water conservation order: ngaruroro and clive rivers · 2019. 4. 6. · 25 government agencies and...

ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS

Water Conservation Order:

Ngaruroro and Clive rivers September 2017 (version 2)

2

Executive Summary

In December 2015, the Minister for the Environment received an application from the New Zealand Fish and

Game Council, the Hawke’s Bay Fish and Game Council, Ngāti Hori ki Kohupatiki, Whitewater New Zealand,

Jet Boating New Zealand, and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand (the applicants),

for a Water Conservation Order for the Ngaruroro and Clive rivers (WCO or ‘the Order’).

The application concerns the entire length of the Ngaruroro River, the tributaries and hydraulically connected

groundwater to the Lower Ngaruroro River, and the 7 kilometre (km) long Clive River. The applicants seek

protection for a range of values through a number of conditions contained in the draft Order appended to the

application.

The Minister for the Environment appointed a Special Tribunal (the Tribunal) to hear and report on the

application. The Tribunal may consider matters wider than the matters raised in the application.

The EPA publically notified the Application on 28 July 2017 and called for submissions. The formal

submissions period closed at 4pm on 24 August 2017.

Because of the potential for a one day delay in some parties being notified, the Tribunal Chairman (on behalf

of the Tribunal) has given permission for any submissions received on 25 August 2017 to be accepted.

Submissions received after 25 August 2017 are considered late, and will be considered at the discretion of

the Tribunal.

The EPA received 388 submissions before the close of the submission period.

One late submission was received on 28 August 2017. The Tribunal will consider whether to allow this

submission to be included at the procedural pre-hearing conference to be held in September 2017.

Of the 388 submissions received by the EPA;

Position on the application:

122 submitters (31.4%) oppose the application.

5 submitters (1.3%) were neutral on the application.

119 submitters (30.7%) support the application.

8 submitters (2.1%) support with a preference for preserving another water body.

4 submitters (1.0%) support with a preference for preserving different features/qualities.

130 submitters (33.5%) did not specify or clarify a view on the application.

Tribunal recommendation sought:

73 submitters would like the Tribunal to recommend that the WCO be declined (18.8%).

89 submitters would like the Tribunal to recommend that the WCO be granted (23%).

70 submitters would like the Tribunal to recommend that the WCO be granted with changes (18%).

3 submitters were neutral on what the Tribunal should recommend (0.8%).

3

153 submitters did not specify or clearly identify a view whether the Tribunal should recommend

that the WCO be granted, granted with changes or declined (39.4%).

Wish to be heard:

239 submitters (61.6%) have indicated that they wish to be heard at the hearing.

129 submitters (33.3%) have indicated that they do not wish to be heard at the hearing.

20 submitters (5.2%) did not specify or clarify if they wished to be heard.

Of these submitters, 65 have indicated that if others make a similar submission they will

consider presenting a joint case.

Location:

The majority of submitters are from Hastings (56.4%), followed by Napier (15.5%).

Sector:

189 submitters (48.7%) identified as individuals.

173 submitters (44.6%) identified as organisations.

9 submitters (2.1%) identified as community groups.

8 submitters (2.1%) identified as local government agencies.

8 submitters (2.1%) identified as iwi.

1 submitter (0.3%) was unspecified.

A range of opinions have been raised in the submissions, primarily on topics around: alternative processes

for catchment management; commercial and industrial operations (including social impacts); water quality,

water quantity; recreation; ecology; natural character/amenity; consents and restrictions;

groundwater/aquifers/surface water; river conservation; and culture/heritage. A number of submitters have

proposed specific changes to the WCO if the Tribunal was to recommend it be granted.

4

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 2

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................. 4

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... 6

1 Explanatory Information ............................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Use of this document .......................................................................................................... 7

1.1.1 Administration ......................................................................................................... 7

1.1.2 Limitations ............................................................................................................... 7

2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 8

2.1 Application Background ...................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Public Notification ................................................................................................................ 9

3 Submissions Received ............................................................................................................... 9

4 Overview of Submissions ......................................................................................................... 10

4.1 Position of submitters on the application .......................................................................... 10

4.2 Recommendation sought on the application by submitters .............................................. 10

5 Trends observed in submissions ............................................................................................ 11

5.1 Submitters wishing to be heard ......................................................................................... 11

5.2 Submissions by location .................................................................................................... 11

5.3 Submissions by sector ...................................................................................................... 12

6 Submission subjects or themes .............................................................................................. 13

6.1 Commercial and Industrial Operations and Consequential Impacts ................................. 13

Adverse impacts on commercial and industrial operations ............................................... 14

Consequential social impacts............................................................................................ 15

Environment comes first .................................................................................................... 16

6.2 Alternative Processes for Catchment Management.......................................................... 25

TANK ................................................................................................................................. 25

National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 ......................................... 26

Catchment Management and Planning ............................................................................. 26

Science and Technology ................................................................................................... 27

6.3 Culture and Heritage ......................................................................................................... 33

6.4 Water Quantity .................................................................................................................. 39

Irrigation ............................................................................................................................ 39

Water Storage ................................................................................................................... 40

6.5 River Conservation ............................................................................................................ 44

5

River/s “Outstanding” ........................................................................................................ 44

River/s not “Outstanding” .................................................................................................. 44

Uniqueness ....................................................................................................................... 45

Future Generations ........................................................................................................... 45

Other ................................................................................................................................. 45

6.6 Aquifers, Groundwater & Surface Water ........................................................................... 48

Ambiguity of information .................................................................................................... 48

Lack of understanding ....................................................................................................... 49

Protection of the Aquifer System ...................................................................................... 50

6.7 Water Sports ..................................................................................................................... 52

6.8 Consents and Resource Management Restrictions ......................................................... 54

6.9 Fishing ............................................................................................................................... 57

6.10 Water Quality ................................................................................................................. 59

6.11 Other Recreation ........................................................................................................... 61

6.12 Ecology .......................................................................................................................... 62

6.13 Natural Character and Amenity ..................................................................................... 65

7 Requested Changes and Comments to the Tribunal ............................................................. 68

Appendix 1: Full List of Submitters ................................................................................................... 84

6

List of Tables

Table 1: Submitters who wish to be heard by recommendation sought on the application ................. 11

Table 2: Submissions by location ................................................................................................................ 11

Table 3: Submissions by sector and position ............................................................................................ 12

Table 4: Common issues and concerns raised in submissions ............................................................... 13

Table 5: Submitters on issues relating to commercial and industrial operations .................................. 17

Table 6: Submitters who submitted on issues relating to alternative processes for catchment

management ................................................................................................................................................... 28

Table 7: Submitters on issues relating to culture and heritage................................................................ 35

Table 8: Submitters on issues relating to water quantity .......................................................................... 41

Table 9: Submitters on issues relating to river conservation ................................................................... 46

Table 10: Submitters on issues relating to aquifers, groundwater and surface water .......................... 50

Table 11: Submitters on issues relating to water sports ........................................................................... 53

Table 12: Submitters on issues relating to consents and resource management restrictions ............ 56

Table 13: Submitters on issues relating to fishing .................................................................................... 58

Table 14: Submitters on issues relating to water quality .......................................................................... 60

Table 15: Submitters on issues relating to other recreation..................................................................... 61

Table 16: Submitters on issues relating to ecology .................................................................................. 64

Table 17: Submitters on issues relating to natural character and amenity ............................................. 66

Table 18: Requested changes and comments to the WCO by submitters .............................................. 68

7

1 Explanatory Information

1.1 Use of this document

The purpose of this report is to assist the Tribunal and parties to the hearing process. The information

provided in this report is as follows:

Executive Summary

Section 1 Outlines the purpose, structure, and limitations of this report.

Section 2 Provides background on the Application and the submission process.

Section 3 Provides information on the submissions received.

Section 4 Provides an overview of the submissions.

Section 5 Identifies trends within submissions including the number of submitters that wish to

be heard at the hearing, where submitters are located and whether submitters are

individuals, groups, or organisations.

Section 0 Contains a summary of the types of matters raised across a number of submissions and

identifies many of the submissions that raised that matter.

Section 7 Summarises the requested changes and comments to the Tribunal.

Appendix 1 Provides the full list of submitters (alphabetically).

1.1.1 Administration

Each submitter is referenced by their organisation name (where applicable), or by their surname(s), and then

by their first name(s). Each submitter has also been assigned an EPA submitter reference number for

administrative purposes.

This analysis of submissions provides an overview of the submissions received, and outlines the general

opinions provided in these submissions. The themes described within this report reflect the views

represented by submitters, and do not reflect any view of the EPA.

1.1.2 Limitations

Identification of trends and concerns within this report are based on information provided by submitters in

their written submissions.

This report provides an objective analysis of the statistics of the submissions and does not advocate any

particular view over another.

The analysis was produced using a combination of computer generated data and manual checking to

analyse the submissions.

It is not unusual for submissions received on applications of this nature to cover a broad range of issues and

offer differing levels of detail. Although each submission is unique, an analysis of the submissions

8

necessarily involves a degree of generalisation. Summaries of matters raised and conditions proposed are

therefore not a replication of, and not intended to replace, original submissions.

The trends and common matters raised are summarised in Section 5 and are based solely on the content of

submissions. The analysis contains only matters raised across a number of submissions and may not refer

to all matters raised.

2 Introduction

2.1 Application Background

In December 2015, the Minister for the Environment received an application from the New Zealand Fish and

Game Council, the Hawke’s Bay Fish and Game Council, Ngāti Hori ki Kohupatiki, Whitewater New Zealand,

Jet Boating New Zealand, and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand (the applicants),

for a WCO for the Ngaruroro and Clive rivers (WCO or ‘the Order’).

The application concerns the entire length of the Ngaruroro River, the tributaries and hydraulically connected

groundwater to the Lower Ngaruroro River, and the 7km long Clive River.

The outstanding values identified are:

a) significance in accordance with tikanga Māori;

b) cultural and spiritual purposes;

c) habitat for rainbow trout;

d) rainbow trout fishery;

e) angling, amenity and recreation;

f) habitat for avifauna;

g) habitat for native fish;

h) whitewater kayaking and rafting amenity and recreation;

i) jetboating amenity and recreation;

j) wild, scenic and natural characteristics; and

k) scientific and ecological values.

The applicants seek protection of these values through a number of conditions contained in a draft Order

appended to the application.

The Minister for the Environment appointed a Special Tribunal to hear and report on the application. The

Tribunal may consider matters wider than the matters raised in the application.

9

2.2 Public Notification

The WCO application was publicly notified on Friday 28 July 2017.

The public notice was published in the New Zealand Herald, The Dominion Post, The Press, and The Otago

Daily Times between the 25 and 27 July. The public notice was also placed in the Napier Mail, Hastings Mail,

Taupo Times, Hawke’s Bay Today, Central Hawkes Bay Mail, and Manawatu Standard between 25 and 29

July 2017.

The EPA identified contact addresses (postal and/or email) for:

371 owners and occupiers of properties within, and adjoining the Ngaruroro or Clive Rivers.

96 special interest groups with a potential interest in the Ngaruroro or Clive Rivers.

668 consent holders with a potential interest in the Ngaruroro or Clive Rivers.

25 government agencies and iwi groups with a potential interest in the Ngaruroro or Clive Rivers.

The EPA posted and/or emailed where possible, a direct notification pack including a copy of the public

notice, a cover letter, and a Ministry for the Environment information sheet on WCO’s.

The applicants were provided a direct notification pack.

Copies of the application, public notice, submission form and information sheet were made available on the

EPA website, or by link from the EPA website, and in hardcopy at the following locations:

EPA Head Office, Level 10, 215 Lambton Quay, Wellington

Napier Public Library (Station Street);

Hastings Public Library (Corner of Eastbourne Street East and Warren Street South);

Waipukurau Public Library (Kitchener Street); and

Waipawa Public Library (64 High Street).

Submissions on the Application could be made via the EPA’s online submission form, by email, or by hard

copy delivered by post, email, or delivered in person to the EPA or to the Applicant.

As per section 205(7) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the submission period ran for 20

working days and ended at 4:00pm on 24 August 2017. Because of the potential for a one day delay in some

parties being notified, the Tribunal Chairman (on behalf of the Tribunal) has given permission for any

submissions received before the end of 25 August 2017 to be accepted as on-time.

3 Submissions Received

As of the close of submission period (being 11.59pm on 25 August 2017) the EPA received 388 complete

submissions (see Appendix 1). This includes submissions the EPA received by post that were date stamped

on or before the date of submissions closing, as well as submissions that were incomplete when first

10

received, but where the EPA was able to contact the submitter and additional information was provided by

the submitter before the close of the submission period. This calculation excludes one submission who

formally withdrew from the process, and any duplicate submissions which were collated.

Six out of the 388 submissions were received between 4pm on the 24 and 11.59pm on the 25 August 2017.

These submissions were accepted by the Tribunal as on time.

One additional submission by Angus Agnew was received after the 25 August and deemed late. The

Tribunal will consider whether this late submission is to be accepted when they meet on 15 September for

the Pre Hearing Conference (refer to Appendix 1).

4 Overview of Submissions

4.1 Position of submitters on the application

The submission form asked submitters to indicate whether they support; support but prefer to preserve a

different but related water body in the same catchment; support but prefer to preserve different features or

qualities of the water body; oppose; or are neutral with regards to their view on the application. Submitters

indicated their position by using the check boxes in the submission form. The responses are outlined below.

122 submitters (31.4%) oppose the application.

5 submitters (1.3%) were neutral on the application.

119 submitters (30.7%) support the application.

8 submitters (2.1%) support with a preference for preserving another water body.

4 submitters (1.0%) support with a preference for preserving different features/qualities.

130 submitters (33.5%) did not specify or clarify a view on the application.

Approximately 87 submitters supported or partially supported the submission made by Horticulture New

Zealand (38064).

4.2 Recommendation sought on the application by submitters

Submitters were asked to indicate the recommendation they would like the Tribunal to make to the Minister

for the Environment. Submitters indicated their recommendation by using the check boxes in the submission

form. The responses are outlined below.

Tribunal recommendation sought:

73 submitters would like the Tribunal to recommend that the WCO be declined (18.8%).

89 submitters would like the Tribunal to recommend that the WCO be granted (23%).

70 submitters would like the Tribunal to recommend that the WCO be granted with changes (18%).

3 submitters were neutral on what the Tribunal should recommend (0.8%).

153 submitters did not specify or clearly identify a view whether the Tribunal should recommend

that the WCO be granted, granted with changes or declined (39.4%).

11

5 Trends observed in submissions

5.1 Submitters wishing to be heard

239 (61.6%) indicated in their submission that they wish to be heard at the hearing. 129 submitters (33.3%)

indicated in their submission that they do not wish to be heard at the hearing. 20 submitters (5.2%) did not

specify whether they wish to be heard.

65 submitters stated that if others made a similar submission, they would consider presenting a joint case

with them at the hearing.

The EPA will provide all submitters who indicated they wish to be heard at the hearing, with the opportunity

to confirm their intention to appear at the hearing. Accordingly the number who want to be heard at the

hearing may decrease.

The table below identifies the proportion of submitters who wish to be heard or do not wish to be heard

depending on the recommendation sought on the application.

Table 1: Submitters who wish to be heard by recommendation sought on the application

Recommendation Number of

submissions Percentage

Wish to be heard

Yes No

Not Specified or

Clearly

Identified

Decline 73 18.8% 55 14 4

Grant 89 22.9% 28 55 6

Grant with changes 70 18% 37 32 1

Neutral 3 0.8% 2 1 0

Position not specified

or clarified 153 39.4% 118 27 9

5.2 Submissions by location

The majority of submitters are from the Hastings District (56.4%) and Napier City (15.5%) areas. The

following table identifies the submitters from each area, or relevant geographic area.

Table 2: Submissions by location

Location Number of submissions Percentage

Hastings 219 56.4%

Napier City 60 15.5%

12

Auckland 21 5.4%

Wellington 19 4.9%

Central Hawkes Bay 10 2.6%

Taupo 9 2.3%

Canterbury 8 2.1%

Bay of Plenty 7 1.8%

Manawatu/Wanganui 5 1.3%

Rangitikei 1 0.3%

Other (Nelson (1), Northland (1),

Otago (2), Sweden (1), Taranaki (2),

Waikato (2), West Coast, South

Island (2), Gisborne (1)

12 3.1%

Not Stated 17 4.4%

5.3 Submissions by sector

The majority of submissions are from individuals (48.7%), and then organisations (44.6%). The following

table identifies the submitters from each sector in terms of their position on the application.

