ECan hung out to dry?

MATTHEW LITTLEWOOD

Last week a bombshell report recommended that Environment Canterbury's councillors be sacked, and water responsibilities go to a new authority.

No regional councillors for three years. No elections to be held for the regional council. A new, central-government appointed authority to oversee water responsibilities. That is the fate for the Canterbury Regional Council – otherwise known as Environment Canterbury – should the recommendations of a ministerial review go through.

This would be unprecedented in the history of local government. Some of the region's mayors argue it has been a long time coming – Timaru mayor Janie Annear has gone so far to say that there has been a "systemic" failing across the board for the regional council. But more than one person interviewed – particularly among the regional council – said they were suspicious of the review itself, that the findings were contradictory and the recommendations undemocratic.

How did we get here?

According to the review, the problem stems from an inability of the regional council to solve Canterbury's water problems. In the 12 months to June 2008, ECan processed only 29 per cent of its consents on time. A significant percentage of the 3800 consents were related to water consents, which even the review team acknowledged were often notoriously complex.

However, according to the report, in the last 12 months ECan improved its processing rate to more than 90 per cent. Yet the problems stretch to the fact that right now, ECan does not have an operative region-wide water policy, although one is due to be notified in April.

Then there is the council itself. Last year, Alec Neill replaced Sir Kerry Burke as chairman in a leadership coup, while councillor Carole Evans complained that ECan is a "seven-seven" council, split between rural and environmental/urban interests. Local government minister Rodney Hide asked for his own review of ECan's governance after the region's mayors sent a letter outlining "concerns" with the regional council's performance.

That review found the actual council was divided on certain issues, but not necessarily dysfunctional, and "with the exception of water, the council functions as an effective body [in some areas the Review Group considers ECan to be well ahead of most other local authorities]". The review praises its work in clean heat, public transport, and a number of non-statutory functions.

Notwithstanding the positives, the reality is that should the Government approve the overall recommendations in this latest report, there will be no democratic body to carry out these functions. Environment Minister Nick Smith said the Government's decision would be several weeks away.

Review team leader Wyatt Creech, when pressed on whether it would be easier merely to adopt the administrative changes suggested in the review, said the problem was "too big", and only a commission would be able to integrate everything. While he acknowledged the drastic implications the review would have on democracy, he reiterated it was the best way forward for everyone. Ultimately, he says, it is up to the Government to make its final decision.

"We are not going to set policy, that is up to the Government. All we are doing is providing a direction."

The other elephant in the room is the Canterbury water management strategy, which would divide water management into zonal committees. Groups involved in the consultation include Federated Farmers, Forest and Bird, Fish and Game, Meridian Energy and Irrigation New Zealand, and it was expected the committees would feature a mix of elected and appointed representatives, not dissimilar to the governance structure for district health boards.

However, the strategy would need legislation to bring it in line with the Resource Management Act.

Should the Government go ahead with the proposed separate Canterbury regional water authority, the strategy would be put on the backburner until 2013. However, Creech has not ruled out elements of it eventually being taken on board by the proposed water authority.

The Canterbury mayors and ECan have all officially approved the strategy. ECan's draft annual plan proposes a 4 per cent general rate increase for the next year – largely on the back of having to fund the strategy's research and infrastructure.

The report gave the strategy guarded approval, with the proviso that "the next steps in implementation would inevitably become increasingly more difficult. Already some signs of frustration are emerging amongst stakeholders. As implementation of the CWMS advances, the potential risk for failure to achieve its objectives increases".

Annear says as long as there is some local say in the region's water management, she is fine with the review's recommendations to effectively eliminate democratic input into water issues for three years.

"We are going to have to wait and see what the Government puts forward. But I believe there will be some democratic input over our water in the future."

While most regional councillors have said they would stand again, South Canterbury councillor Mark Oldfield has already announced he will stand down. Oldfield was instrumental in the leadership coup which saw Burke dumped as chairman, putting forward the original motion of no confidence on the table.

"It was always my game plan to only stand for 10 years and I did not intend to stand three years ago, but I did because I was frustrated with the lack of progress and wanted to effect some change," he says.

Fellow South Canterbury councillor Bronwen Murray said she would like to stand again, should she be given the opportunity, but said whatever happened, she was concerned for the staff.

"It is a revolutionary change, which is fine, I guess, but you have to wonder whether they know where this revolution is taking us. It is the staff that will have to live with whatever happens next."

At this week's council meeting, councillor Bob Kirk was furious with the recommendation's implications.

"Appointing a commission would mean more than 500,000 South Islanders would not have a say on water. I'm astonished the people in Canterbury are not outraged by the idea."

A lack of government direction on water policy has been partly blamed for ECan's failings. The Environment Ministry has just notified its national policy statement for freshwater, which sets an overall target of 2030 to implement all improvements. Some organisations, such as the Environmental Defence Society, feel the targets it sets are too weak, although it approves of the overall policy frameworks.

"One hundred per cent pure New Zealand in 20 years' time is not exactly a compelling proposition," EDS chairman Graham Taylor said.

Smith said he would not make a decision on the national water policy until further consultation with the Land and Water forum.

"It's a fair criticism to say that there has been a lack of central government direction [for nearly two decades] on water policy, but I am not interested in playing the blame game. My focus is for this government to use some of the tools in the RMA so we can lift our game in water allocation, monitoring water quality and introducing water storage projects."

Changes to the act last year included the establishment of an Environmental Protection Authority, which allows the Government wider scope to call in certain consent applications. Smith has acknowledged it is likely the Government will use this tool more often in the future.

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman has suggested it declare a moratorium on all water storage and irrigation projects in Canterbury until wide-ranging water policy is implemented. Already, Norman says, there are areas which have been more or less over-allocated.

Smith would not be moved on the idea, preferring to wait on the decision for ECan.

"It's not something for me to speculate."

Neill says it is an interesting idea.

"Perhaps in some areas it would be useful for conservation, but it might not be the case in areas that could suit development.

"Whatever is decided, though, surely it would be better to have it done democratically."

Then there is the question of whether the new authority would merely transfer resources from one body to another with little or no coherence. Many of the current ECan staff would likely be in charge of overseeing whatever authority was in place.

Neill suggests that given ECan staff would be involved with the water authority, then surely it is in part an endorsement of ECan's practice.

"I am conscious of the fact that we have to move quickly for ECan's 500 staff," Smith said.

"The Creech report's recommendation leaves the question as to what you will do with the residual functions of ECan. If you take water, and say, buses, out of ECan, then there is little justification for it to exist as a regional council. I would want more work done before I was convinced that a separate water authority was a long-term solution."

This week, everyone has been in meeting mode.

Smith and Hide met the ECan councillors – an experience described by all as "firm and frank"– as well as Canterbury's mayors. Smith also spoke to various "stakeholders", including Forest and Bird, Fish and Game, Federated Farmers and Central Plains Water Trust. There was a broad range of opinion, he said, but all agreed something needed to be done. Some of the mayors have spoken of a "window of opportunity", without being specific.

Even if the Government decided to "go for broke", as Smith puts it, then it would effectively require passing legislation by act of parliament.

While Smith could use his powers under the RMA to appoint commissioners to oversee water consent issues, the trigger has not been reached under the Local Government Act.

Something is in the water; who knows where it flows from here.

- © Fairfax NZ News