Aotearoa Water Action

Belfast Water Bottling Consents

On 22 and 23 March 2023, the Supreme Court heard the appeal by Chinese-owned Cloud Ocean Water and Rapaki Natural Resources against the Court of Appeal's decision to overturn its water bottling consents. Cloud Ocean argued that it should have been be allowed to "repurpose" its' old industrial consents into water bottling consents (by adding a new "use" consent onto the existing 'take' consent) as this was in the interests of efficiency, and didn't require any additional water to be allocated. Effectively, its' argument was that Environment Canterbury (ECan) should not have had to consider the question whether the new use of the water was appropriate for the volumes granted under the old consents, as it had an existing "right" to take that amount.

Aotearoa Water Action (AWA) on the other hand argued that the Land and Water Regional Plan did not allow consents to "use" groundwater and to "take" groundwater to be applied for separately in fully-allocated zones, and that that argument was consistent with the resource management principle that resources should be managed in an integrated way. Importantly, in AWA's argument, linking the taking of water with the use of water allows water rights to be allocated for the greatest public benefit.

AWA submitted that if the Court found that a right to take water could stand alone, the outcome would be that the water could be used for any purpose the consent holder chose, and that would convert the water right from a consent to use a limited resource for a particular purpose, to a simple property right.

The Court was interested in this high-level point as to what is the nature of a consent to take water, and seemed reluctant to buy into an argument that could have the effect of treating a consent as a property right, as that clearly is not the basis of our resource management regime.

There were additional (and important) grounds of appeal:

1. That ECan failed to properly engage with, or notify, Ngai Tuahuriri runanga, as required by its own planning documents and agreements with the runanga;
2. That ECan failed to properly consider the likely effects of plastics generation and resulting pollution when assessing the applications for consent.

A decision is expected later in 2023.

Otakiri Water Bottling Consents

AWA has supported Sustainable Otakiri in its legal campaign to overturn consents allowing the significant expansion of a bottling plant near Whakatane. Those consents have also been opposed by Ngati Awa iwi. The Court of Appeal found against Sustainable Otakiri and Ngati Awa, however the Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from that decision. The case is expected to be heard later in 2023 or early 2024.

The original application required Overseas Investment Office (OIO) approval for the purchase of the land on which the plant was to be sited, which was granted in 2018 and subsequently varied in 2021. Interestingly, following an Official Information Act request, AWA has learned that the overseas-owned consent holder, Cresswell New Zealand Limited, has terminated its agreement to purchase the land, and consequentially its OIO consent. It continues, however, to engage in the proceedings to determine the validity of the resource consents, presumably to maintain the value of the consented land.

Three Waters

AWA continues to take an interest in the progress of these so-called reforms. We maintain a high-level position that they are unprincipled and unnecessary, and that there are far more effective means to achieve any claimed benefits, which enhance rather than subvert local democracy and accountability. With conflicting and malleable positions adopted by various political parties in an election year, AWA is largely keeping abreast of developments, while continuing to submit and advocate where the opportunity arises.

Chlorination

Again, AWA maintains a high-level position to support, as far as practically possible, the delivery of water in a clean and unpolluted condition. The mandated chlorination of Christchurch's water supply has not, in our view, been demonstrated to be necessary, and adverse health and amenity effects have not been properly considered. Decisions such as this are consistent rather with a worldview that health decisions are best made by centralised (often global) bureaucracies which "know best" what is appropriate for communities and individuals, and whose decisions seem to align inevitably with the interests of global corporates and their client Governments.

The only available lawful recourse is possibly through the courts, and to that end AWA has had preliminary discussions with a City Council representative around its' willingness to lead or support judicial review proceedings to challenge the Water Regulator's decision. Unfortunately, the response was not supportive, but AWA will nonetheless continue to consider what can realistically be achieved to protect the health and quality of Christchurch's drinking water.