of Ngāti Rangi. We inhabit the lands to the southern side of Ruapehu. Our ancestral awa is the Whangaehu, Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika.

42. As stated in our submission, Ngāti Rangi is significantly impacted by the diversion of our waters through the Tongariro Power Scheme. This water leaves our catchment and is diverted into the Moawhango Dam, where it mixes with water from the headwaters of the Rangitīkei, the Moawhango River. From there, it joins the Tongariro River at the Rangipō Dam. After flowing through the Rangipō Power Station, it goes on to Lake Rotoaira, joining with waters diverted from the Whanganui River. These combined waters flow through Tokaanu Power Station, into Lake Taupō and on into the Waikato River. They never come back to their home rivers.

43. Ngāti Rangi’s goal is to see this water returned. Ngāti Rangi have never been reticent in making it known that this is our aim. The current allocation framework in the Waikato River catchment fails to account for the additional water in the catchment that is sourced from the TPS. Granting this consent will effectively allocate water that is not guaranteed to be part of the catchment in the future.

44. An allocation framework that properly and fully considers the

Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

hydrological impact of the TPS on water availability in the Waikato River catchment needs to be in place before new consents are granted. That applies to this consent, as well as others not under consideration by this Board.

EVIDENCE

The impact of Tongariro Power Scheme is not sufficiently assessed by applicant 45. The Tongariro Power Scheme is only mentioned once in the applicant’s River Hydrology Assessment report. To quote that report:

“Flows from the Waikato sub catchment upstream of Hamilton are regulated by dams and hydraulic structures, and include water diverted from the headwaters of the Whanganui and Rangitikei Rivers by the Tongariro Power Scheme. The associated hydroelectric power stations and reservoirs along the main stem of the upper Waikato River are managed by Mercury NZ Limited, with the Karapiro Dam the most downstream structure. The operation of the schemes along the cascade significantly affects the downstream flows.”

46. I note two matters here. Firstly, the report is incorrect. It fails to mention that water is also diverted from the Whangaehu River catchment, Ngāti Rangi’s catchment. The Whangaehu contributes a mean of 3.4 m3/s and makes up an average of around 10% of all the foreign water diverted into the Waikato Catchment through the Tongariro Power Scheme, to the best of my knowledge. To give you an idea of what this means in terms of the application in question here, 150,000 m3/day equates to 1.74 m3/s, or roughly half of the water diverted through the Waihianoa Aqueduct through to the TPS.

47. Of the 22 intake structures that intersect the various headwaters of the Whangaehu, 18 take the full, available flow. In fact, the intake structures are designed to take 150–200% of the mean flow. This means the waterbodies below the intakes are dry for the majority of

Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

the year, with only leakage to supply the manga downstream. This affects the mana of these awa, it affects the life-supporting capacity of our awa, and it affects Ngāti Rangi people.

48. I have kept this section brief, despite the extensive impacts of the TPS on Ngāti Rangi, as I understand that the Board is not here to assess the impacts of the Tongariro Power Scheme. However, I do wish to convey the level of importance this scheme has in Ngāti Rangi’s landscape and on our people. That the applicant has overlooked both the contribution of the Whangaehu Awa to the Tongariro Power Scheme and the water in the Waikato, and the toll that those takes have on us as Ngāti Rangi, highlights the lack of understanding of the significance of this issue. I consider this a failure to properly assess s.6(e) of the RMA.

49. Secondly, while the applicant acknowledges the significant effect of the power schemes, they have failed to do the technical work that would account for the actual increase in flows resulting from the Tongariro Power Scheme. Therefore, the hydrological assessment is incomplete.

Impacts of failure to include TPS influence on water allocation assessment 50. In his evidence, at Paragraph 3.4, Tom Basset states:

If Watercare’s application and all other applications in the queue were granted, the River would not be fully allocated. For the Coastal Marine Area catchment approximately 25,800 m3/day would still be available in peak months for future applications, and 192,000 m3/day in the winter months9.

51. However, as stated above, this analysis does not account for the additional water supplied by the Tongariro Power Scheme.

52. From the best data I was able to source, the total mean flow of

9 https://www.epa.govt.nz/assets/FileAPI/proposal/NSP000046/Evidence-Applicants- evidence/10_Watercare_AppEIC_Hydrology_TBassett.pdf Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

foreign water entering the Waikato catchment from the Eastern and Western Diversions of the Tongariro Power Scheme is 35.6 m3/s, although I note that flood flows are much greater than this.