Table 3: Submissions by sector and position

Sector Number of

submissions Percentage

Recommendation Sought

Grant

Grant

with

Changes

Decline Neutral

Other or

Not

Specified

Individuals 189 48.7% 69 13 12 1 92

Organisations 173 44.6% 13 52 57 2 47

Community

groups 9 2.3% 2 0 4 0 3

Local

Government 8 2.1% 2 1 0 0 5

Iwi 8 2.1% 2 3 0 0 3

Not specified 1 0.3% 1 0 0 0 0

13

6 Submission subjects or themes

A number of topics were raised across the submissions. Each of the topics below is discussed in more detail

in the following sections.

The discussions provided below are not intended to provide a comprehensive account of all topics, aspects,

concerns or requests raised in submissions, but rather to provide an overview of the range of views of

submitters on this application.

It is noted that some topics do overlap i.e. those submitting on the topic of commercial and industrial

operations are commonly referencing this in regard to water quantity and groundwater. In this case the

submitters are captured under commercial and industrial operations only.

Table 4: Common issues and concerns raised in submissions

Topic

Number of

submitters referring

to topic (Approx.)

Percentage

(Approx.)

Commercial and Industrial Operations 266 68.6%

Alternative processes for Catchment Management 177 45.6%

Culture and Heritage 143 36.9%

Water Quantity 76 19.6%

River Conservation 54 13.9%

Aquifers, Groundwater and Surface Water 48 12.4%

Water Sports 39 10.1%

Consents and Resource Management Restrictions 30 7.7%

Fishing 26 6.7%

Water Quality 24 6.2%

Other recreation 23 5.9%

Ecology 22 5.7%

Natural Characteristics and Amenity 16 4.1%

6.1 Commercial and Industrial Operations and Consequential Impacts

Approximately 266 submitters (68.6%) discussed commercial and industrial operations in their submission.

The theme of commercial and industrial operations includes all discussions on the impacts (both positive and

negative) on businesses, now and into the future, if the proposed WCO were in effect.

14

The majority of submitters on this topic raised strong concern of the impact this proposed WCO would have

on their businesses and the economy. Consequential social issues relating to unemployment, health and

wellbeing were highlighted in this context.

Other submitters expressed a view that conservation of these rivers should be given priority over economic

demands.

Adverse impacts on commercial and industrial operations

Most submitters who identified adverse impacts of this WCO on both primary and secondary industry,

discussed this in relation to the restrictions on water for irrigation of soils, and other processes. Many raise

the point that the WCO application does not meet the purpose of Section 199 nor does it satisfy Section 207

of the RMA. Some of the points that submitters have made are set out below:

The WCO fails to consider the needs of the primary and secondary industry appropriately.

Access to water is a vital aspect that enables farming. There are about 850 farms within the

Ngaruroro and Clive River catchment. Many of these have been farmed for generations.

The WCO will render this versatile land unviable for food production.

Propose alternative range of controls, limits and restrictions be considered enabling of food,

fibre and wine production values.

Any restriction on the availability of irrigation water during the growing season will have a

major impact on the wineries.

If the Ngaruroro WCO is approved in its current form it would have severe implications for

me, my business, my team of staff and the land that I grow on.

Intensive horticulture including permanent tree crops and field crops requires long term

sustainable water supply.

Significant reduction in exports from New Zealand and the associated drop in Gross

Domestic Product.

An essential component of quality production is the ability for the ‘right amount of water to

be applied at the right time’.

WCO may limit land use change, very short sighted given climate change and increasing

demand for more food production.

Effect of a Lower Ngaruroro WCO as sought would be catastrophic on my business [grape

grower].

The WCO does not take the needs of industries into consideration as it needs to under

S207(b) of the Resource Management Act.

15

As a grape grower in the Bridge Pa district with a consent to take groundwater for vineyard

irrigation, the effect of a Lower Ngaruroro WCO as sought would be catastrophic on my

business.

Not supporting primary and secondary industry needs would be contrary to the NPS FM and

parts of the RPS (i.e. as introduced by Plan Change 5). In the Lower Ngaruroro River, large

segments of the community, primary sector and secondary industries have huge reliance on

the availability of water for economic activity and domestic use.

Extremely concerned by any loss of rights over our own land, and strongly wish to retain our

options of any developmental plans we may choose to undertake in the future.

Our family feels strongly about maintaining and improving the region’s waterways for years

to come, but we believe the application for a WCO would be crippling for our region and

wider community.

Should the proposed water abstraction limitations in the WCO Application be implemented,

the HB Region could collapse.

Recreational activities must not be prioritised over and above the needs of industries, over

and above the need to produce food for the nation and international (not just Hawkes Bay).

The consultation process has been insufficient [to understand effects on business].

The application states that they approached and discussed with us…no such meeting

occurred.

Vineyards may become uneconomical or unviable if water unavailable any period longer than

two to three days.

In Hawke’s Bay, the distinct nature of wines from the region arise from such factors as the

climate, the soils and also the fresh water that is available for irrigation. Secure and

reasonable access to water for this purpose is essential in making nationally and

internationally recognised wine.

The applicants appear to suggest that the river systems that are subject to this Order are at

risk because of the practices of our growers. That is, with respect, nonsense.

Consequential social impacts

Many submitters describe the likely consequences on society from the impacts on commercial and industrial

operations (i.e. unemployment, health, etc.). Some submitters believe these impacts will cross sectors of the

community, regionally, nationally and internationally. Comments raised include:

We cannot stress strongly enough the devastating effect that this WCO, if enacted with the

proposed restrictive low flows, would not only on the livelihood of our family and upon the

lives of the many families of those that work for us.

16

No account has been made of the catastrophic social and economic impacts of the order on

the urban and rural communities of Hawkes Bay.

Impacts on workforce.

I need a secure job to support myself and my family.

Support industries will close. Unemployment will rise. Suicides will rise.

Disappointed submitters of application are using the sledgehammer approach to get what

they want without concern for wider community regarding social, economic and cultural

values.

The Hawkes Bay community is hugely dependent on the agricultural and horticultural

industries for its health and wellbeing.

I get fruits and vegetables from the orchards and when that is taken away there will be none

for me and my family.

If the order was granted the impact on our business and others, would be catastrophic,

without water security of supply it would be too risky to contemplate growing, causing

extreme negative economic and social consequences.

No job. Family suffers. Community Suffers. Not happy.

Environment comes first

Some submitters expressed the importance of preserving these rivers above all commercial and industrial

demands. The following comments were made:

Need to err on the side of preservation over uncontrolled development.

The economic value to New Zealand of healthy rivers is also important and some balancing to

economic activity can be obtained through WCO processes.

Imperceptible creeping of political, economic or industrial/commercial demands begins to

smother, even strangle and suffocate, the realities of natural assets that belong to everyone,

not just vested interests.

New Zealand must do much more for environmental protection! Environment first, economy

second.

No doubt vested interests like farming will be over represented by purported experts

promoting development at the expense account of the many values of the river by those that

can't afford an army of experts or are simply not resourced to even be aware of this issue.

A WCO would give assurance to the tourism industry that all essential New Zealand values

and needs will be met for these two particular rivers.

17

Table 5 outlines submissions providing a representative view in relation to commercial and industrial

operations (including any consequential social impacts). This is not a complete list of submitters that had

general and specific views on this theme. The Tribunal will consider all submissions.

Table 5: Submitters on issues relating to commercial and industrial operations

EPA

Reference

Number

Submitter Name

37876 Hawke’s Bay Fruitgrowers Association (Dianne Vesty)

37812 Brookfields Vineyards Ltd (Peter Whittington)

37815 Beamish Family Trust (Simon Beamish, Josephine Beamish and Howard Padman)

37861 Dames J

37862 Derbidge R

37863 Garland C

38093 Maryn Orchard Partnership

37867 Masterson H

38032 Silver Fern Farms Limited

37978 Redmetal Vineyards Ltd

37873 Meiros Orchard Ltd (G Wilson)

37874 Meiros Orchard Ltd (C Wilson)

37905 Bullnose Partnership (Vineyard)

38034 Karena D

37849 & 37999 Willowford Alma Alta Orchards

37941 & 37824 Bay Irrigation (2011) Ltd

37982 Lakes & Waterways Action Group Trust

37759 Walsh-Roberts P

37805 Harding Family Trust

37797 France Farming Limited

37747 Cox B

38048 Two Terraces Vineyard

38091 Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

38102 Summerfruit NZ & Hawkes Bay Fruitgrowers Association

37970 Hawke's Bay Rowing Club Inc

18

37967 The Wine Portfolio Ltd

38086 Rural Women New Zealand

37971 Kilmanagh Developments Ltd

37977 Hohepa Homes, Hawkes bay

37826 MD Cairns & AR Wright Partnership

37828 Three Bay Apples Limited

37966 Brookfields Vineyards (Peter Robertson)

37974 & 38092 McCain Foods (NZ) Ltd

37972 Gudsell Holdings Ltd

37938 Drumpeel Farms Ltd

37917 Rimu Hastings Ltd

37916 Springstone Ltd

37911 Bayley Produce Limited

37918 Totara Hastings Ltd

37923 Apatu Farms Ltd

37934 Whana Whana Station Ltd

37886 Washpool Station Ltd

37854 Winstone Aggregates

37945 Gourmet Blueberries Limited

37928 JW & SJ Pollard Partnership - T/A Makoha Orchard

37963 Kereru Road Vineyard Ltd

37962 Ritchie D

37955 Connor Farming Ltd & AM Connor

37951 Wakefield B

37950 Brookes T

37833 Wallace C

37839 & 37868 Mr Apple New Zealand Limited

37829 Bostock New Zealand

37906 Babich Wines Limited

37907 Craggy Range Vineyards Ltd


19


38040 Hawke's Bay Winegrowers Association Inc.

37953 Burrows S

38066 McLay B

38010 Moffett J

38006 Moffett S

38005 Mardon P

38003 Osborne B

38022 Mackay B

38021 La Trobe J

38020 Parsons J

38018 Mackie D

38017 McPhail D

38016 McPhail DK

38015 Kilmister S

38014 Kilmister P

38012 Mitchell R

38011 Downey Estate Ltd

38007 A R Griffiths & Sons Ltd

37998 Evans G

37996 Camelot Fresh Fruit Co Ltd and Others

37981 Whyte E

37843 Hibberd A

37844 Stallard R

37845 Stallard L

37850 Wilson A

37851 Wilson L

37852 Wilson D

37865 Hirst M

37872 Slader B and Cowie D

38067 Gimblett Gravels Vineyards Ltd

20

38068 Villa Maria Estate Limited

38026 Silvan Orchards Limited

38025 Kokako Farms Ltd

38024 Constellation Brands New Zealand Limited

38023 Twyford Co-operative Company Ltd

38002 FJ Flowers Ltd and Gilbert Orchard Ltd

38001 Cedar Orchards Partnership

38019 FMG Advise and Insurance Hawke’s Bay

38009 NP Vesty Ltd

38004 Fruitcraft New Zealand Ltd

37997 Rainbow Fruit Ltd

37995 Big Hill Station Ltd

37994 Ngamatea Farming Company Limited

37992 Stonecroft Wines Limited

37991 Sileni Estates Ltd

37990 Trevettes Orchard Ltd

37927 Lochinver Orchard

37848 & 37894 Llewellyn Horticulture Ltd

37866 Johnny Appleseed Holdings Ltd

37868 Mr Apple New Zealand Ltd

37864 Hirst G

37870 Lazy Acres

37871 Shannon C

38000 Think Water Hawkes Bay

38064 Horticulture New Zealand (and all those who support this submission)

37877 Sixtus K

37796 Robertson M

37855 Robertson L

37859 Bellingham Orchard Ltd

38059 Barnes R

37853 Curtis R & J

21

38070 Federated Farmers Of New Zealand

38058 Gravestock P

38060 Hocquard P and others

37858 Waima Fruit Company Ltd

38052 Sacred Hill Vineyards Ltd

37857 Delugar A & D

38063 Hawke’s Bay Vegetable Growers Association

38046 SSF Orchards Ltd

38028 Sakapo Ofa

38033 Tourism Industry Aotearoa

38042 New Zealand Apples & Pears Incorporated

38043 Moteo Orchard Ltd

38047 Gillum Family Trust

38049 Smith P

38050 GEK Property Nominees Limited

38056 Elak Consultants Ltd

38057 Heinz Wattie’s Limited

38065 Lawson S

38073 Agnew W

38075 RD & BA Griffiths Partnership

38076 Sunfruit Orchards Ltd

38077 Irrigation New Zealand Incorporated

38078 New Zealand Winegrowers Incorporated

38079 Brownrigg Agriculture Group Limited

38088 Mannering Family Trust

38089 & 37976 WaterForce

38100 Ngai Tukairangi Trust

38128 Maama I

38129 Fatani P

38130 Tankoi P

38131 Fotukava T

22

38132 Tuakalau V

38133 Aisake M

38134 Tuakalau A

38135 Cooper M

38136 Ellmes J

38137 Afu S

38138 Utalia H

38139 Afu A

38140 Vaitaiki L

38141 Kopelani C

38142 Kopelani F

38143 Kopelani O

38144 Folau Fakataua

38145 Folau Fisimani

38146 Sole M

38147 Hefa S

38148 Valikoula S

38149 Aisake A

38150 Faineitau E

38151 Ofa M

38152 Fameitau Victoria

38153 Fameitau M

38154 Tonga Si

38155 Folau Feleti

38156 O'Brien V

38157 Tau P

38158 Tuakaeau L

38159 Fameitau L

38160 Tu'akalau L

38161 Fameitau V

38172 Ofa F

23

38173 Redshaw V

38176 Vai A

38177 Vaitaiki S

38096 Agcrop Ltd

38097 Everfresh Transport Ltd

38083 Gross B


38122+ Agnew Transport Services Ltd (20 Submissions)

38107 Harty P

38105 Haywood F

38080 Marist Holdings (Greenmeadows) Ltd

38045 MB & CL Hope Partnership

38074 Pernod Ricard Winemakers New Zealand Limited

38013 Kilmister B & R

38041 Wairua Dairies Ltd & Wairua Farm Trust

38103 New Zealand Plant Producers Incorporated

38090 Red Shed Orchard Ltd


38095 HTH Trusts Partnership

38094 Holly Laughton Trust

38099 Jasel Orchard Ltd

38165 Liesebach Janet

38167 Liesebach Jens

38081 Astill Family Trust

38082 The Fresh Berry Company of New Zealand Ltd

38084 Hawkes Bay Regional Sports Park

38051 Delegat Limited

38037 Gimblett Gravels Winegrowers Association Incorporated (GGWA)

38108 Sturge S & P

38085 Sorensen J

38174 Timahanga Station

24

38072 Golden Del Orchard Limited

38170 Barnes D

38039 Apollo Apples (2014) Ltd and ENZAFruit New Zealand International Ltd

38087 Cope B

38035 Court R

38168 Freshmax

38166 Davis M

37986 Ruapehu Hotel (1993) Ltd

37975 Bridge Pa Triangle Wine District Incorporated

37860 Wellwood G

37840 J & E Milmine Family Trust

37889 Beach House Wines Ltd

37895 Links Winery Ltd

37900 Trinity Hill Limited

37920 Isosceles Partnership

37914 Paritua Vineyards and Winery Ltd

37921 Te Mata Estate Winery

37925 Elephant Hill Holdings Ltd

37946 Bilancia Limited

37961 Newton Forrest Estate

37968 Alpha Domus Ltd

37980 Chatterton D

37954 Unison Estate Ltd

37830 Dunvegan Estate

37964 Glenmore Orchard

38179 C D Jones Family Trust

38181 Yule L

38180 Windburn Ltd

25

6.2 Alternative Processes for Catchment Management

Approximately 177 submitters (45.6%) discussed alternative processes for catchment management in their

submission. A large number of submitters believe that the WCO is not the right tool for management of these

rivers (particularly given its narrow focus) and that the TANK project through the Regional Council should be

allowed to proceed instead. Some submitters believe the information within this application is outdated in the

context of recent groundwater findings of the TANK group.

TANK

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council initiated its TANK Plan Change process for resolving water management

issues in the Tutaekuri, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro and Karamu/Clive catchments in 2012. The ‘TANK project’ refers

to a community based collaborative process to consider the management requirements for these rivers and

their connected surface and groundwater.

Examples of comments from submitters regarding the TANK project include:

The application impinges on the TANK process being run by the Hawkes Bay Regional

Council to give effect to the NSP on Freshwater 2017.

TANK process is based on a best practice collaborative decision making process, the best

available scientific information and is flexible and adaptable to achieve both multiple

objectives and integrated management.

