This undemocratic and anti-environment package proposed jointly by the Creech (aka Hatchet) report and government legislation to facilitate irrigation within conservation sensitive areas, is just another example of their accelerating attack on our natural heritage. Where in all this are National's once lauded "Blue-Greens"? Their brown nosed silence is deafening. Anyone with a slight gambling streak might do worse than a wager that within the next 12 months "sustainable" logging of our few remaining native forests will again be sanctioned. NZ's Clean & Green lights have well and truly been turned off and I for one am now leaving !

Taxpayer #1 and Robert #4 - with that level of ignorance I am afraid for the future of our country, both environmentally and economically!

The Creech Report is about as credible as the Tax Working Group Report.

To Tax Payer #1 Thankyou for your considered and intelligent response to the biggest assualt on democracy and environmental management since.....the Auckland Super City fiasco.

The Central command control gaul of the NACT and their acolytes such as Creech is hysterical, given the critiscm of the previous Gummnent suppside we know what is best for you approach.

And as for Smith saying they have an open mind, that is clearly BS given Smith is desperate to rid NZ if Regional government for his pet EPA and Key wanting to harvest water currently wastefully heading out to Sea. Good grief you can smell the fresh out of the vat full cream milk on their breath, to paraphrase an ex Labour PM.

First of all I have a vested interest in Ecan staying. As taxpayers and ratepayers we all do because at the end of it it is our money being spent. It is also our environment that they are charged with protecting. If Ecan is consigned to the dustbin of political stupidity we all lose. There are two parties very interested in the destruction of Ecan. The Peoples Democratic Republic of Christchurch and dairying interests. For years the CCC has been in sustained conflict with Ecan. Can we trust CCC to look after our environmental interests? Not really, because this is an organisation that issued building permits for housing perched beneath large boulders. If memory serves me correctly the EQC fined them $2 million because of this. This is a council that wants to remove the New Brighton sand dunes so that it can copy Surfers Paradise. Dairying interests - well that is quite self explanatory. As to my vested interest - well I've done some work in the coastal science field and am studying at the moment to improve my knowledge. I've had professional dealings with Ecan and have found them to be highly professional.

National keeps on forgetting what the E in "ECan" stands for.

If ECan is gutted or removed you have to ask: who will pay for the new water management organisation (according to one news report it's the Canterbury ratepayers). But there won't by any elected representatives to answer for those rates.

If ECan doesn't currently have the capacity to deal with water issues, how will a brand new agency get this capacity - more money? A different legislative framework (and if so, what will that be)?

Will a new water body mean three agencies granting, monitoring and enforcing consents (one for water, plus the existing two)?

If a new water management agency is created will it also deal with the effects of land use on water (e.g. contaminated sites, erosion, etc.)? Environmental restoration of waterways? Gravel extraction consents? Regional parks? Hydropower vs irrigation allocations(e.g. energy issues)? Flood protection? Wetlands? Ground water quality and quantity? The coastal areas at the river mouths? If so - it will be most of ECan recreated.

The government is saying 'water storage' is the solution. What form will this water storage take - presumably dams in virtually all instances?

If the legislative rules are changed and there are no elected representatives, where will the checks and balances be to ensure water quality and the environment are taken into account?

To my mind there are two possible futures.

One is a very expensive future for Canterbury rate payers with a new water agency funded by ratepayers (but not accountable to them), slower and even more confusing consenting processes, lots of new dams and irrigation takes, increasing amounts of land under intensive irrigated farming, and less clean water.

The other is a more thought out and collaborate 'middle way' via the Canterbury Water Management Strategy which finds efficient solutions that look after the environment as well as the water users and economy.

ECAN may have internal staffing issues but the councilors are elected by the people of canterbury for all of canterbury and not just the farmers. As a farmers son I am appalled by the dairying on the canterbury plains. Any central govt control will destroy our landscape. Dairying does not need to be done here - it is only a recent land use- go and use land that is better suited naturally. And central govt christchurch MP's remember also , you cost us our water in town and we the voting public will not let you forget at the next election - and National you won't get back in the treasury benches for another 10years!!!

I agree with Robert B #5 - the very fact that the government has appointed someone so totally biased to make this report suggests that this farce of a commission has found exactly what it was set up to find : how best to serve the interests of the greedy corporate farmers, to hell with everyone else.

seeing the names and property that some of these officers have there is sertanly a conflict of intrest in there appointments This is just one more of the good old boy networks that has been going on in Canterbury politics for years The CCC is no better and to think that the city could do any better is a joke What happened to the councils working for the people and not there own gready self interest