53. Removing this amount from the Q5 at the Waikato Coastal Marine Area Water Allocation Calculation catchment, the Q5 would drop from 187.9 to 152.3 m3/s. The allocable flow would drop by 3.57 m3/s to 15.23 m3/s.

54. Mr Bassett, at paragraph 6.6 of his evidence, states that “of the 18.79 m3/s of water available for allocation in the CMA catchment, between 11.05 m3/s (in July) and 15.56 m3/s (in February and March) has already been allocated ... Thus depending on the time of the year, between 3.24 m3/s and 7.74 m3/s remains available for allocation”.

55. Given that I have roughly calculated that the allocable flow could drop by 3.57 m3/s, this would mean for part of the year the Waikato may already be over-allocated if the input of the TPS is properly accounted for and removed from calculations of the ‘natural’ flow. For the remaining part of the year, only 4.17 m3/s may be available for allocation. Clearly, the TPS impacts on the availability of water in the Waikato, and this influence needs to be removed before any further water is allocated. To do otherwise risks over-allocating (or further over-allocating) the Waikato River in this Water Allocation Calculation catchment, failing the Vision and Strategy and the NPSFM.

56. I note that these figures are for illustrative purposes only. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, I am not, nor do I claim to be, a hydrologist. I will leave detailed calculations to those qualified to do so. Secondly, the actual additional flows will be influenced by numerous factors, including flood flows in the source catchments, minimum flow requirements in the source catchments, low and flood flows in the receiving catchment, and commercially-driven changes to hydrology through the operation of the hydroelectric schemes (including differences in when the water is taken and when it is

Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

released). However, the point remains salient.

Over-allocation contrary to the NPS-FM 2020 57. It is my opinion that failing to consider the Tongariro Power Scheme diversions will lead to over-allocation in the Waikato River, and as such is contrary to Policy 11 of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020. This policy states:

“Freshwater is allocated and used efficiently, all existing over- allocation is phased out, and future over-allocation is avoided.”

I discuss this further later in my evidence.

Impacts of failing to include TPS influence 58. There are cultural, economic and environmental impacts resulting from the failure to properly account for the additional water derived from the TPS.

Cultural impacts 59. The cultural impacts of the TPS are extensive and significant. However, for the purposes of this hearing, I have focused only on the impacts that are relevant to the application at hand. I am happy to provide further evidence on the impacts of the TPS on Ngāti Rangi should the Board require it. The cultural impacts relevant to this hearing relate to consultation, embedding of diverted waters into the allocation scheme of the Waikato River, and lack of consideration for the mouri of the Whangaehu water, and Ngāti Rangi’s relationship to it.

60. Proceeding with the application without consulting with Ngāti Rangi constitutes a failure to properly consult all the tangata whenua parties who have an interest in the waters in the Waikato. While those waters have left the tribal rohe, Ngāti Rangi are still responsible for their welfare. The process to date has left Ngāti Rangi without an adequate say on the fate of our water.

61. Granting extraction consents for water that does not originate in the

Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

catchment increases the reliance of users outside of the Whangaehu Awa on Whangaehu water. The result will be that it is harder for Ngāti Rangi to get Whangaehu water back in the future. This is despite the consents that allow the diversion only applying to hydroelectricity generation. It was not intended in the granting of those consents that that water would then become part of an allocation system in another catchment, and become embedded into the requirements of consent holders half an island away from the source water. Granting this or other consents before removing the influence of the TPS will lead to perverse outcomes not intended when the original TPS consents were granted.

62. It will frustrate the ability to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai, and for Te Mana Tupua and Ngā Toka Tupua to be recognised and provided for (see below for more on this).

63. Lastly, it is Ngāti Rangi’s duty to speak for the mouri of our water, even once it has left the catchment. Ngāti Rangi contends that further allocating this water impacts on its mouri, and it is my opinion that is a cultural effect that needs to be considered. Ngāti Rangi’s relationship with that water must be recognised and provided for.

Economic impacts 64. Capital investment will be made and infrastructure built based on any water take consents granted. When the TPS water is returned to its home catchments, the decrease in water in the Waikato River is likely to affect the ability of the proposed consent holder to operate their consent to its fullest extent. Their infrastructure, therefore, will run at lower capacity. They will end up with a sunk investment running in a sub-par state, leading to avoidable economic impacts.