Await the outcome of the TANK study being undertaken by HBRC and others.

TANK group is a much wider group than WCO applicants, representing all community values

and has an objective of improving freshwater management.

The WCO Applicants that also appear on the TANK Group member list have a credibility issue

– Why do they think that their interests should be held up above the rest of community?

The Regional Planning Process / Plan / TANK Group represent a wider set of values, views

and technical base than the WCO Process and the former should be allowed to complete and

implement its findings.

The HBRC has an important work-stream underway to prepare and notify a plan change that

would identify outstanding freshwater bodies in the Hawke's Bay region.

TANK and the Regional Plan process is a much better way to establish the attributes, values,

policies and rules that govern the Ngaruroro River. TANK itself is a major collaborative

stakeholder undertaking.

There is already a process in place for managing water quality and allocation issues within

HBRC’s Resource Management Plan (Plan Change 6). This recognises the importance of

providing for water use for primary production and processing, and that existing levels of

water take support significant investment in primary and secondary industry.

26

Although there is currently a plan change process for TANK catchments that has been

currently proceeding for 4 years and 10 months (mtg 31), no limits have been discussed, or

proposed during this time to address water quality issues within the Karamu/Clive, Ngaruroro,

Ahuriri or Tutaekuri.

The wine industry has invested in this [TANK] process heavily since 2012 and feel it should be

the primary vehicle for assessing and balancing community values in the highly modified

agricultural/industrial and urban environment.

National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014

Submitters question the relationship and/or implications of this WCO on obligations under the National Policy

Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (NPSFM). These comments include:

The NPSFM to be the appropriate tool to manage the much wider set of values and

characteristics present in the Ngaruroro. This is because it has a requirement to maintain or

improve freshwater.

Council obligations under the NPSFM have a direct bearing on this WCO application.

WCO is a redundant process that has been superseded by the NPSFM.

Lack of clarity between the purpose and requirements of a WCO and our obligations to

comply with the new standards set by the NPSFM.

Catchment Management and Planning

A number of submitters raised concerns about catchment management (i.e. flooding, climate change etc.).

They either do not believe this WCO could address these matters sufficiently or feel the application has not

considered them. These comments included the following:

We believe an integrated approach to the river management which in the future may include

storage, supplementation, efficient use technologies, and restrictions without total bans has

huge merit.

The WCO is a fairly blunt instrument for managing water in a system that has significant

complexity in both hydrological behaviour, use and values.

Concerns that restrictions under Clauses 9 (a) and (b) will inhibit or prevent HBRC carrying

out its flood protection and river management role.

The scheme provides flood control and drainage benefits for approximately 39,000 ha of

premium land for horticulture and viticulture, along with protection for approximately 127,000

people.

The WCO severely limits options on how best to use water into the future…will need all

options open in the face of uncertainty of climate change.

27

I live in Clive, preventing the HBRC to regulate water-flows and modify river channels would

put both mine and my community's properties at risk of flooding.

Note that relevant matters of importance to health have also been the subject of the

Government Inquiry into Havelock North Drinking Water and recommend that the Tribunal

take into consideration any relevant findings from that inquiry.

In addition there are other projects such as the Outstanding Waterbodies Project which we

understand is involved in the identification of outstanding waterbodies and is better placed to

identify appropriate waterbodies for protection.

WCO would leave Council control of discharges in this area non-existent.

The lower reaches are used for a wide range of purposes including being managed for

community flood protection, abstraction for irrigation and land drainage for horticulture, as

well as recharging the aquifer system that provides municipal drinking water for 80% of the

regional population.

Science and Technology

A number of submitters raised concerns regarding the scientific integrity of the WCO and its ability to adapt

to future environmental changes. These comments included the following:

Concerns are that the science behind the WCO application is limited to a particular point in

time. This has implications on the effectiveness of the WCO application that does not address

the cause and effect relationships between Napier City water use and the proposed water

quality and quantity restrictions in the WCO.

The WCO applicants' supporting material should be tested alongside the science that has

been learned from the Hawke's Bay Regional Council's TANK process.

Without a breakdown of the data at different flow rates it is difficult to interpret the figures and

more science is needed to make sensible decisions on data collection and limit setting.

The application has not given regard to the latest scientific data available on the water

quantity and quality of these rivers through the study HBRC commissioned in 2016 and is still

in progress. How was the minimum flow specified?

Concerned about the lack of general flexibility or adaptability if the Order is made to

accommodate better information, technology and knowledge that emerges in the future.

Table 6 outlines submissions providing a representative view in relation to alternative processes for

catchment management. This is not a complete list of submitters that had general and specific views on this

theme. The Tribunal will consider all submissions.

28

Table 6: Submitters who submitted on issues relating to alternative processes for catchment management

EPA

Reference

Number

Submitter Name



37861 Dames J

37862 Derbige R

37863 Garland C

37867 Masterson H




37999/37849 Willowford Alma Alta Partnership


37793 Williamson Water Advisory






37833 Wallace C

38034 Karena D

38071 Hastings District Council

37942 Papakowhai Limited

37947 Matariki Holdings Limited (trading as Aorangi Road Wines)

37885 Ngaruroro Irrigation Society Incorporated


37960 Hawke’s Bay District Health Board

37985 Korongata Marae

37875 & 38008 Hill Nurseries Ltd


29

37967 The Wine Portfolio Ltd

37935 Tirohia Farm Ltd

37974 & 38092 McCain Foods (NZ) Ltd

37938 Drumpeel Farms Ltd

37886 Washpool Station Ltd




37915 Horn S



38022 Mackay B

38021 La Trobe J

38020 Parsons J

38018 Mackie D

38017 McPhail D

38016 McPhail DK

38015 Kilmister S

38014 Kilmister P

38012 Mitchell R



37998 Evans G


37981 Whyte E

37843 Hibberd A

37844 Stallard R

37845 Stallard L

37846 Waimea Orchard Limited (Carl Fairey)

37850 Wilson A

37851 Wilson L

30

37852 Wilson D

37865 Hirst M


38019 FMG Advise and Insurance Hawke’s Bay

38009 NP Vesty Ltd


38001 Cedar Orchards Limited








37868 Mr Apple New Zealand Ltd

37864 Hirst G

37870 Lazy Acres

37871 Shannon C

37981 Whyte E





38010 Moffett J


38068 Villa Maria Estate Limited

38053 Rockit Global Ltd

38059 Barnes R

37853 Curtis R & J

38070 Federated Farmers of New Zealand

38058 Gravestock P

31



37857 Delugar A & D

38061 Napier City Council



38042 New Zealand Apples & Pears Incorporated


38044 Clayton P


38049 Smith P



38065 Lawson S

38073 Agnew W







38100 Ngai Tukairangi Trust

38096 Agcrop Ltd


38083 Gross B


38122+ Agnew Transport Services Ltd (20 submissions)

38107 Harty P

38105 FL Haywood



32













38084 Hawkes Bay Regional Sports Park

38051 Delegat Limited

38162 Thomson K

38108 Sturge S & P

38085 Jay Greville Sorensen


38170 Barnes D


38087 Cope B

38035 Court R

38166 Davis M



37988 Gilbert A & A


37860 Wellwood G

37877 Sixtus K

38178 East Coast Hawke’s Bay Te Tairāwhiti ki Te Matau-a- Māui Conservation Board


33

38181 Yule L

38180 Windburn Ltd

6.3 Culture and Heritage

Approximately 143 submitters (36.9%) discussed culture and heritage in their submission. Views were

diverse on this topic, with some supporting, and others opposing the WCO.

Tangata whenua raised some concerns over the inadequacy of consultation and the lack of mandate to

make this application for a WCO. A large portion of submitters mentioned that this WCO will impact upon the

food, wine and fibre production values which are integral to the cultural identity of the Heretaunga

community.

Those in support of the WCO discussed the importance of enabling the river to retain or replenish its Mauri

and the spiritual health of the communities living around it.

Submitters raised the following general comments in regard to culture and heritage:

Tangata Whenua, Whanau, Hapu, and Marae need to be at the forefront of the decision

making process.

Provision to be made re: Wai Maori for the future aspirations of Whanau, Hapu and Marae, for

example Papakainga Housing, Aquaculture and commercial interests that may eventuate in

the future.

Decisions made about the environment and rivers directly and indirectly affect the health of

Maori.

The Ngaruroro River and the Heretaunga Plains Aquifer System have outstanding cultural

values which are reflected in the cultural relationships that tangata whenua have with the

river.

WCO application is premature and should be deferred until all settlements within the

catchment have been settled.

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is not only obliged, but committed to take into account

Ngāti Hori’s management plan when preparing regional plan changes such as the TANK plan

change.

While connection of Tangata Whenua to their Awa is acknowledged, no characteristics of

outstanding significance in accordance with tikanga Maori that would require a WCO.

It is not clear from the evidence that the Clive River water flow and quality are characteristics

which meet the threshold of being of outstanding significance in accordance with tikanga

Maori.

34

We consider that preserving the upper Ngaruroro river in a natural state, and protection of its

outstanding characteristics including those which are significant in accordance with tikanga

Maori – as detailed in sections 199 & 200 RMA – already occurs under current legislative

provisions, and can be further provided for without a WCO.

Plans for upper Ngaruroro are available for consideration per sections 35A (Duty to keep

records about iwi and hapu) and 207 (Matters to be considered) of the RMA.

Potential adverse impacts of the WCO on culture and heritage were raised:

Tangata Whenua, has not been consulted on the application.

I oppose this application because it does not protect the interest of all Maori or does it have

the mandate from Maori Land owners that this Order will effect.

Food, wine and fibre production are values are integral to cultural identity of the Heretaunga

community and any revised WCO should consider the protection of those values because

they are outstanding, both nationally and regionally.

The WCO will restrict us from our endeavours to grow our industries on our land and our

people around the harvesting of miere, licencing hunting and fishing on our land and the

tributaries to the Ngaruroro river…Culturally it stops us from exercising our rights under the

Treaty of Waitangi and excises us from our land and our river, our awaititi and our tikanga -

our being.

No engagement to extend the original WCO beyond 7kms the length of the Clive which is the

Ngaruroro nor does the application recognise our existing Kawenata with the Crown which in

my view equates to ignoring an existing binding agreement that will if this WCO proceeds put

us at risk with the Crown, legally.

The need for the various hapu and maori land trusts of the Ngaruroro River to retain their

overarching individual mana over their associated lands. We are concerned that the WCO

may negatively impact on their aspirations, moemoea and ask the Tribunal to the Minister for

the Environment to ensure this is taken into consideration.

Potential positive impacts of the WCO on culture and heritage were noted:

The WCO will enhance Te Mana o te Wai.

By maintaining a healthy river, the health of the river itself, all life in the river and the spiritual

health of the communities living around it can be maintained.

The Ngati Kahungunu ancestral fishing grounds and knowledge is declining and is at risk of

complete loss if not protected.

35

Protection of the river through a WCO will enable the river to retain or replenish its Mauri and

in turn support healthy aquatic ecosystems and sustainable management and use of

groundwater resources.

It is filled with memories and whanau connections and deserves to be looked after and

protected by the crown.

Table 7 outlines submissions providing a representative view in relation to culture and heritage. This is not a

complete list of submitters that had general and specific views on this theme. The Tribunal will consider all

submissions.

Table 7: Submitters on issues relating to culture and heritage

EPA

Reference

Number

Submitter Name



37861 Dames J

37862 Derbidge R

37863 Garland C

37867 Masterson H





38031 East Taupo Lands Trust

37811 Mennie S-R

37933 Owhaoko A East & A1B Trust

37752 Howes J

37939 Te Whaiti NH

38034 Karena D

37957 Nag Hapu: Hinetemoa and Ngati Mihiroa

37973 Mauri Protection Agency

37751 Watt A

38030 Owhaoko B & D Trust

36


37984 Ngā Kaitiaki o te Awa a Ngaruroro

37791 Tamihana-Simich A

37887 Owhaoko C Trust


37930 Kupa M

37910 Kupa T

37979 Aorangi Awarua Trust


37952 New Zealand Conservation Authority


38019 FMG Advice & Insurance (Hawkes Bay)

38036 Te Taiao Hawke’s Bay Environment Forum

38009 NP Vesty Ltd







37868 Mr Apple New Zealand Limited

37876 Hawke’s Bay Fruitgrowers’ Association



38021 La Trobe J

38020 Parsons J

38018 Mackie D

38017 McPhail D

38016 McPhail DK

38015 Kilmister S

38014 Kilmister P

37

38012 Mitchell R



38005 Mardon P

38003 Osborne B

37998 Evans G


37993 Croad R

37844 Stallard R

37845 Stallard L

37846 Waimea Orchard Limited

37850 Wilson A

37851 Wilson L

37852 Wilson D

37867 Masterson H

37863 Garland C

37864 Hirst G

37870 Lazy Acres

37871 Shannon C


38059 Barnes R

38062 Cheyne C

38058 Gravestock P



37829 Bostock New Zealand Ltd

37857 Delugar A & D




38





38049 Smith P



38073 Agnew W

38065 Lawson S


38106 Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust

38096 Agcrop Ltd


38083 Gross B


38107 Harty P

38105 Haywood F













38108 Sturge S & P

38085 Sorensen J

39


38170 Barnes D

38087 Cope B

38035 Court R

38166 Davis M



37860 Wellwood G

37877 Sixtus K



38181 Yule L

6.4 Water Quantity

Approximately 76 submitters (19.6%) discussed water quantity in their submission. The majority of

submitters on this topic support the WCO. Of these submissions the issues relate to concerns over

restrictions on takes for irrigation, given the proposed flow levels within the application. The consequential

impacts on commercial and industrial operations are mentioned frequently (and covered in greater detail

within Section 6.1). The potential limitations on future water storage with a WCO in place was another

concern of some submitters.

Irrigation

Submitters who raised irrigation as a specific topic made comments including:

This application seeks to impose significant conditions on the water resource. This affects

the ability to utilise the water as frost protection and irrigation during peak months.

Considerable investment has been made in a permanent irrigation system.

We believe the current minimum flow level of 2400l/s are adequate and need to be

maintained.

If the Ngaruroro WCO is approved in its current form, it would have severe implications for

me, my family, and all the residents of Hawkes Bay.

Restricted or banned irrigation will result in the death of crops and increased erosion of

these soils.

40

Raising the low flow measured at the Fernhill Bridge from 2,400 litres per second to 4,200

litres per second would increase days of water bans from a current average of 10.3 days per

season to 27.6 days per season.

A severe reduction in yields due to lack of irrigation would make my orchards unprofitable.

Water allocation and storage flows are significantly under catered and the latest science

would result in an unprecedented impact on the primary industry and the urban community

dependant on that industry.

Ngaruroro and Clive River affects many people and habitants and requires legislation to

protect flow, water quality and environments - from people, companies and corporations that

seek to gain profit.

Waterflow restrictions under clause 9 is ridiculous. Will impact water irrigation.

The consequences of an increased minimum flow at Fernhill Bridge will be less available time

to irrigate…huge impact on many, many people.

Water is a critical resource for vegetable growing, processing and post harvest production

systems, and hence employment in Hawke’s Bay.

A detailed analysis of the irrigation takes from the river needs to be to undertaken to

determine the optimal flow allocation regime. The best vehicle through which to do this is the

collaborative community process currently in progress – the TANK group.

The proposed allocation regime for the river is extremely crude as it only provides for one

allocation band.

Organic apple production has a very low impact in terms of Nitrogen and Phosphate leaching

into water bodies compared to some intensive dairying.

The proposed allocable volume of 1581 l/s is insufficient to meet municipal needs.

Water Storage

Submitters who raised water storage as a specific topic made comments including:

WCO severely limits the ability for water storage.

Allow some water storage in the tributaries of the Upper Ngaruroro.

Without any other available [irrigation] option (stored water) we would seriously consider

removing the orchard.

We do not wish to see restrictions of: on farm storage schemes, water storage schemes on

tributaries or the main river stem.

41

I am concerned that this WCO could have the unintended consequence of preventing future

water storage options (alternate to water dam options) which I believe is an essential part to

the long term sustainability of water quality in our region.

Given the predicted impacts of climate change on the Ngaruroro catchment and the potential

water over allocation on the Heretaunga Plain, water storage should not be prohibited in all

the upper Ngaruroro waters.

Based on Hawke’s Bay Regional Council historic flows in the Ngaruroro River at Fernhill, the

window available to capture water to store are too narrow to be viable.

While purportedly allowing for water storage, the provisions of the draft WCO make water

storage unworkable.