Environmental impacts 65. Failing to account for the hydrological impact of the TPS on water availability in the Waikato River leads to an over-estimation of water in the river available for environmental protection. Once this water is Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

no longer present, the river will reach minimum flows more often, resulting in more ‘flatlining’ of the awa.

66. The reduction in water will also mean less water in the awa for assimilation capacity. Regulations for stressors such as nitrogen, phosphorus and pathogens may have less efficacy or need to become more strict with less water in the system to dilute the effects of those discharges.

67. Ngāti Rangi contends, again, that the influence of the TPS needs to be accounted for and assumed to be unavailable.

Planning Considerations

NPSFM 2020 and Rukutia te Mana 68. The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM 2020) was substantially rewritten from previous versions and came into force 3 September 2020.

69. The NPSFM is a relevant matter which the BOI must have regard to when considering this application under s104(1((b)(iii).

70. The NPSFM contains objectives and policies that direct protection and avoidance, which I discuss later in this evidence. I understand that the Court has found in other cases that policies that direct ‘protection’ or ‘avoidance’ can be read as being ‘akin to bottom- lines’.10 Because the NPSFM is directive and sets cultural and environmental ‘bottom-lines’ that are relevant to achieving the purpose of the Act11 the level of regard had to those policies should be very high, in my opinion.

71. The NPSFM also requires WRC to undergo a process to change its plan to reflect the directions set in the NPSFM. This future process is relevant to the consideration of this application because that process;

10 Environmental Defence Society v New Zealand King Salmon Co Ltd [2014] NZSC 38.[132] 11 RMA s45(1) Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

 must occur before 31 December 202412 (likely within the lifetime of this consent, should it be granted), and

 may change (or, in my opinion, is highly like to change) the way allocation limits and minimum flows are set and used.

72. The single objective of the NPSFM sets a hierarchy of obligations for the management of resources relating to freshwater consistent with Te Mana o te Wai. This hierarchy prioritises the “health and well- being of water bodies and freshwater ecosystems” above the ability of people to provide for their well-being. In this way ‘the river comes first’ and it recognises that “protecting the health of freshwater protects the health and well-being of the wider environment” and it “protects the mauri of the wai.”13

73. Ngāti Rangi fully supports Te Mana o te Wai. Although we have our own statutorily recognised values that must be recognised and provided for concerning the Whangaehu Awa (see below), Te Mana o te Wai aligns with these values and Ngāti Rangi see these are complementing each other.

74. Policy 1 of the NPSFM states that:

“Freshwater is managed in a way that gives effect to Te Mana o te Wai”.

75. The preamble to the NPSFM states that:

“Te Mana o te Wai is relevant to all freshwater management and not just to the specific aspects of freshwater management referred to in this National Policy Statement”.

76. This means that giving effect to Te Mana o te Wai and applying the hierarchy of obligations in Objective 1 is a responsibility of this BOI, and that obligation does not wait until the WRC has completed a

12 s80A(4)(b) 13 NPSFM 2020 1.3 Fundamental Concept – Te Mana o te Wai (1) Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

freshwater plan change.

77. Policy 11 requires that future over-allocation is avoided:

“Freshwater is allocated and used efficiently, all existing over- allocation is phased out, and future over-allocation is avoided.”

78. Over-allocation is defined, and occurs when resource use exceeds a limit14. Take limits must be set in the future regional plan, before the end of 2024. They must be rules that define how much water can be taken, when, and when takes must cease (minimum flows). These limits must provide for environmental flows and levels15 which in turn must achieve environmental outcomes16 that provide for the values of the waterbody17.

79. All parts of the future, NPSFM-compliant water allocation regime, including minimum flows, take limits and rule frameworks must achieve the environmental outcomes for the waterbodies. These environmental outcomes must give effect to Te Mana o te Wai, provide for ecosystem health, indigenous species, mahinga kai and any Māori Values identified by tangata whenua.

80. This must occur in both the Horizons Region (affecting the source awa for the TPS) and in the Waikato Region. Because of cultural effects, Te Mana o te Wai and values that will be identified by us as Ngāti Rangi that must be provided for in the future regional plan, it is highly likely that the amount of water diverted from Ngāti Rangi’s rohe and therefore flowing in the Waikato will reduce.