Other comments relating to this topic are commonly mentioned with reference to commercial and industrial

operations and are discussed within Section 6.1 and Table 5 of this report.

Table 8 outlines submissions providing a representative view in relation to water quantity. This is not a


submissions.

Table 8: Submitters on issues relating to water quantity

EPA

Reference

Number

Submitter Name

37874 Meiros Orchards Ltd (Craig Wilson)

37873 Meiros Orchards Ltd (Gillian Wilson)


37833 Wallace C


37942 Papakowhai Limited

37950 Brookes T



37901 Ash Ridge Wines

37943 Mudgway M


37962 Ritchie D

37855 Robertson L

42



37995 Big Hill Station Limited



38069 Limestone Properties Limited

38066 McLay B

38022 Mackay B

38021 La Trobe J

38017 McPhail D


38025 Kokako Farms Ltd






37876 Hawke’s Bay Fruitgrowers’ Association

37869 Omahuri Orchards Ltd

37941 & 37824 Bay Irrigation (2011) Ltd

37853 Curtis R & J


38058 Gravestock P


38044 Clayton P







43



37897 Glenside Partnership


38174 Timahanga Station


37889 Beach House Wines Ltd

37895 Links Winery Ltd

37900 Trinity Hill Limited

37914 Paritua Vineyards and Winery Ltd



37925 Elephant Hill Holdings Ltd

37946 Bilancia Limited

37961 Newton Forrest Estate

37968 Alpha Domus Ltd

37980 Chatterton D


37830 Dunvegan Estate

37907 Craggy Range Vineyards Ltd





37840 J & E Milmine Family Trust


38180 Windburn Ltd

38181 Yule L

44

6.5 River Conservation

Approximately 54 submitters (13.9%) discussed river conservation in their submission. Both those who were

for, and against, the WCO, submitted on river conservation. The rivers “outstanding” values were debated,

with some of the view that the Ngaruroro clearly warrants the classification and others who believe the

Ngaruroro is too modified to meet the definition under section 199 of the RMA. Many submitters on this topic

highlighted the need for a WCO to preserve the rivers for the benefit of future generations.

River/s “Outstanding”

This river is clearly nationally outstanding, and is worthy of a WCO to ensure that this

pristine environment that New Zealand values remains this way, for many years to come.

This river is clearly outstanding by national standards and most worthy of a WCO.

River/s not “Outstanding”

Not fully satisfied that the application demonstrates that all the values sought to be protected

in the draft Order meet the ‘outstanding’ threshold under section 199 of the RMA.

The WCO on the whole of the Ngaruroro River and Clive River does not consider that both

rivers are 'modified systems' and neither meet the purpose of a WCO under section 199(1) of

the Resource Management Act.

The WCO does not have the scope to cover the Lower Ngaruroro River with its diversity of

requirements. The Upper Ngaruroro River is unmodified and quite different to the Lower

portion.

We do not believe the characteristics of the Lower Ngaruroro to be outstanding.

Some reaches of Ngaruroro River are picturesque, scenic and possess level of amenity and

intrinsic values, those values are not outstanding.

None of the lower river, from the boundary of National Park, can be considered as

outstanding natural attributes [as it has] been modified to facilitate changing land uses over

time.

We find it difficult to consider that this river has outstanding attributes even if it is a fantastic

water resource satisfying all these functions.

To be considered outstanding, a value must have nation-wide significance, yet the values

such as recreational, habitat and fish are not out of the ordinary of a national basis.

Evidence could not be seen as supporting ‘outstanding’ values of the water.

If outstanding values exist at the current low flow levels, then it would seem that the existing

low flow regime is sufficient to maintain those values.

45

The question of whether the lower reaches of the Ngaruroro River can be considered

sufficiently outstanding to warrant a WCO.

Uniqueness

Exceptional and unique whitewater and natural beauty.

The feeling of wilderness and remoteness experienced on this river is increasingly becoming

rare in New Zealand, particularly in the North Island.

It is one of the last truly untouched New Zealand rivers and offers many benefits to multiple

parties. It's protection is of benefit to all New Zealanders.

Future Generations

Big-picture holistic planning is easier to implement with the WCO parameters in place.

Otherwise, cumulative adverse effects will continue to degrade these rivers, compromising

their environmental integrity and recreational use. The granting of a WCO is an important

milestone on the way to preserving the river for our future generations.

We want the river water quality and surrounding natural beauty to be enhanced and

preserved. This is not just for ourselves, but for future generations to thank us for.

Our children will thank us for having the foresight to protect such unique and special rivers.

Only braided river system in North Island that has not been destroyed, by so called land

improvement and needs protection for future generations, native flora and fauna.

Too many of our natural resources are being neglected, modified and exploited for short term

gains. A river is something that when interfered with, will never be able to be reinstated to its

original state.

We are losing our natural wonderlands at an alarming rate worldwide and we need to protect

what we have left. Once this is gone, it is gone - we need to protect what we have in order to

pass it on to the generations to come.

Other

Proposed WCO implies the river and water needs to be better managed. I take offence to this

inference and implication.

We understand that the Ngaruroro river is currently considered in very good condition,

current rates of water extraction from surface or surface connected takes (as we are), and

takes from all “hydraulically connected” groundwaters, are sustainable, and have been

modelled to do so for the next 100 years, at the current rates.

Conservation efforts must be balanced and appropriate and it is submitted that the WCO is

not the correct tool to provide appropriate protection.

46

Hawkes Bay Regional Council's 2012 Ten Year Plan signalled plans for the Ngaruroro Dam.

Their plans for a dam on the Ngaruroro will inevitably lead to further pollution of the river.

Table 9 outlines submissions providing a representative view in relation to river conservation. This is not a


submissions.

Table 9: Submitters on issues relating to river conservation

EPA

Reference

Number

Submitter Name

37880 Schurmann M

37819 Eagles N

37742 Hawke’s Bay Canoe Club (Kaya Shlomi)

37729 Gardner P

37747 Cox B


37730 Scullion M

37816 Waikato Kayak Club

37818 Land T

37881 Naplawa M

37890 Johnson A

37892 Auckland University Canoe Club

37912 Meagher L

37948 Hodgson B

37806 River Valley Ventures Ltd

37982 Lakes & Waterways Action Group Trust

37743 Abel G

37762 Fowler A

37794 Parry N


37966 Brookfields Vineyards (Peter Robertson)


37935 Tirohia Farm Ltd

47

37934 Whana Whana Station Ltd

38027 Bloke on a Rope Ltd









38022 Mackay B

37981 Whyte E


37855 Robertson L

37729 Gardner P

37796 Robertson M

37737 McAulay D

37953 Burrows S

37882 Bramley F



38101 Department of Conservation


38169 Guardians of the Aquifer

38168 Freshmax


37969 Federated Mountain Clubs of NZ Inc


37922 Penton J


48

6.6 Aquifers, Groundwater & Surface Water

Approximately 48 submitters (12.4%) discussed aquifers, groundwater and surface water in their submission.

The majority of those who submitted on this topic highlighted their confusion about the nature and extent of

the groundwater, to which this WCO relates, and questioned the scientific basis of the application.

Ambiguity of information

In particular, the submissions expressed the following opinions:

The applicants have not defined the nature or extent of the groundwater they propose to be

covered by the Order.

There is no map identifying the extent of connected groundwater, so it is very difficult for the

applicant to describe the effect of the application, and it is very difficult for submitters to

respond to the application.

Unclear in relation to the Lower Ngaruroro meaning that it is impossible to accurately assess

its effects.

Section 201 of RMA 1991 requires application for WCO to identify the water body concerned.

Difficulty understanding extent of it, due to poor identification of connected groundwater the

application is covering.

The application notes a precautionary approach should be taken to ground takes

(application, para 368). If this is the applicant’s position, it is clear that the prohibition of

water takes (subject to flow considerations), as set out in the draft WCO and noted elsewhere

in the application is far stricter than what is required.

Including the terminology "hydraulically connected ground water" in the draft WCO

application, it appears that all groundwater takes (other than those provided for in clause

12(a) of the draft WCO) will be linked to surface water flows, and all groundwater takes will be

subject to river low flow take cessation conditions.

The applicant has been sloppy using such imprecise terminology [‘Hydraulically connected’]

and has not studied or considered neither the enormous potential economic damage nor the

environmental benefit of linking hydraulically connected water to low flow irrigation bans on

the Ngaruroro.

Without a breakdown of the data [re nutrient concentration] at different flow rates it is difficult

to interpret the figures and more science is needed to make sensible decisions on data

collection and limit setting given the contradictory nature of the information and proposal in

the application.

49

Lack of understanding

In particular, the submissions expressed the following opinions:

Work conducted by Hawkes Bay Regional Council on groundwater shows that it is very

difficult to isolate connected groundwater to any of the three significant waterbodies that

make up the groundwater resource under the Heretaunga Plains, and an assumption could be

made that the application applies to all groundwater takes within this area.

Science presented through TANK shows all groundwater in the TANK catchment is

connected.

We also note that the application statement is based on data from 2008. We understand that

the Hawkes Bay Regional Council is currently planning to undertake more work, which will

provide more information both about the magnitude of the aquifers, and the effect of changes

in flows.

There is a lack of understanding of domestic versus commercial use of groundwater.

The applicants have not proved that this groundwater holds outstanding values sufficient to

support a WCO.

A lack of balance with regard to maintaining a healthy river and its recreation benefits and

aquifer abstraction.

Impact to economic sustainability of region without balanced scientific agreement to

groundwater flows.

Recent findings from scientific work have concluded the water in the river catchment is

significantly more connected than previously thought. At the time of the WCO Application

this information was not available.

Effects on the Gimblett Gravels Wine Growing District are not well quantified and are

therefore unknown, but likely to be significantly adverse.

Although the Ngaruroro Awa uppermost source is in the Kaimanawa Ranges, the Ngaruroro

is also fed by magnificent watersheds sourced from the Kaweka and Ruahine Ranges.

WCO makes inaccuracy’s and unproven statements and assumptions, demonstrates lack of

technical understanding.

Extremely concerned that the Order, if granted in its current form, would unnecessarily

prevent innovative options for enhanced water availability on the Heretaunga Plains.

Groundwater connectivity can vary along the length of the river and having a flow restriction

at one generic point onward doesn’t allow the opportunity for a downstream proposed water

take to have its impact on river flows assessed.

50

Recent findings from scientific work have concluded the water in the river catchment is

significantly more connected than previously thought. At the time of the WCO Application

this information was not available.

Protection of the Aquifer System

Some submitters have raised the need to protect the aquifer resource, similar to the following:

Management of the Ngaruroro River, its tributaries and ground water systems, has not

always been undertaken in a sustainable manner, nor appropriately considered the well-

being of the river and the Heretaunga Plains Aquifer System.


operations within Section 6.1 and Table 5 of this report.

Table 10 outlines submissions providing a representative view in relation to aquifers, groundwater and

surface water. This is not a complete list of submitters that had general and specific views on this theme. The

Tribunal will consider all submissions.

Table 10: Submitters on issues relating to aquifers, groundwater and surface water

EPA

Reference

Number

Submitter Name



37828 Three Bay Apples Limited (David Todd)

37836 Eru S

37842 SFC Ltd











37850 Wilson A

51

37851 Wilson L



37867 Masterson H

37863 Garland C

37861 Dames J

38059 Barnes R

37853 Curtis R & J


37857 Delugar A & D




38065 Lawson S

38073 Agnew W




37829 Bostock New Zealand




38162 Thomson K




37973 Mauri Protection Agency


52

6.7 Water Sports

Approximately 39 submitters (10.1%) discussed water sports in their submission. Of these, the majority of

submitters were in support of this WCO. Many of those who submitted on water sports highlight that the

Ngaruroro River offers a nationally significant white water rafting and kayaking resource. It allows for multi-

day trips which cater for a range of experience levels. Some submitters pointed out the adverse effects of jet

boating.

Positive:

Ngaruroro River protected so that it can continue to be enjoyed as a beautiful wilderness

paddling destination.

It is one of the last few rivers on the North Island that can be experienced as a multi-day trip,

providing a sense of remoteness and tranquillity.

A WCO would prevent this resource being taken away from the kayaking community.

There are less and less opportunities to kayak in the North Island in pristine waters due to

intensification of farming and the upper reaches of the river allows this amongst beautiful

beech forest.

The lower reaches from Whanawhana down to Clive are frequently used by kayakers training

for multi sports events and have been used in competitions of this nature.

Provides a variety of nationally significant kayaking/rafting experiences.

The remoteness, and challenging rapids are nationally excellent, and are not very common in

New Zealand.

Ngaruroro has held a special place in the white water community for longer than I have been

paddling (early 1990's) and in some ways has more to offer now than it did when I started.

The Ngaruroro river between Whanawhana and Kuripapango is an outstanding whitewater

kayaking resource.

Negative:

Jet boating is noisy, with consequent potential negative effects on birdlife, and invasive in

the water. It creates direct pollution, as the water goes through the engines for cooling, and

must also disturb sediment, with potential harm to fish and other aquatic life, as well as

changing the natural flow of the river.

The purpose-built Jet Sprint course on the banks of the river at Crownthorpe, could become

redundant if this legislation is adopted.

53

Member of NZ Jet Boat Assn and Fish and Game, I have yet to meet anyone from these

organisations who would support this WCO given the probable economic and social effects it

would have.

Table 11 outlines submissions providing a representative view in relation to water sports. This is not a


submissions.

Table 11: Submitters on issues relating to water sports

EPA

Reference

Number

Submitter Name

37816 Waikato Kayak Club (Terry Lasenby)

37732 Pinkert A

37737 McAulay D

37817 Turvey J

37820 Victoria University Canoe Club

37880 Schurmann M

37740 Hall K

37752 Howes J

37761 Godbert C

37811 Mennie S-R

37812 Brookfields Vineyards Ltd

37831 Tihoi Venture School

37835 Thomas D

37738 de Jong P

37754 McGregor R

37795 Venable J

37940 Price A

37807 Hawke’s Bay Canoe Club

37816 Waikato Kayak Club

37813 Payne K

37730 Scullion M

37731 Kiwi Adventure Trust

54

37892 Auckland University Canoe Club

37806 River Valley Ventures Ltd

37794 Parry N

37798 McWilliam J

37799 Bond D


37944 Lintott C

38021 La Trobe J

38010 Moffett J

37981 Whyte E

37909 Sawyer G

37882 Bramley F


37924 UCCC (University of Canterbury Canoe Club)

37913 Kora K


6.8 Consents and Resource Management Restrictions

Approximately 30 submitters (7.7%) discussed consents and resource management restrictions in their

submission. The majority of these submitters do not support the WCO. The primary concern of all submitters

on this topic is the potential inability to renew existing water take consents, if the WCO is in effect. This is a

concern raised by commercial and industrial operations (refer to Section 6.1), but also by local authorities

who need consent for municipal water supply.

Concerns have been raised that consent renewals will be subject to the new limits proposed by this WCO

application.

Concerned about the lack of clarity a WCO would place on future resource consents for all

our water users, and in particular our need to plan for the sustainable growth of Napier city.

Existing consents when they expire would be affected by the draft Order and the

consequences for many of these consent holders have not been properly addressed in the

application.

55

Clause 9 c i in the draft WCO is confusing in that it implies existing consents are immune

from any increase in minimum flow, and that Clause 9 c ii states new consents will have to be

subject to new minimum flows.

“All the aquifers under the Heretaunga Plains are hydraulically connected”…Therefore this

Low Flow restriction would apply to all consents, on the Heretaunga Plains.

Any consent renewals must be treated as new consents, so in time all consent holders will be

subject to the increased flows.

The applicant has done no assessment of which consents would be captured and the

consequences of such a provision [Clause 9 c iii - slashing the allocated volume to 1,581

litres/sec at flows less than 70,986 litres/sec].

It would reduce our rights to apply for a water consent (either now or for future generations)

to be able to irrigate our property.

It is vital that the Tribunal consider and assess the wide ranging resource management

prohibitions, restrictions and implications of the draft Order

Need to understand how water quality limits set out in Schedule 5 of the WCO application

might impact on sustainable management and use of land within the Ngaruroro River

catchment.

The industrial area at Whakatu is suitable for wet industry (due to existing infrastructure). The

WCO sought by the applicants has the potential to restrict the continuation of, and/or the

establishment of new industrial activities that require trade waste or other discharges to land

and water.

The draft WCO use the words that "no resource consent may be granted…" This appears to

be ultra vires as section 217 of the RMA which only restricts the granting of water permits,

coastal permits or discharge permits.

It is not apparent in the application that the direct intent is to prevent us extracting gravel

from the river bed however, without further clarification, we must assume it does.