81. In addition to these elements of the RMA framework, the Ngāti Rangi settlement, Rukutia te Mana, requires that “Persons exercising or performing a function, power, or duty (decision makers) under the Acts listed in clause 1 of Schedule 5 of the settlement must

14 Defintion of over-allocation in NPSFM 15 3,17(1)(a). 16 NPSFM 3.16(2)(a) 17 NPSFM 3.9(3) Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

recognise and provide for Te Mana Tupua and Ngā Toka Tupua18”. Ngā Toka Tupua are the intrinsic values for the Whangaehu awa discussed above. Clause 1 of Schedule 5 includes the RMA. I note for the Board’s information that Te Mana Tupua and Ngā Toka Tupua apply to the Whangaehu River and the Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika catchment, not necessarily to waters diverted out of the catchment. I note Te Mana Tupua and Ngā Toka Tupua not for this Board’s observance, but for the wider statutory framework that applies and will affect allocation of water in the Whangaehu in the future.

82. Also under Rukutia te Mana, Te Tāhoratanga o Te Waiū will be developed. Te Tāhoratanga o Te Waiū is a strategy that must be recognised and provided for when a local authority is “preparing, varying, amending or approving a regional policy statement, regional plan, or district plan (a planning document) that relates to the Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika catchment19”

83. Given Ngāti Rangi’s long-stated aim to see our waters returned, it is not out of the question that development of Te Tāhoratanga will mean a rethink in allocation policies in Horizon’s regional plan, and therefore a reduction in water consented for diversion under future consents for the Tongariro Power Scheme. Following this, a reduction in water in the Waikato.

84. These matters will be compounded by the effects of climate change.

85. There will be less water in the Waikato available to allocate. Minimum flows will occur more often than they do today.

86. Over-allocation will have to be ‘clawed back’20 in order to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai.

87. A resource consent granted now whose term extends beyond the meaningful life of the next NPSFM-compliant plan and the

18 Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Act 2019, Part 3, Sub-part 1, s. 109 19 Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Act 2019, , Sub-part 4, s. 124 20 NPSFM Policy Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

development of Te Tāhoratanga will frustrate whatever regime is in put in place to achieve Te Mana o te Wai and recognise and provide for Te Mana Tupua and Ngā Toka Tupua.

88. In my opinion, any decision about water takes from the Waikato should be mindful of the regulatory regime likely to exist in the very near future. The situation with regards to water allocation should not be allowed to worsen from its current state. Should any consents for water allocation be granted, they should be short term consents; so that a future plan that fully gives effect to the NPSFM and recognises and provides for Te Tāhoratanga can be implemented without unnecessary delay in the future. Anything else would frustrate the efforts of Horizons Regional Council in implementing Te Tāhoratanga, and of both Horizons and Waikato regional councils giving effect to the NPSFM ‘as soon as practicable’ in the future.

89. In the context of this particular context, however, significant capital would need to be expended on implementing the consent, if it were granted. Granting a short-term consent would not provide the security needed for that expenditure. Ngāti Rangi considers, therefore, that it is prudent to instead decline the consent entirely, so that the applicant can have certainty and seek alternative water sources to supply our country’s largest city.

Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato 90. Because our water has been diverted into the Waikato River catchment, Ngāti Rangi are required to work within the regulatory frameworks that apply in the Waikato catchment. Paramount amongst these is, of course, Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato/the Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River. The Vision and Strategy belongs to the hapū and iwi of te awa o Waikato; it is not ours. However, we lean on it here to provide protection also for our waters, as the TPS diversions mean our waters sit under the protection of all the hapū and iwi along the length of the Waikato. We note, too, that this is an additional burden on Waikato River iwi and

Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

hapū – not only are they having to fight for their own awa, but are now having to consider the health and well-being of awa outside of their rohe.

91. Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato/The Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River sets the policy direction for the Waikato and Waipā Rivers. It prevails over any inconsistencies in a national policy statement or New Zealand coastal policy statement. It is deemed part of the RPS.