Concern is as land owners consents come for renewal they will be forced to operate under

the new low flow levels, an action that will put them out of business.

Overall effect of the draft WCO is that existing water users may continue to have water

available (though likely at a much lesser volume than their consents presently allow), but

subject to significantly more onerous take cessation conditions. Their existing security of

supply will be significantly adversely affected.

Many consents are up for renewal in 2019. While consent holders may get a renewal of

consent at 2400 l/s in 2019, they will be considered new consents in the next renewal round

and therefore subject to the new low flow limits.

56


operations within Section 6.1 and Table 5 of this report.

Table 12 outlines submissions providing a representative view in relation to consents and resource

management restrictions. This is not a complete list of submitters that had general and specific views on this

theme. The Tribunal will consider all submissions.

Table 12: Submitters on issues relating to consents and resource management restrictions

EPA

Reference

Number

Submitter Name

38091 Hawkes Bay Regional Council


37951 Wakefield B

37950 Brookes T

37868 Mr Apple New Zealand Limited



37936 & 37958 Element of Trust



38066 McLay B

37853 Curtis R & J

38052 Sacred Hill Vineyards Ltd



38050 GEK Property Nominees Limited








57


38168 Freshmax




6.9 Fishing

Approximately 26 submitters (6.7%) discussed Fishing in their submission. Of these submitters, the majority

are in support of the WCO to assist with maintaining or improving fish stocks. Some submitters disagree,

highlighting that trout are introduced, common, and may threaten native species.

Some submitters highlight the importance of the WCO for fish:

Fish pass up the river to spawn.

The decrease in whitebait at present is due to over fishing.

The rivers combination of run, riffle, pool makes it an inviting and diverse angling prospect.

That [fishing] trip is forever etched in my memory. I have teenage boys of my own now, and

my hope is that they could experience the same trip as I have had to the Ngaruroro River, and

that their children could as well.

A decline in white bait and other species has been noticed over the past 30 years, more so

over the last five years by Mana whenua.

This river is an internationally significant trout fishery as well as being a taonga of Ngati

Kahungunu.

Other submitters question whether fish and fishing values are “outstanding”:

Trout are introduced and not outstanding, but a threat to native species.

These are not outstanding fish values, if these species present in the catchment are common

and abundant around the country.

A number of local fishermen concur fishing in the lower Ngaruroro is not worthwhile.

Table 13 outlines submissions providing a representative view in relation to fishing. This is not a complete list

of submitters that had general and specific views on this theme. The Tribunal will consider all submissions.

58

Table 13: Submitters on issues relating to fishing

EPA

Reference

Number

Submitter Name

37734 Yates A

37740 Hall K

37752 Howes J

37757 Simpson J

37758 Donaldson R

37761 Godbert C

37811 Mennie S-R

37817 Turvey J

37819 Eagles N


37835 Thomas D

37879 Hadland I


37957 Nag Hapu: Hinetemoa and Ngati Mihiroa

37751 Watt A


38027 Bloke on a rope ltd

38021 La Trobe J

38010 Moffett J







59

6.10 Water Quality

Approximately 24 submitters (6.2%) discussed water quality in their submissions. The submitters were

divided between those who considered the WCO to be beneficial toward maintaining the existing water

quality (and the ecosystems which it provides), those who questioned the “natural state” of the rivers, and

those who believe the existing water quality demonstrates no need for change.

Some of the submitters who believe the WCO will be beneficial to water quality expressed following opinions:

The water quality is absolutely pristine where native eels and trout are often spotted.

The water quality throughout the catchment is very high, and again this is unique among

rivers that traverse lowland agricultural plains.

Protection of water quality will contribute significantly to the national economic values of the

Ngaruroro.

Whio / blue duck (Hymenolaimus malacorhynchos), are a rare indicator species of fresh, clear

water. Once they were present over the whole of the Ngaruroro River and catchment. Today

they are present only in the headwaters.

The proposed water quality standards will maintain a healthy lower Ngaruroro River, with a

diverse macroinvertebrate community which will assist to sustain the fish and bird

populations.

A WCO would mean the quality of the water would improve, which is of utmost importance.

What's in our rivers tends to end up in our kitchen taps and leads to public health risks.

Other submitters had questions around the natural state of the water:

The lower Ngaruroro River has been significantly modified to such an extent that the waters

and surrounding environment cannot be said to be in their natural state.

The inclusion of the Lower Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers in the application is not justified in

terms of their low amenity and intrinsic values due to significant modification.

One of the major pollutants of the river is sediment (hardly mentioned in the document) most

[of] which is caused naturally – we cannot control.

The lower Ngaruroro River has been manipulated by and controlled by artificial means since

1860.

The lower Ngaruroro has been significantly altered with irrigation channels, planting of exotic

flood protection trees such as willows, building of flood protection banks, ongoing shingle

extraction, river alteration and diversion, water augmentation facilities, concrete structures,

intensive dairy platforms on the banks of the river leaching nutrients and sediments into the

river, decaying and eroding banks causing sedimentation.

60

Other submitters questioned the need for a WCO given the existing water quality:

The existing state of the Lower Ngaruroro is generally very good and these values exist with

the current usage and so I consider that the current activities should be able to continue.

We have good knowledge of lower Ngaruroro and the Heretaunga Plains aquifer and it is not

pristine in the same context but in good condition.

Altering minimum flows will have a significant effect on the needs of the community and

primary and secondary industry without necessarily improving the already high level of river

health.

Have never been ill through consumption of water or through eating caught fish.

Other considerations raised:

As the winery is very small the volume of water discharged is not significant, however it is

important that we retain the ability to do this.

The only real issue is some sedimentation, which is a land based impact, but this is currently

being addressed with national legislation.

WCO to the river is not going to change the sediment which is naturally occurring.

Table 14 outlines submissions providing a representative view in relation to water quality. This is not a


submissions.

Table 14: Submitters on issues relating to water quality

EPA

Reference

Number

Submitter Name

37876 Hawke’s Bay Fruitgrowers Association


37794 Parry N


37821 Balle Bros Heretaunga


38021 La Trobe J




37880 Shurmann M

61

38062 Cheyne C

37834 Dawson L and Hunt T



37937 Lianne K








6.11 Other Recreation

The topic of ‘other recreation’ includes tramping, tourism, walking, camping, cycling, hunting, swimming and

any mention of recreation generally. Approximately 23 submitters (5.9%) discussed other recreation in their

submission. Of these submitters, more are in support of the WCO to conserve the experiences for those who

enjoy recreation in the area.

As a recreational user of the Ngaruroro (tramping, fishing, kayaking) I believe it is an

outstanding resource for these pursuits

Hawkes Bay and the Ngaruroro catchment is very important for recreation and domestic

tourism for the significant population in the upper half of the North Island.

The Ngaruroro and Clive rivers holds values that are of significant importance to the tourism

industry, such as wild, scenic and natural landscapes.

Table 15 outlines submissions providing a representative view in relation to other recreation. This is not a


submissions.

Table 15: Submitters on issues relating to other recreation

EPA

Reference

Number

Submitter Name

37739 Szymanik B

37752 Howes J

62

37753 Garea A

37757 Simpson J

37758 Donaldson R

37761 Godbert C

37817 Turvey J


37835 Thomas D


37746 Grammer Z

37814 Coutts C

37802 Saito A




37798 McWilliam J

38062 Cheyne C






6.12 Ecology

Approximately 22 submitters (5.7%) discussed Ecology in their submission. These submitters identify

conflicting views, with some highlighting the need for a WCO to preserve what is ecologically significant into

the future, and those who think the ecosystem is in good shape now, with no need for a WCO.

Some submitters who consider the WCO beneficial to conserve the ecology of the river environments,

discussed the following points:

Protection of whio habitat on the Ngaruroro River and its tributaries. Whio are an endangered

species.

63

It is important that interventions to improve or safeguard water quality and ecosystem values

are proportionate to the level of environment benefit/avoided risk relative to the cost and dis-

benefits to other important community values.

Currently whio are confined to the headwaters and preservation of the "whole" of the

Ngaruroro River in its natural state, via a WCO, would provide an important a safe, pristine

habitat for an important and unique New Zealand bird.

Important river for Blue Duck habitat.

Ecosystems and habitats are some of if not the most natural examples remaining in the North

Island.

The WCO will significantly enhance the planning framework for these rivers, as well as

enhancing the in-stream values by establishing environmental flow regimes. These two rivers

have significant habitat, scenic, recreational, and cultural values - as outlined in the

applicant's reports.

I have also had the opportunity to enjoy the cycle tracks at the mouth of the Clive River,

where I have seen a significant number of native and endemic birds, including at-risk

species, many of which I have never seen elsewhere.

Ecological significance of the braided river ecosystem of the Ngaruroro.

The WCO’s ‘mountains to the sea’ approach that recognises that the river as a whole is an

ecosystem.

The Ngaruroro Catchment has outstanding indigenous fish diversity. There are ten endemic

species and eight native species giving a total of eighteen indigenous fish species.

The Ngaruroro is important because it contains nationally vulnerable species such as our

banded dotterel, NZ dabchick and whio.

The river should be considered as a whole ecosystem from the mountains to the sea,

recognising the life-cycle of the threatened fish that may reside in the upper to mid reaches.

A number of Fish species use from the river mouth to the upper reaches. They need the

whole of river approach if they are to survive and thrive.

Within the upper Ngaruroro waters and Kaweka Forest Park are “The Lakes”. These two lakes

formed by a landslide, have outstanding diversity of indigenous vegetation species and

vegetation types.

The protection of the natural water levels and flows in the upper Ngaruroro waters will ensure

the maintenance of the existing braided river form and the outstanding braided river and

wader bird and indigenous fish habitat values in the lower Ngaruroro River.

64

Some submitters who question the ecological arguments within the application for this WCO identified:

We are not convinced that the extent of the proposed water restrictions are necessary to

ensure protection of the river and associated flora and fauna.

WCO Schedule 2 restricts the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s Ecological Management and

Enhancement Plan, particularly the habitat enhancement and protection of highly specialised

riverine bird species.

Mammalian predation is by far the leading cause of native avifauna decline in New Zealand,

and pest control and eradication programmes will give significantly more security to the

avian populations than simply protecting the river. This can be accomplished without a WCO.

The river is “ecologically intact” under the current management regime.

None of the applicants have a mandate to determine minimum flows for torrentfish.

Irresponsible to consider single parameter when satisfying demands of community and

ecosystem.

It may be that North Island conditions are unsuitable for this species [Black Flounder (Patiki)]

and the local sightings are simply outliers on the population distribution curve.

Does not believe raising the low flow ban from 2,400 litres/sec to 4,200 litres/sec will have

significant effect on the natural decreasing river flow during dry periods and therefore this

provision has marginal benefit to the ecosystem.

Table 16 outlines submissions providing a representative view in relation to ecology. This is not a complete

list of submitters that had general and specific views on this theme. The Tribunal will consider all

submissions.

Table 16: Submitters on issues relating to ecology

EPA

Reference

Number

Submitter Name

37905 Bullnose Partnership (Vineyard)


37834 Dawson L & T

37741 Singers N


37931 Duncan W


38021 La Trobe J

65



38022 Mackay B

37880 Shurmann M

37989 Pain G

37798 McWilliam J

38062 Cheyne C

37834 Dawson L and Hunt T

38036 Te Taiao Hawke’s Bay Environment Forum



37949 Cooper V


6.13 Natural Character and Amenity

Approximately 16 submitters (4.1%) discussed natural character and amenity in their submission. Of these,

there was more in support for the WCO, than opposed. Many of these comments related to the wild and

remote upper Ngaruroro, with others referencing the rivers generally.

Submitters raised the following points in regard to natural character and amenity:

The upper Ngaruroro possesses magnificent and largely unspoiled wild and scenic

landscapes.

The upper Ngaruroro River has outstanding landscape features associated with the post-

Taupo eruption deposition and subsequent erosion processes.

It is rugged, wild, and remote.

The untouched wilderness that the river traverses.

It is one of the few rivers on the North Island that can provide a chance for people to

experience such unique beauty and remoteness.

May have outstanding wild scenic and natural landscape value but most accurately describes

the area upstream of Kuripapango.

The only natural landscapes identified in the Ngaruroro catchment that meet the Pigeon Bay

criteria (assessment criteria established by the Environment Court that must be exceeded

before a landscape can be considered outstanding at a regional / national scale), are the

66

areas upstream of Whanawhana and the Taruarau River. The Lower Ngaruroro and Clive

rivers do not meet the criteria and should not be considered for a WCO on the basis of

landscape values.

We agree the upper reaches are more beautiful and pristine than the lower reaches, and may

warrant protection.

The Ngaruroro is a wild river of great meaning that flows from the heart of the North Island –

the tussock country of the Kaimanawa – to meet the sea in Hawkes Bay through a series of

wild gorges and forested valleys, before meeting the Heretaunga plains and following its

braids to the Waitangi Estuary. The Ngaruroro has ‘outstanding’ significance for us.

The Lower Ngaruroro River (below Maraekakaho) was assessed at 14 [using the River Values

Assessment System (RiVAS) tool], which resulted in a river of LOW natural character for this

section.

Table 17 outlines submissions providing a representative view in relation to natural character and amenity.

This is not a complete list of submitters that had general and specific views on this theme. The Tribunal will

consider all submissions.

Table 17: Submitters on issues relating to natural character and amenity

EPA

Reference

Number

Submitter Name

37890 Johnson A

37741 Singers N


37991 Sileni Estate Ltd



37856 Shand L

37909 Sawyer G

37989 Pain G

37881 Naplawa M

37882 Bramley F

38062 Cheyne C



67



7 Requested Changes and Comments to the Tribunal

Table 18 sets out those submitters who had requested changes to the WCO or made comments to the Tribunal. Many submitters who suggested

changes specified the exclusion of the lower Ngaruroro from the WCO.

Table 18 does not record requested changes or comments verbatim. If a submitter has asked for similar changes or made similar comments multiple

times within their submission, these have only been recorded once. This Table does not specify all comments or change requested in full. The Tribunal

will consider all submissions.

Table 18: Requested changes and comments to the WCO by submitters

EPA Reference Number/s Submitter/s Name Requested Changes

38064 Horticulture New Zealand.

*It is noted that many submitters have submitted in

support of the Horticulture New Zealand submission

or particular matters raised by this submission. Many

of these submitters are identified in Appendix 1 of this

report.

Delete references to groundwater within draft order and delete controls

in draft order relating to ground water.

Require applicant to identify extent of groundwater controlled by the

order, and reassess effect of the order on lawfully established

extraction for primary and secondary industry in Heretaunga plains.

Modify section 4 of proposed order to include recognition for

importance of water body for protection of outstanding food, beverage,

and fibre production values associated with production in catchment

below the Whanawhana Cableway, as is provided for in RMA section

199(2)(b)(v).

Approve application for order as applies to Ngaruroro River upstream

of the Whanawhana Cableway, as long as amended in accordance

with relief sought in section 5.8 of this submission.

69

Parts of the Order that apply to section of river below Whanawhana

Cableway should be deleted in entirety, including all controls and

prohibitions.

Tribunal recognise noted deficiencies in the application and grant the

amendments to the order requested in this submission.

38064;37846,37861,37862,37

863,37867, 37872, 37873 &

37874; 38009; 37998;

37849/37999; 37860; 37877;

37859; 38059; 38058; 37858;

37857; 38046; 38043; 38047;

38049; 38056; 38065; 38073;

38075; 38076; 38096; 38097;

38083; 38122; 38107; 38105;

38045; 38013; 37868; 38103;

38090; 38098; 38095; 38094;

38099; 38165; 38167; 38081;

38082; 38108; 38085; 38072;

38170; 38087; 38035; 38166;

37986; 38086; 38034; 38181;

38179; 38180.

Horticulture NZ; Waimea Orchard Limited; Dames J;

Derbidge R; Garland C; Masterson H; Slader B and

Cowie D; Meiros Orchard Ltd (Wilson G); Meiros

Orchard Ltd (Wilson C); Camelot Fresh Fruit Co Ltd

and Others ; Evans G; Willowford Alma Alta

Orchards; Wellwood G; Sixtus K; Bellingham Orchard

Ltd; Barnes R; Gravestock P; Waima Fruit Company

Ltd; Delugar A & D; SSF Orchards Ltd; Moteo

Orchard Ltd; Gillum Family Trust; Smith P; Elak

Consultants Ltd; Lawson S; Agnew W; RD & BA

Griffiths Partnership; Sunfruit Orchards Ltd; Agcrop

Ltd; Everfresh Transport Ltd; Gross B; Agnew

Transport Services Ltd x 20 submissions; Harty P;

Haywood F; MB & CL Hope Partnership; Kilmister B &

R; Mr Apple New Zealand Ltd; New Zealand Plant

Producers Incorporated; Red Shed Orchard Ltd;

Maryn Orchard Partnership; HTH Trusts Partnership;

Holly Laughton Trust; Jasel Orchard Ltd; Liesebach

Janet; Liesebach Jens; Astill Family Trust; The Fresh

Berry Company of New Zealand Ltd; Sturge S & P;

Sorensen J; Golden Del Orchard Limited; Barnes D;

Cope B; Court R; Davis M; Ruapehu Hotel (1993) Ltd;

Rural Women New Zealand; Karena D; Yule L; C D

Jones Family Trust; Windburn Ltd.

Support the application for an Order in the Ngaruroro River above

Whanawhana, but oppose the application for the Order for the River

below Whanawhana.

The Order should provide as much scope as possible for the TANK

process to proceed without impediment.

Application failed to consider needs of primary and secondary industry

appropriately to be covered by the order. Alternative range of controls,

limits and restrictions be considered that are enabling of food, fibre and

wine production values.

37887 Owhaoko C Trust The inclusion of the upper reaches impacts on the Owhaoko C Trust

and me as a beneficial owner and legally as a governor/trustee in and

of those lands in that no formal conversation and or engagement ever

70

occurred with me and us the Trust and our people. The applicant and

their supporters of the application should of by law engaged directly

with us.

37826 MD Cairns & AR Wright Partnership The existing state of the Lower Ngaruroro is generally very good and

these values exist with the current usage and so I consider that the

current activities should be able to continue. I consider that the Order

sought is unclear in relation to the Lower Ngaruroro, meaning that it is

impossible to accurately assess its effects.

37939 Ngapuoterangi Hohepa TeWhaiti Tangata Whenua, Whanau, Hapu, and Marae need to be at the

forefront of the decision making process.

All recreational / commercial interests on the Ngaruroro Awa will need

to be supported / endorsed by Tangata Whenua, Whanau, Hapu and

Marae.

Provision to be made in relations to Wai Maori for the future aspirations

of Whanau, Hapu and Marae, for example Papakainga Housing,

Aquaculture and commercial interests that may eventuate in the future.

37885 Ngaruroro Irrigation Society Incorporated The Ruahine Forest Park would be a more logical place to separate the

Ngaruroro River into “Upper” and “Lower” reaches. The downstream

boundary of the Ruahine Forest Park marks the point where the river

leaves the conservation estate and opens into developed farmland. If

there is to be a WCO on the Ngaruroro River, upstream of this point

would seem more logical than the Whanawhana cable.

38091 Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) The HBRC strongly suggests that the Tribunal separate its decision

making into first hearing and deciding on submissions in relation to the

WCO application for the Upper Ngaruroro. The WCO process in

71

relation to the lower Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers could be delayed until

the Regional Planning Committee has received and adopted the

recommendations of the TANK Group. The Regional Planning

Committee decisions, and the information supporting them, could then

be taken into account by the Tribunal when it initiates its process for

the remainder of the catchment.

37843 Hibberd A TANK process to proceed without impediment.

37932 Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga Trust Whilst the Taiwhenua is a collective body of marae hapu in the

Heretaunga region we are taking a neutral view on the WCO, we prefer

to support those mana whenua who have a position and view of the

WCO to ensure we do not usurp the position of their mana whenua

status.

37936 & 37936 Element of Trust Approve/recommend approval of the WCO as it relates to the Upper

Ngaruroro (provided the conditions in this submission are met).

Decline/recommend declining the WCO as it relates to the Lower

Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers and the hydraulically connected

groundwater.

Alternative, clarify and amend the WCO to the extent that it is to apply

to the Lower Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers so as to address some and/or

all of the following outcomes:

1. maintaining the existing low-flow regime;

2. a more realistic allocation volume;

3. other measures to ensure long-term continuity and security for

existing consent-holders and the future needs of the industry.

72

37797 France Farming Limited We are opposed to the WCO for the entire length of the river. We

believe the upper reaches from the boundary of the Ruahine and

Kaweka forest parks is the best reference point for upper and lower

river boundary definitions.

We think there is merit in some environmental protection of the upper

reaches of the Ngaruroro River to preserve its outstanding natural

features however are not sure a WCO is the right mechanism now.

37840; 37889; 37895; 37897;

37900; 37907; 37914; 37920;

37921; 37925; 37946; 37961;

37968; 37980; 37954; 37992;

37826; 37805; 37830; 38037

J & E Milmine Family Trust; Beach House Wines Ltd;

Links Winery Ltd; Glenside Partnership; Trinity Hill

Limited; Craggy Range Vineyards Ltd; Paritua

Vineyards and Winery Ltd; Isosceles Partnership; Te

Mata Estate Winery; Elephant Hill Holdings Ltd;

Bilancia Limited; Newton Forrest Estate; Alpha

Domus Ltd; Chatterton D; Unison Estate Ltd;

Stonecroft Wines Limited; MD Cairns & AR Wright

Partnership; Harding Family Trust; Dunvegan Estate;

Gimblett Gravels Winegrowers Association

Incorporated (GGWA).

Support subject to confirmation that our needs in the Lower Ngaruroro

River are not significantly affected and that consideration is given to

allowing some water storage. The Lower Ngaruroro and Clive - oppose

as unnecessary and because of potentially significant impacts on our

needs.

37850; 37851; 38009; 38018

38012; 38014; 38015; 38016;

38017; 37848/37894; 37950;

37951; 37877; 37859

Wilson A; Wilson L; NP Vesty Ltd; Mackie D;

McPhail D; Mitchell R; Kilmister P; Kilmister S;

McPhail DK; Llewellyn Horticulture Ltd; Brookes T;

Wakefield B; Sixtus K; Bellingham Orchard Ltd

Support the order in Ngaruroro River above Whanawhana

Oppose the order for river below Whanawhana.

Oppose application applying to connected groundwater of Ngaruroro

River. Applicants not defined nature or extent of groundwater they

propose to be covered by the order.

Oppose controls and prohibitions suggested within stretch below

Whanawhana Cableway.

37906 Babich Wines Limited Babich Wines opposes the WCO Application in respect of the Lower

Ngaruroro and Clive as we consider it is unnecessary and because of

73

potentially significant, negative impacts on the commercial water needs

of Babich Wines (including vineyard irrigation and frost control).

37978 Redmetal Vineyards Ltd Decline the Order,

No objection to it applying only to the Upper Ngaruroro above the point

that it emerges from the Ruahine Forest Park.

37959 Element Vineyards Ltd Provide for the needs of the primary and secondary industry and of the

community in the Lower Ngaruroro, including those of the winegrowing

industry.

Element Vineyards Ltd. supports an order over the Upper Ngaruroro,

as defined by the notified application. This support is subject to

confirmation that the effects on the needs of the wine growing industry

are not significantly affected in the Lower Ngaruroro and that

consideration be given to allowing some water storage in the tributaries

of the Upper Ngaruroro.

37973 Mauri Protection Agency Additional protection for the Heretaunga Plains Aquifer System and its

recharge zones.

Full and appropriate consideration for tangata whenua values, interests

and aspirations where these relate to outstanding cultural values, and /

or intersect with other values that the community may have.

37985 Korongata Marae It is important to highlight the need for the various hapu and maori land

trusts of the Ngaruroro River to retain their overarching individual mana

over their associated lands, we are concerned that the WCO may

negatively impact on their aspirations, moemoea and ask the Tribunal

74

to the minister for the environment to ensure this is taken into

consideration.

37984; 37979 Ngā Kaitiaki o te Awa a Ngaruroro; Aorangi Awarua

Trust [Changes are requested but not specified]

38031 East Taupo Lands Trust Application should be restricted to lower Ngaruroro river where

environmental sustainability and user demand issues are both

appropriate and relevant to part o of the RMA.

Preserving the upper Ngaruroro river already occurs under current

legislative provisions and can be further provided for without a WCO.

38032 Silver Fern Farms Limited We support clause 11 to extent it is appropriate that discharges of

contaminants into the protected waters identified in schedules 1, 2 or 3

must not exceed limits in schedule 5.

The numerical limits for the Clive River need to be added to schedule 5

so that applicants for consent can have certainty around limits must

meet.

We support clause 14 which ensures nothing in WCO shall affect or

restrict any resource consent granted prior to WCO coming into force.

This clause will ensure we are able to continue discharging into the

Karamu Stream pursuant to its existing discharge consent. Important

we are able to renew its existing discharge consent if necessary in

future. To be able to do this, it is necessary to more clearly define what

the existing state of Clive River is.

38052 Sacred Hill Vineyards Ltd Approve as it relates to the Upper Ngaruroro.

Decline as it relates to Lower Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers

75

Alternative to declining is to clarify and amend the WCO as it relates to

the Lower Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers to address some or all of the

following outcomes:

- Maintaining the existing low flow regime;

- A more realistic allocation volume;

- Other measures to ensure long-term continuity and security for existing

consent holders and future needs of the industry.

38061 Napier City Council Opposition to the WCO for the Lower Ngaruroro. Neutral stance on the

proposed WCO on the upper reaches.

As an affected party we should have been consulted and the

implications of the WCO on Napier City and its future development

considered.

Impacts on Napier municipal water supply. Napier City’s municipal

water supply provides for domestic, commercial and industrial uses

within single water take consents.

Supports HBRC’s submission.

38063 Hawkes Bay Vegetable Growers Association

(HBVGA) If the Tribunal determines that a WCO should be made in respect of

the upper Ngaruroro River that.. works including hydraulically

connected groundwater should be deleted in entirety from description

of upper Ngaruroro waters.

Prohibition of water storage options including damming of the upper

Ngaruroro waters should only apply to main stem of Ngaruroro.

76

Reject the WCO application with respect to lower Ngaruroro and Clive

Rivers entirety, including but not limited to, reference to allocable

volumes and low flow limits.

If WCO order is made in respect of lower Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers in

a modified form, all reference to hydraulically connected groundwater

to the lower Ngaruroro River should be deleted. No change to minimum

flow conditions. Allocable volume based on sustainable volumes

should be set.

Propose alternative range of controls be considered more targeted to

protection of values considered by the Tribunal as outstanding.

38030 Owhaoko B&D Trust We offer the Tribunal assistance to ensure that tangata whenua kaitiaki

management plans for the upper Ngaruroro are available for

consideration per sections 35A (Duty to keep records about iwi and

hapu) and 207 (Matters to be considered) of the Resource

Management Act.

Exclude the upper Ngaruroro river catchment – ie. the river & its

tributaries upstream of the Taihape - Napier Road, and be restricted to

the lower Ngaruroro river catchment (ie. that part of the river & its

tributaries downstream of the Taihape – Napier Road)

The WCO application be changed to exclude Upper Ngaruroro River ie

the river and its tributaries upstream of the Taihape - Napier Road and

be restricted to lower Ngaruroro river.

38042 New Zealand Apples & Pears Incorporated If the Tribunal determines that a WCO should be made in respect of

the Upper Ngaruroro River, the words “including hydraulically

connected groundwater”’ should be deleted.

77

The prohibition of water storage options (including the use of dams on

the Upper Ngaruroro waters) should be limited to the main stem of the

Ngaruroro river.

38050 GEK Property Nominees Limited Exclude the Clive River from the Order

Amend the Order relating to the Clive River to preserve the current

rights and opportunities afforded to industrial activities in Whakatu

under the Hastings District Plan and the Hawkes Bay Regional Plan

38063 Heinz Wattie’s Limited Heinz Wattie’s Limited is one of Hawke's Bay's most significant

businesses. Does not oppose the WCO sought in respect of the upper

Ngaruroro River (subject to changes as per submission). It opposes the

WCO sought in respect of the lower Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers.

38076 Irrigation New Zealand Incorporated NZ opposes the application for a WCO for the lower Ngaruroro River

and the Clive. INZ supports the application for a WCO (WCO) for the

upper Ngaruroro waters as they meet the purpose of a WCO under

section 199 (1) of the Act. However, given the water allocation

challenges ahead for the Heretaunga Plains, the damming of waters

should not be prohibited upon the tributaries to the upper Ngaruroro.

River as neither meet the purpose of a WCO under section 199 (1) of

the Act. If the Tribunal finds the WCO appropriate for the lower

Ngaruroro River and the Clive River, then INZ seeks changes to the

draft WCO to reflect all the outstanding values the river provides for.

The Heretaunga plains is nationally renowned for food and beverage

production and the Ngaruroro river provides for this – the area is known

as the ‘Fruit Bowl of New Zealand’ and more recently also as ‘Wine

Country’. The application has failed to consider this.

78

38078 New Zealand Winegrowers Incorporated NZW supports a WCO in the Upper Ngaruroro (as defined by the

Application), conditional on the confirmation that the effects on the

needs and future opportunities of the wine industry are not affected in

the Lower Ngaruroro and that consideration be given to allowing for

strategic water storage in the tributaries in the Upper Ngaruroro.

NZW opposes a WCO in the Lower Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers,

including connected groundwater.

38079; 38039 Brownrigg Agriculture Group Limited; Apollo Apples

Ltd & ENZA Fruit New Zealand International Ltd Decline application in respect of the lower Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers.

In the alternative to declining, delete references to hydraulically

connected groundwater to the lower Ngaruroro River from the WCO.

Not make the Order sought in clauses 9(c)(i)-(v) of the draft Order.

There should be no change to minimum flow conditions and any

allocable volume should be set based on sustainable volumes.

38089 and 37976 WaterForce We seek to “Decline the Order” in its entirety. In the case where “Declining the

Order” is “unavoidable”, we seek the following amendments;

Allow the WCO to exist just on the upper Ngaruroro river.

Do not impose the WCO in its current form on the lower Ngaruroro

River, Clive River and tributaries.

Remove the restriction to damming of tributaries

Amend the allocation limits to better align with good science and up to

date knowledge. This clearly requires ongoing research and

consultation with appropriate organisations and bodies.

79

38106 Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust HTST seeks the support of the Tribunal to exercise its power to

propose a formal mediation prior to making any final decision on the

application.

38037

Gimblett Gravels Winegrowers Association

Incorporated (GGWA). Approve/recommend approval of WCO as relates to Upper Ngaruroro

(provided condition in this submission are met), with any appropriate

modification's to allow some water storage in tributaries of Upper

Ngaruroro. Decline/recommend declining WCO as relates to Lower

Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers and hydraulically connected groundwater.

Otherwise but as an alternative only to the points below, clarify and

amend the WCO to extent it is to apply to Lower Ngaruroro and Clive

Rivers so as to address some and/or all of the following outcomes:

Maintain existing low-flow regime, more realistic allocation volume,

practical high-flow storage provisions, exclusion of groundwater and

other measures to ensure long-term continuity and security for existing

consent-holders and the future needs of the industry. Preservation of

Upper Ngaruroro as far as possible in its natural state, whilst

preserving opportunity for GGWA's members and those supported by

the wine industry to protect current and future needs, essential not just

for long term viability of industry but to Hawkes' Bay community.

37829 Bostock New Zealand Ltd Requests this application is rejected in its entirety and allow existing

community processes to proceed which may include a later WCO

application in the upper reaches at the Ruahine forest park boundary

on the Ngaruroro River.

38071 Hastings District Council Grant the Order in respect of the upper Ngaruroro and decline, or in the

alternative delay consideration of, the Order in respect to the lower

Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers until the TANK group have delivered their

80

recommendations for freshwater management for those water bodies

to the Hawkes Bay Regional Council. Once the TANK Plan Change

has been notified, the Tribunal could then consider whether further

protection is warranted in the lower reaches.

37897 Glenside Partnership The Upper Ngaruroro – support subject to confirmation that our needs

in the Lower Ngaruroro are not significantly affected and that

consideration is given to allowing some water storage in the tributaries

of the Upper Ngaruroro. The Lower Ngaruroro and Clive – oppose as

unnecessary and because of potentially significant impacts on our

needs.

38080 Marist Holdings (Greenmeadows) Ltd; Amend the WCO on the lower Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers to address

the following: maintain the existing low-flow regime; provide a more

reasonable and workable allocation of volumes; remove groundwater

from its scope; any other appropriate measures to ensure long term

continuity and security for existing consent holders and the future

needs of the industry.

38074 Pernod Ricard Winemakers New Zealand Limited Opposed to the WCO over the lower Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers.