92. The Vision and Strategy sets objectives to be pursued in order to achieve the vision. Of particular relevance to the concerns of Ngāti Rangi, the Vision and Strategy requires:

i. an integrated and holistic approach, which would require consideration of the foreign water in the Waikato River that comes from the TPS, and the impacts on not only on Ngāti Rangi but also on Waikato River iwi and hapū, who have had the responsibility of protecting the mouri of our waters thrust upon them [emphasis added]:

“e) The integrated, holistic and co-ordinated approach to management of the natural, physical, cultural, and historic resources of the Waikato River.”

ii. The adoption of a precautionary approach, which requires decisions on resource consents to be cautious about the potential future effects that may arise as a result of the reduction in the amount of water entering the Waikato River through the diversions of the TPS;

“f) The adoption of a precautionary approach towards decisions that may result in significant adverse effects on the Waikato River, and in particular, those effects that threaten serious or irreversible damage to the Waikato River.”

iii. That decision-makers recognise and avoid adverse potential

Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

cumulative effects. Adverse cumulative effects could arise as a result of over-allocation resulting from a future reduction in the amount of water entering the Waikato River through the diversions of the TPS;

“g) The recognition and avoidance of adverse cumulative effects, and potential cumulative effects, of activities undertaken both on the Waikato River and within the catchment on the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.”

iv. And, finally, if all of the above, along with the additional nine objectives were considered appropriately, then most importantly, Objective A – the restoration and protection of the Waikato River for future generations – would also be met.

Regional Policy Statement 2016 93. The RPS requires decision-makers to properly consider the relationship of tangata whenua with the wai, and their role as kaitiaki. For Ngāti Rangi this role includes advocating for and protecting the mouri of not only the water that remains within our rohe, but the water that is unnaturally diverted out of it as well. Hence, I consider it incumbent on decision-makers to consider Ngāti Rangi’s relationship with the water diverted into the Waikato. We say this while also acknowledging our whanaunga who hold mana whenua at place, and acknowledging that we ourselves do not have mana whenua within Waikato.

“Objective 3.9 Relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment

The relationship of tāngata whenua with the environment is recognised and provided for, including:

a) the use and enjoyment of natural and physical resources in accordance with tikanga Māori, including mātauranga Māori; and

Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

b) the role of tāngata whenua as kaitiaki.”

94. The interconnected nature of the concerns of Ngāti Rangi between their rohe and the Waikato River should also be recognised and not set to one side simply because the water and tangata whenua are in another region:

“Policy 4.1 Integrated approach

An integrated approach to resource management will be adopted that:

a) recognises the inter-connected nature of natural and physical resources (including spatially and temporally) and the benefits of aligning the decisions of relevant management agencies across boundaries”

95. The RPS contains specific policies about the allocation and use of freshwater, and includes direction to avoid over-allocation and to phase it out;

“Objective 3.15 Allocation and use of fresh water

The allocation and use of fresh water is managed to achieve freshwater objectives (derived from identified values) by:

a) avoiding any new over-allocation of ground and surface waters;

b) seeking to phase out any existing over-allocation of ground and surface water bodies by 31 December 2030;

c) increasing efficiency in the allocation and use of water; and

d) recognising the social, economic and cultural benefits of water takes and uses.”

96. As set out earlier in this evidence, Ngāti Rangi is concerned that allocating water to this or any other resource consent will result in

Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

future over-allocation if:

i. the minimum flow and allocable limits are calculated without accounting for the water in the Waikato River that comes from the diversions of the TPS;

ii. some or all of that water is subsequently retained in our natural rivers outside the Waikato in order to provide for the mana of our awa, and

iii. the consents provide for long terms or are not reviewed in a timely manner.

Municipal supplies 97. The RPS appears to provide for this type of over-allocation for domestic or municipal supplies in Policy 8.6, however this is subsequently narrowed in the method 8.6.1. The provision for ‘over- allocation’ only apples to allocable flow limits (not minimum flows) and the over-allocation must be of short duration – it must be phased out by 2030. The regional plan sets out that this will occur by reducing other takes in the catchment so that allocation limits are not exceeded, through a range of methods, including by reducing their allocable amount either when those consents expire or on review.

98. This ability to overshoot allocation limits may be inconsistent with the Vision and Strategy direction to provide for health of river, to take a precautionary approach, and to consider cumulative adverse effects. It is certainly inconsistent with Policy 11 of the NPSFM 2020. Policy 8.6 of the RPS should be given little weight, and to the extent it is given weight, the short-term nature of that over-allocation should be front of mind in order to minimise any adverse effects on the river. The direction in the NPSFM and Regional plan to avoid over-allocation in the first place should be followed.

Policy 8.6 Allocating fresh water

Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

Manage the increasing demand and competition for water through the setting of allocation limits, efficient allocation within those limits, and other regional plan mechanisms which achieve identified freshwater objectives and:

a) maintain and enhance the mauri of fresh water bodies;

b) retain sufficient water in water bodies to safeguard their life-supporting capacity and avoid any further degradation of water quality;

c) enable the existing and reasonably justified foreseeable domestic or municipal needs of people and communities and an individual’s reasonable animal drinking water requirements to be met (with discretion to consider additional allocations for those particular uses in fully and over-allocated catchments);

d) avoid any reduction in the generation of electricity from renewable electricity generation activities, including the Waikato Hydro Scheme; and

e) recognise that lawfully existing water takes (including those for regionally significant industry and primary production activities supporting that industry) contribute to social, economic and cultural wellbeing and that significant investment relies on the continuation of those takes.

Implementation methods

8.6.1 Manage allocation of fresh water

Regional plans shall implement Policy 8.6 including by establishing:

a) minimum flow limits and allocable flow limits for surface water bodies and how surface…

d) methods that:

Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

i) allow the exceedance of allocable flow limits by new takes of domestic and municipal water supply, and animal drinking water takes provided those takes are reasonable and justified; and

ii) ensure that any resulting over-allocation is phased out as soon as is practicable but by no later than 31 December 2030.

Regional Plan The Regional Plan currently identifies the need to account for the TPS influence 99. The importance of removing the influence of the Tongariro Power Scheme on flow statistics and water take allocations is already acknowledged in the Waikato Region Plan.

100. Standard 3.3.4.27 f) of the Waikato Regional Plan states that:

“In the Waikato River catchment upstream of Karapiro Dam, restrictions will be deemed to occur when calculated natural flows (calculated for the relevant natural inflows to Lake Taupo and the Waikato River above Karapiro Dam) fall below the minimum natural flows calculated using the relevant minimum flow percentages in Table 3-5.

Advisory Note

 Standard 3.3.4.27 part f), ‘natural flows’ are flows where the influence of the eight Waikato River hydro-generation dams, Lake Taupo outlet gates and the Tongariro Power Scheme on the hydrology of the catchment have been removed. These flows will be determined by the model referred to in Method 3.3.4.8.”

101. Further, Method 3.3.4.8 of the Waikato Regional Plan states that:

“The Waikato Regional Council will maintain a technical report detailing the calculation of flow statistics used for water allocation at key flow recorder sites in the Region, including methods to remove the influence of existing surface water takes. In the Waikato River catchment upstream of the Karapiro Dam this includes the Council developing a model to remove the influence of the eight Waikato River hydro- Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

generation dams, the Lake Taupo outlet gates and the Tongariro Power Scheme on the hydrology of the catchment for implementing Standard 3.3.4.27 f). The model shall be independently peer reviewed.”

102. While under the plan this only applies upstream of Karapiro, nevertheless its inclusion highlights the importance of understanding the influence of the TPS on the hyrdology of the Waikato River.

103. My understanding from Waikato Regional Council is that this work has yet be completed (pers. comm, WRC staff, June 2021).

Applicability of Method 3.3.4.8 below Karapiro 104. Furthermore, while I understand that, technically, Method 3.3.4.8 in the Waikato Regional Plan applies only above Karapiro, I believe that the principle should rightly apply to the river below Karapiro as well. The additional water derived from the TPS and present in the Waikato does not simply cease to exist below Karapiro. The effects remain. Therefore, the principle of accounting for the additional water, in my opinion, applies below Karapiro, even if the Standard does not.

Relief sought 105. Ngāti Rangi seeks that the application be declined until such time as:

(i) a full technical assessment of the impact of the additional water diverted through the Tongariro Power Scheme on natural flows has been conducted and that;

(ii) that assessment has been utilised to make changes to the water allocation framework of the Waikato Regional Plan.

106. However, should this consent be granted, Ngāti Rangi requests that the Board:

(a) only allocate the amount of water that is actually available

Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal

after the influence of the TPS is taken out

(b) ensure the consent term is short and does not extend beyond 2030, so that any over-allocation can be addressed in a timely manner so that TMOTW can be given effect to and Te Tāhoratanga can be recognised and provided for without undue delay in the future and

(c) includes review conditions that ensure the consent conditions, including volume, rate and timing of take, can be reduced if necessary when TPS takes are reconsidered.

Signature of Hannah Rainforth

Dated June 18, 2021.

______Hannah Rainforth

Hannah Jane Rainforth Watercare Waikato River Water Take Proposal