In the alternative that: the draft WCO restrictions are revised so that

they enable existing uses to continue, this could include: maintaining

the existing low flow regime; a more realistic allocation volume;

practical high flow storage provisions; exclusion of groundwater from

minimum flows (or reduced restrictions where groundwater is not

directly connected); other measures to ensure long term continuity and

security for existing consent holders and the future needs of the

industry.

81

Additional or amended provisions are included in the WCO to provide

greater guidance as to how the restrictions are to be implemented and

to provide for measures to prevent crop or vine losses when

restrictions are applied.

Such alternative or consequential relief as necessary to address

concerns raised in this submission.

38041 Wairua Dairies Ltd & Wairua Farm Trust Opposed to the WCO on the lower Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers.

Changes to the Upper Ngaruroro: Change the boundary between the

upper and lower Ngaruroro. The boundary should be the Forest Park

boundary.

Farming operations located in the upper Ngaruroro should not be

detrimentally affected if the WCO is granted on that section of the river.

Especially, but not exclusively. In-regards to, construction of stock

water dams off the main stem. We wish to see changes to the WCO to

specify that dams, for the purpose of stock water are allowed as of

right.

38051 Delegat Limited Recommend application be declined as it relates to Lower Ngaruroro

River and delete or amend any and all aspects of draft WCO as it

relates to Upper Ngaruroro Waters, which would affect or which depend

upon the characteristics of the Lower Ngaruroro River and which would

preclude damming of tributary or mainstem within upper Ngaruroro

waters or Lower Ngaruroro River.

38168 Freshmax Decline in respect of the lower Ngaruroro River and Clive.

82

In the alternative: Not make the order sought in clause 9(c)(i) and (ii)

which would have the effect of increasing minimum flow at Fernhill from

2400 l/s to 4200 l/s; Not make the order sought in clause 9(c)(iii) which

would set an allocable volume of 1582 l/s at flows less than 3 times the

naturalised median at Fernhill; All references to hydraulically connected

groundwater to the lower Ngaruroro River should be removed.

37988 Gilbert A & A the Otamauri Stream a tributary of the Ngaruroro River, runs through a

significant part of our property. It must be noted that the Otamauri

Stream, including the stream bed, is on private property and has no

public access.

Quoting from the introduction for a joint initiative WCO for the

Ngaruroro and Clive rivers "A WCO is the highest level of protection

which can be given to a river or a lake similar to that enjoyed by

national Parks" thus it is totally inappropriate for the Otamauri Stream

and other tributaries on private land to be included in a WCO.

38048 Two Terraces Vineyard We believe the Upper Ngaruroro River passes through areas of true

wilderness and like to see this protected, albeit with careful

consideration for potential need to store water for maintaining river

flows for environmental, cultural and economic reasons.

Oppose WCO in Lower Ngaruroro Rivers.

37975 Bridge Pa Triangle Wine District Incorporated The inclusion of the Lower Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers in the

application is not justified in terms of their low amenity and intrinsic

values due to significant modification.

83

Decline the Order, although we would have no objection to it applying

only to the Upper Ngaruroro above the point that it emerges from the

Ruahine Forest Park.

Appendix 1: Full List of Submitters

The list is provided alphabetically (by organisation or last name), and then numerically (by EPA reference number). Information in this table has been produced by

a combination of computer generated and manual analysis, and therefore the numbers may not align with those stated within the main text of this report.

Full List (alphabetically)

EPA

Reference

Number

Organisation Last Name First Name Type Hearing Position

Sought

Recommendation Notes

38007 AR Griffiths and Sons

Ltd

Griffiths Kent Organisation No Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37743 Abel Glenn Individual No Support Grant

38139 Afu Anau Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38137 Afu Steve Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38096 Agcrop Ltd Agnew John Organisation Yes Oppose Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38164

[Late

Submitter]

Agnew Angus Individual Yes Support with

changes

Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38116 Agnew Transport

Services Ltd (Archer, K)

Archer Kelly Organisation No Oppose Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

85


Services Ltd

Arundale Katelyn Organisation No Oppose Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission


Services Ltd (Barley, S)

Barley Samuel Organisation No Oppose Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission


Services Ltd (Brown, I)

Brown Ian Organisation No Oppose Grant with change Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission


Services Ltd (Bryant, M)

Bryant Mark Organisation No Oppose Grant with changes. Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission


Services Ltd (Chapman,

B)

Chapman Bailey Organisation No Oppose Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission


Services Ltd (Drower, J)

Drower Jordan Organisation No Oppose Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission


Services Ltd (Ericksen,

S)

Ericksen Sam Organisation No Oppose Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission


Services Ltd (Fannin, R)

Fannin Richard Organisation No Range of views Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission


Services Ltd (Harris, A)

Harris Andrew Organisation No Oppose Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission


Service Ltd (Keating, T)

Keating Anthony

(Tony)

Organisation No Oppose Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

86


Services Ltd (Munroe,

M)

Munroe Mike Organisation No Oppose Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission


Services Ltd (O’Malley,

M)

O’Malley Michael Organisation No Oppose Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission


Services Ltd

(Poppelwell, M)

Poppelwell Mark Organisation No Oppose Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission


Services Ltd

(Popplestone, R)

Popplestone Rachael Organisation No Oppose Grant with changes. Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission


Services Ltd (Rhodes, B)

Rhodes Benny Organisation No Oppose Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission


Services Ltd (Roach, J)

Roach John Organisation No Oppose Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission


Services Ltd (Rogan, G)

Rogan Glenn Organisation No Oppose Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission


Services Ltd (Walton, D)

Walton Don Organisation No Oppose Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission


Services Ltd (Welch, J)

Welch John Organisation No Oppose Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38073 Agnew Willie Individual Yes Oppose Grant with changes

Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

87

38149 Aisake Aiveni Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38133 Aisake Manatu Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified . Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37968 Alpha Domus Ltd Ham Paul Organisation Yes Support in part Grant with changes

37979 Aorangi Awarua Trust Peke-Mason Soraya Organisation Yes Not specified Grant with changes

37923 Apatu Farms Ltd Apatu Mark Organisation Yes Oppose Decline

38039 Apollo Apples Ltd &

ENZA Fruit New Zealand

International Ltd

Blunden Rebecca Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose Decline

37901 Ash Ridge Wines Wilcock Chris Community

Group

Yes Oppose Decline

38081 Astill Family Trust Astill Dean Individual Yes Support in part Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37892 Auckland University

Canoe Club

Bouma Maryke Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Support Grant

37906 Babich Wines Limited Babich Joseph Organisation No Range of views Grant with changes

37919 Baird Sharleen Individual No Neutral Neutral

37821 Balle Bros Heretaunga Fraser Johnaton Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose. Decline

38170 Barnes Derek Individual Yes Support with

changes


Horticulture New

Zealand submission

88

38059 Barnes Russell Individual Yes Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37824 Bay Irrigation 2011 Ltd Hastings Stuart Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose Decline

37941 Bay Irrigation (2011) Ltd Singer Paul Organisation Yes Oppose Decline

37911 Bayley Produce Limited Bayley Kevin Organisation No Oppose Decline

37889 Beach House Wines Ltd Harrison Chris Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Range of views Grant with changes

37815 Beamish Family Trust Beamish Simon Individuals Yes Oppose Decline

37859 Bellingham Orchard Ltd Knapp Carl Organisation Yes Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38104 Bent John Individual Yes Support Grant

37995 Big Hill Station Limited Glazebrook Bill Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose Decline

37946 Bilancia Limited Leheny Lorraine Organisation No Range of views Grant with changes

37760 Birnie Alan Individual No Support Grant

38027 Bloke on a Rope Ltd Schimanski Brad Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Support Grant

37799

Bond Derek Individual No Support Grant

37829 Bostock New Zealand Bostock John Organisation Yes Oppose Decline

37882 Bramley Fergus Individual Yes and yes

to joint case

Support Grant

37975 Bridge Pa Triangle Wine

District Incorporated

Edmonds Grant Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose Decline

89

37748 Brockelsby William Individual No Support Grant

37950 Brookes Tracey Individual No Oppose Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37966 Brookfields Vineyards Robertson Peter Organisation Yes Oppose Decline

37812 Brookfields Vineyards

Ltd

Whittington Peter Organisation Yes Oppose Decline

38079 Brownrigg Agriculture

Group Limited

Margerison Bridget Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose Decline

37801

Bryant John Individual No Support Grant .

37905 Bullnose Partnership

(Vineyard)

Crowley Peter Organisation Yes Oppose Decline

37953 Burrows Scott Individual Yes Support Grant

38179 C D Jones Family Trust Individual No Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37996 Camelot Fresh Fruit Co

Ltd, Camelot Trust &

Carmel Family Trust, 16

other growers (with fruit

production units in

Heretaunga community),

and Summerfruit NZ

Burns Stewart Organisations Yes Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38001 Cedar Orchards

Partnership

Ladbrook Allen Organisation Yes Oppose Decline

37980 Chatterton Darren Individual No Range of views Grant with changes

38062 Cheyne Christine Individual Yes Support Grant

37929 Cheyne John Individual Yes Support Grant

90

37755 Clarke Russell Individual No Support Grant

38044 Clayton Peter Individual Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose Decline

37955 Connor Farming Ltd &

AM Connor

Connor Mike Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose Decline

38135 Cooper Michael Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37949 Cooper Vaughan Individual No Support Grant

38087 Cope Brian Individual Yes Oppose Decline Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38024 Constellation Brands

New Zealand Ltd

Cormack Jacqui Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose Decline

38035 Court Richard Individual No Oppose Grant with changes.

submission

Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37814 Coutts Chris Individual No Support Grant

37747 Cox Brian Individual No Support Grant

37907 Craggy Range

Vineyards Ltd

Watson Daniel Organisation Yes Not specified Grant with changes

37993 Croad Rayner Individual No Not specified Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37853 Curtis Ron and

Jessie

Individuals Yes Oppose Decline

37861 Dames Jos Individual Yes Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

91

38166 Davis Orchards Limited Davis Michael Organisation Not specified Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37834 Dawson and

Hunt

Laura and

Trevor

Individuals No Support Grant

37738 de Jong Patrick Individual Yes and yes

to joint case

Support Grant

38051 Delegat Limited Williams Martin Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose Decline

37857 Delugar Alan and

Delphine

Individuals Yes Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38101 Department of

Conservation

Norgate Connie Organisation No Range of views Not specified

37862 Derbidge Ross Individual No Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37758 Donaldson Richard Individual Yes and yes

to joint case

Support Grant

38011 Downey Real Estate Downey Brendon Organisation No Not specified Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37938 Drumpeel Farms Ltd Ritchie Hugh Organisation No Oppose Decline

37931 Duncan William Individual No Oppose Decline

37830 Dunvegan Estate Back Robin Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Not specified Not specified

37819 Eagles Neil Individual No Support Grant

92

38178

East Coast Hawke’s Bay

Te Tairāwhiti ki Te

Matau-a- Māui

Conservation Board

Organisation No Not specified Not specified

38031 East Taupo Lands Trust Ellis Binky Organisation Yes Support but

prefer to

preserve

different but

related water

body in the

same

catchment

Grant with changes

38056 Elak Consultants Ltd Kale Alan Jonathan Organisation Yes Support in part,

oppose in part


Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37878 Elderkamp Daniel Individual No Support Grant

37936 Element of Trust Thomas Rachelle Organisation Yes Range of views Grant with changes

37958 Element of Trust Thomas Rachelle Organisation Yes Range of views Grant with changes

37959 Element Vineyards Ltd. Smith and

Thomas

Dominic

Brendan and

Rachelle

Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case


37925 Elephant Hill Holdings

Ltd

Weiss Andreas Organisation Yes Range of views Grant with changes

38136 Ellmes Jonathon Individual Not specified Oppose Oppose

37836 Eru Sari Individual Yes and yes

to joint case

Support Grant

37998 Evans Greg Individual No Unspecified Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

93

38097 Everfresh Transport Ltd Agnew John Organisation Yes Oppose Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38150 Faineitau Epoki Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38144 Fakataua Folau Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38159 Fameitau Losaline Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38153 Fameitau Maile Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38152 Fameitau Victoria Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38161 Fameitau Vihani Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38129 Fatani Pita Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38070 Federated Farmers Of

New Zealand

Dasent Rhea Organisation Yes Oppose Decline

37969 Federated Mountain

Clubs of NZ Inc

Stewart Jamie Organisation No Support Grant

37733 Flack Steve Individual No Support Grant

94

38019 FMG Advice & Insurance

(Hawkes Bay)

McLean Caroline Organisation Yes Not specified Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38155 Folau Feleti Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38145 Folau Fisimani Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38131 Fotukava Timote Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37762 Fowler Andrew Individual No Support Grant


(Caitbridge vineyard)

France David Organisation Yes Oppose Grant with Changes

38168 Freshmax Crasborn Eduard Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose Decline

38004 Fruitcraft New Zealand

Ltd

Potbury Steve Organisation No Oppose Decline

37729 Gardner Peter Individual No Support Grant

37753 Garea Anthony Individual No Support Grant

37863 Garland Chris Individual Yes Range of Views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38050 GEK Property Nominees

Limited

Ennor Glaister Organisation Not specified Oppose Decline

37988 Gilbert Audrey and

Alan

Individuals No Oppose Grant with changes

95

38047 Gillum Family Trust Gillum Steve Individuals No Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38067 Gimblett Gravels

Vineyards Ltd

Mason David Organisation Not specified Range of views Not specified

38037 Gimblett Gravels

Winegrowers

Association Incorporated

(GGWA)

Taylor Emma Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Range of views Not specified

37964 Glenmore Orchard Riddell Glen & Ingrid Organisation Yes, and yes

to joint case

Oppose Decline .

37897 Glenside Partnership Gunn Denis Organisation Yes and yes

to join case


37761 Godbert Catriona Individual No Support Grant

38072 Golden Del Orchard

Limited

Taylor Kevin Organisation Yes Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37945 Gourmet Blueberries

Limited

Hutchins Daniel Organisation Yes Oppose Grant with changes

37746 Grammer Zelka Individual No Support Grant

38058 Gravestock Peter Individual No Oppose Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38083 Gross Boyd Individual Yes Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38169 Guardians of the Aquifer Doyle Pauline Organisation Yes Support Support

37972 Gudsell Holdings Ltd Gudsell Colleen Organisation No Oppose Decline

37879 Hadland Ian Individual No Support Grant

96

37740 Hall Kim Individual No Support Grant

37805 Harding Family Trust Harding Xan Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case


38107 Harty Phil Individual Not specified Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38071 Hastings District Council McLeod Ross Organisation Yes Range of views Grant with changes

37807 Hawkes Bay Canoe Club Hales Warren Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Support Grant

37742 Hawkes Bay Canoe Club Shlomi Kaya Organisation No Support Grant

37960 Hawke’s Bay District

Health Board

Mason Sharon Organisation Yes Neutral Neutral

38171 Hawkes Bay District

Health Board

Jones Nicholas Organisation Yes Neutral Neutral

37876 Hawke's Bay

Fruitgrowers'

Association

Vesty Dianne Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case


38091 Hawkes Bay Regional

Council

Palmer James Organisation Yes Oppose Decline

38084 Hawkes Bay Regional

Sports Park

Mackintosh Jock Organisation No Not specified Not specified Supports the Hawke’s

Bay Regional Council

submission

37970 Hawke’s Bay Rowing

Club Inc

Lawson Matthew Organisation Yes Oppose Decline

38063 Hawkes Bay Vegetable

Growers Association

Lawson Scott Organisation Yes Oppose Decline

97

38040 Hawke’s Bay

Winegrowers

Associations Inc.

Harding Xan Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Support in part,

oppose in part

Range of views

38105 Haywood FL Individual Yes Oppose Decline Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38147 Hefa Sione Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38057 Heinz Wattie’s Limited MacKay Bruce Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose Decline

38106 Heretaunga Tamatea

Settlement Trust

Munroe Liz Organisation Yes Neutral Not specified

37843 Hibberd Annette Individual Yes Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37875 Hill Nurseries Ltd Hill Graeme and

Alex

Community

Group

Yes Oppose Decline

38808 Hill Nurseries Ltd Hill Graeme and

Alex

Organisation Yes Oppose Decline

37864 Hirst Graham Individual Yes Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37865 Hirst Marian Individual Yes Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

98

38060 Lowe Corporation Ltd;

Tomoana Pelt

Processors Ltd; Hawkes

Bay Protein Ltd; Hill

Country Holdings Ltd;

Lowe Family Holdings

Ltd; BL Land Company

Ltd.

Hocquard Philip Individual and

Organisations

Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose Decline

37948 Hodgson Bruce Individual No Support Grant

37977 Hohepa Homes, Hawkes

Bay

Stead Angela Organisation Yes Oppose Decline

38094 Holly Laughton Trust Laughton Robyn Individuals No Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37915 Horn Stewart Individuals Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose Decline

38064 Horticulture NZ (HortNZ) Halliday Angela Organisation Yes Not specified Not specified

37752 Howes John Individual yes Support Grant

38095 HTH Trusts Partnership Laughton Robyn Organisation No Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38077 Irrigation New Zealand Curtis Andrew Organisation Yes Range of views Range of views

37920 Isosceles Partnership Morgan Larry Organisation Yes Range of views Grant with changes

37840 J & E Milmine Family

Trust

Milmine Jonathan Individual Yes Range of views Grant with changes

38099 Jasel Orchard Ltd Laughton Robyn Organisation No Range of views Range of views Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37823 Jeffares Christine Individual No Support Grant

99

37866 Johnny Appleseed

Holdings Ltd

Paynter Paul Organisation Yes Range of views Range of views

37890 Johnson Anthony Individual No Support Grant

37928 JW & SK Pollard

Partnership – T/A

Makoha Orchard

Pollard John Organisation Yes Oppose Decline

38034 Karena Darryl Individual No Oppose Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37963 Kereru Road Vineyard

Ltd

Scott Kelvin and Val Organisation No Oppose Decline

37971 Kilmanagh

Developments Ltd

Wellwood Anna Organisation No Oppose Decline

38013 Kilmister Bruce and

Robyn

Individuals No Oppose Not specified

38014 Kilmister Philip Individual No Not specified Not specified

38015 Kilmister Stuart Individual No Not specified Not specified

37731 Kiwi Adventure Trust Tait David Organisation Yes Support Grant

38025 Kokako Farms Ltd Nimon Bruce Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Range of views Range of views

38141 Kopelani Clark Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38142 Kopelani Fale Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38143 Kopelani Ofisa Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

100

37913 Kora Kazuto Individual No Support Grant

37985 Korongata Marae Brown Joella Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Support Grant with changes

37930 Kupa Mark Te

Maanga

Individual Yes Oppose Decline

37910 Kupa Tania Individual Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose Decline

38021 La Trobe Johnathon Individual Yes Oppose Decline

37982 Lakes & Waterways

Action Group Trust

Penton Jane Organisation Yes Support Grant

37818 Land Thomas Individual No Support Grant

38065 Lawson Scott Individual Yes Oppose Not specified

37870 Lazy Acres Burton Johnny Community

Group

Yes Support in part Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37937 Lianne Kerry Individual No Support Grant

38165 Liesebach Janet Individual Yes Range of views Range of views Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38167 Liesebach Jens Individual Yes Range of views Range of views Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38069 Limestone Properties

Limited

Yortt Gavin Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose Decline

37895 Links Winery Ltd Gunn Denis Organisation Yes and yes

to join case


37944 Lintott Carey Individual No Support Grant

101

37848 Llewellyn Horticulture

Ltd

Llewellyn David Milson Organisation No Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37894 Llewellyn Horticulture

Ltd

Llewellyn David Milson Organisation No Support Grant with changes

37927 Lochinver Orchard Gordon Ian and

Lynette


38128 Maama Isileli Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38022 Mackay Bruce Individual Yes Oppose Decline

38018 Mackie David Individual yes Not specified Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38088 Mannering Family Trust Mannering Adrian and

Rose

Individuals Yes Range of views Range of views

38005 Mardon Philip Individual Yes Range of views Range of views

38080 Marist Holdings

(Greenmeadows) Ltd

Holley Peter Organisation Yes Range of views Range of views

38098 Maryn Orchard Ltd Laughton Robyn Organisation No Range of views Not specified

38093 Maryn Orchard

Partnership

Laughton Robyn Organisation No Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37867 Masterson Harry Individual Yes Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37947 Matariki Holdings

Limited (trading as

Aorangi Road Wines

Lawson)

Lawson Peter Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose Decline

102

37973 Mauri Protection Agency Black Maurice

Wayne

Organisation Yes Support Grant with changes

38045 MB & CL Hope

Partnership

Hope Chris, Debbie

and Mercer

Organisation Yes Oppose Range of views

37737 McAulay Damian Individual No Support Grant

38092 McCain Foods (NZ)

Limited

Flynn Mike Organisation Not specified Range of views Range of views

37974 McCain Foods (NZ) Ltd Flynn Mike Organisation No Oppose Decline

37754 McGregor Richard Guy

Dalrymple

Individual No Support Grant

37804 McKinstry Steve Individual No Support Grant

38066 McLay Brian Individual Yes Oppose Range of views

38017 McPhail Doreen Individual Yes Not specified Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38016 McPhail Douglas K Individual Yes Not specified Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37798 McWilliam Joanne

Elizabeth

Individual Yes Support Grant

37826 MD Cairns & AR Wright

Partnership

Cairns Mark Organisation Yes Range of views Grant with changes

37912 Meagher Lucy Individual Yes Support Grant

37874 Meiros Orchard Ltd Wilson Craig Organisation Yes Not specified Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

103

37873 Meiros Orchard Ltd Wilson Gillian Organisation Yes Not specified Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37811 Mennie Sekita-Ra Individual No Support Grant

37809 Mexted Guy Individual No Support Grant

38012 Mitchell Rodney David Individual Yes Not specified Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38010 Moffett Jonathan Individual Yes Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38006 Moffett Orchards Ltd Moffett Sean Individual Yes Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38043 Moteo Orchard Ltd Pollard Allan Organisation Yes Not specified Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37868 Mr Apple New Zealand

Limited

Knight Tony Organisation Yes Not specified Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37839 Mr Apple New Zealand

Ltd

Knight Tony Organisation Yes Oppose Decline

37943 Mudgway Mark Individual No Oppose Grant with changes

37957 Nag Hapu: Hinetemoa

and Ngati Mihiroa

Te Huia Beverly and

Tiopira


to joint case

Support Range of views

38061 Napier City Council Jack Wayne Organisation Yes Range of views Decline

37881 Naplawa Martina Individual No Support Grant

104

37727 Neilson Joshua

Edward

Individual No Support Grant

38042 New Zealand Apples &

Pears Incorporated

Pollard Allan Organisation Yes Oppose Decline Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

and Hawke’s Bay Fruit

Growers Association

submission

37952 New Zealand

Conservation Authority

McGovern-

Wilson

Rick Organisation Yes Support Grant

38103 New Zealand Plant

Producers Incorporated

Liddle John Organisation No Not specified Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38078 New Zealand

Winegrowers

Incorporated

Clarke Jeffrey Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Range of views Not specified Supports submissions

made by Hawke’s Bay

Wine Growers’

Association Inc and

Gimblett Gravels

Winegrowers

Association

37961 Newton Forrest Estate Newton Robert Organisation Yes Range of views Grant with changes

37984 Ngā Kaitiaki o te Awa a

Ngaruroro

Mauger Jenny Organisation Yes Not specified Grant with changes

38100 Ngai Tukairangi Trust Jenkins Colin Organisation Yes Not specified Range of views

37994 Ngamatea Farming

Company Limited

Apatu Renata Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose Decline

37885 Ngaruroro Irrigation

Society Incorporated

Glazebrook Mike Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose Decline

105

38009 NP Vesty Ltd Vesty Mark Organisation Yes Oppose Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38156 O’Brien Vicky Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38172 Ofa Fatonia Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38151 Ofa Misinale Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38028 Ofa Sakopo Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37869 Omahuri Orchards Ltd Fulford Brian, Colin,

Peter and

Keith

Organisation Yes Not specified Decline Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38003 Osborne Bryce Individual Yes Not specified Range of views.

Supports and adopts

the Horticulture New

Zealand submission

in entirety.

37933 Owhaoko A East & A1B

Trust

Gartner Doug Organisation Yes Oppose Decline

38030 Owhaoko B & D Trust Steedman Richard Organisation Yes Support but

prefer to

preserve a

different but

related water

body in the

same

catchment

Grant with changes

106

37887 Owhaoko C Trust MacGregor Peter Hughes Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose Decline

37989 Pain Gerard Individual Not specified

but yes to

joint case

Support Grant

37942 Papakowhai Limited Feast John Kevin Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose Decline

37914 Paritua Vineyards and

Winery Ltd

Stent Jason Organisation Yes Range of views Grant with changes

37794 Parry Nigel Individual Yes Support Grant

38020 Parsons John D R Individual No Not specified Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37813 Payne Kevin Individual No Support Grant

37922 Penton Jane Individual Yes Support Grant

38074 Pernod Ricard

Winemakers New

Zealand Limited

Hudspith Ezekiel Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose Neutral

37732 Pinkert Andre Individual No Support Grant

37940 Price Alexandra Individual Yes Support Grant

37997 Rainbow Fruit Ltd Davis Stephen and

Elizabeth

Organisation Yes Unspecified Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38075 RD & BA Griffiths

Partnership

Griffiths Richard Organisation Yes Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

107

38090 Red Shed Orchard Ltd Laughton Robyn Organisation No Not specified Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37978 Redmetal Vineyards Ltd Edmonds Grant Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose Decline

38173 Redshaw Vaughan Individual Not specified Not specified Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37917 Rimu Hastings Ltd Bayley Kevin Organisation No Oppose Decline

37962 Ritchie David Individual Yes Oppose Decline

37806 River Valley Ventures

Ltd

Megaw Brian Organisation No Support Grant

38002 RJ Flowers Ltd and

Gilbert Orchard Ltd

Evans John Organisation Yes Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37855 Robertson Lynda Individual No Support Grant

37796 Robertson Martin Individual No Support Grant

38053 Rockit Global Ltd Hurrey Chris Organisation No Unspecified Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37986 Ruapehu Hotel (1993)

Ltd

Donovan Joanna Organisation Yes Not specified Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38086 Rural Women New

Zealand

England Penelope Organisation Yes Oppose Range of views Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission,

and the submissions

from HB Fruitgrowers

and Irrigation NZ

108

38052 Sacred Hill Vineyards

Ltd

Mason

Foddy

David

Richard

Organisation Not specified Oppose Range of views

37802 Saito Atsushi Individual No Support Grant

37909 Sawyer Gregory Individual No Support Grant

37880 Schurmann Michelle Individual No Support Grant

37730 Scullion Mary Individual No Support Grant

37842 SFC Ltd Skerman Chris Organisation No Oppose Decline

37856 Shand Lesley Individual Not specified Support Not specified

37871 Shannon Christopher

(Kim) Charles

Individual No Range of views Range of views

37991 Sileni Estates Ltd Edmonds Grant Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose Decline

38026 Silvan Orchards Limited Dodd Teresa Organisation Yes Not specified Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38032 Silver Fern Farms

Limited

Johnstone Alison Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Neutral Grant with changes

37757 Simpson Jacob Individual No Support Grant

37741 Singers Nicholas Individual Yes Support Grant

37877 Sixtus Kerry Individual No Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37872 Slader and

Cowie

Brian and

Dale

Individual No Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

109

38049 Smith Paul Individual No Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38146 Sole Maleko Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38085 Sorensen Jay Individual No Not stated Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37916 Springstone Ltd Williams Daniel Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose Decline

38046 SSF Orchards Limited

t/a Scott’s Strawberry

Farm

Scott William Organisation Yes Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37845 Stallard Leon Individual Yes Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37844 Stallard Robyn Individual Yes Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission


(Stonecroft)

Monin Andria Organisation Yes and Yes

to joint case

Not specified Grant with changes

37728 Strategic Self

Awareness Ltd

Cheeseman Ashley Organisation No Support Grant

38108 Sturge Stuart and

Patricia

Individual No Range of views Not stated Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37803 Styles Oliver Individual No Support Grant

38102 Summerfruit NZ &

Hawkes Bay

Fruitgrowers Association

Dawkins Marie Organisation No Range of views Not stated

110

38076 Sunfruit Orchards Ltd Clark Nathan Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Oppose Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37749 Swinarski Tomasz Individual No Support Grant

37739 Szymanik Bohdan Individual No Support Grant

37791 Tamihana-

Simich

Arnia Individual Yes and yes

to joint case

Support Grant

38130 Tankoi Paea Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38157 Tau Popua Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37921 Te Mata Estate Winery Morgan Larry Organisation Yes Not specified Grant with changes

38036 Te Taiao Hawke’s Bay

Environment Forum

Cheyne John Organisation Yes Support Grant Umbrella group

covering a number of

conservation/

environmental groups

in Hawke’s Bay

37932 Te Taiwhenua o

Heretaunga Trust

Apatu Marei Organisation Yes Support but

prefer different

features and

qualities of the

water bodies

Neutral

37939 Te Whaiti Ngapuoterang

i Hohepa

Individual Yes Range of views Grant with changes

38038 Terra Vitae Vineyards

Limited (TVV)

Taylor Emma Organisation Yes Range of views Grant with changes

111

38082 The Fresh Berry

Company of New

Zealand Ltd

Astill Dean Organisation Yes Support in part Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37967 The Wine Portfolio Ltd Scott Peter Organisation No Oppose Decline

38000 Think Water Hawkes

Bay

Waites Anthony Organisation Not specified

but yes to

joint case

Oppose Decline

37835 Thomas Daniel Individual No Support Grant

38162 Thomson Keith Individual Not specified Not specified Not specified

37828 Three Bay Apples

Limited

Todd David Organisation Yes Oppose Decline

37831 Tihoi Venture School Firth Damian Organisation No Support Grant

38174 Timahanga Station Roberts Alan Organisation Yes Oppose Decline

37935 Tirohia Farm Ltd Kommeren John and

Brigette


to joint case

Oppose Decline

38154 Tonga Semisi Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37918 Totara Hastings Ltd Bayley Kevin Organisation No Oppose Grant

37726 Toulmin Fraser Individual No Support Grant

38033 Tourism Industry

Aotearoa

van Dijken Nienke Organisation Yes Support Grant

37990 Trevettes Orchard Ltd Good Trevor and

Jeanette


37900 Trinity Hill Limited Lincoln Chris Organisation No Range of views Grant with changes

112

38158 Tuakaeau Loams Individual Yes Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38134 Tuakalau Amelia Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38160 Tu’akalau Louena Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38132 Tuakalau Viliami Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37817 Turvey Janet Individual Yes and yes

to joint case

Support Grant

38048 Two Terraces Vineyard Quinn Ian Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Neutral Grant with changes

38023 Twyford Co-operative

Company Ltd

Lawson Matthew Organisation Yes Oppose Decline


(Unison Vineyard and

Unwined Café)

Horn Philip Organisation Yes Range of views Grant with changes

37924 University of Canterbury

Canoe Club (UCCC)

van Ginkel Laura Organisation No Support Grant

38138 Utalia Haitelonisia Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38176 Vai Ana Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

113

38140 Vaitaiki Losana Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38177 Vaitaiki Sione Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38148 Valikoula Sekisoni Individual Not specified Oppose Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37795 Venable Justin Individual No Support Grant

37820 Victoria University

Canoe Club

Schumann Michelle Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Support Grant

38068 Villa Maria Estate

Limited

Taylor Emma Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Not specified Not specified

37816 Waikato Kayak Club Lasenby Terry Organisation Yes and yes

to joint case

Support Grant

37858 Waima Fruit Company

Ltd

Ericksen Mark Organisation Yes Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37846 Waimea Orchard Limited Fairey Carl Organisation No Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

38041 Wairua Dairies Ltd &

Wairua Farm Trust

Knauf Ivan Organisation Yes Range of views Range of views

37951 Wakefield Brendan Individual No Oppose Grant with changes

37833 Wallace Christopher Individual Yes Oppose Decline

37759 Walsh-Roberts Paul Individual No Support Grant

114

37886 Washpool Station Ltd Reynolds Penelope and

John


37976 WaterForce McFetridge and

Hargreave

Ron and Jim Organisation Not stated Oppose Decline

38089 WaterForce Hargreaves Jim Organisation Not stated Oppose Decline

37751 Watt Andrew Individual No Support Grant

37860 Wellwood Gary Individual No Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37934 Whana Whana Station

Ltd

Beamish William and

Penelope

Organisation No Oppose Decline

37981 Whyte Edward Individual Yes Oppose Decline

37793 Williamson Water

Advisory

Williamson Johnathan Organisation Yes Oppose Decline

37849 Willowford Alma Alta

Orchards

Marett Tony Organisation Yes Oppose Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37999 Willowford Alma Alta

Partnership

Greer Phil and Kirsty Organisation Yes Oppose Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37850 Wilson Alex Individual Yes Range of views Not specified

37852 Wilson Desmond Individual Yes Range of views Not specified

37851 Wilson Lesley Individual Yes Range of views Not specified

38180 Windburn Ltd Gunn Alan Organisation Yes Range of views Grant with changes Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

37854 Winstone Aggregates Sharratt Tyler Organisation No Oppose Decline

37734 Yates Andrew Individual No Support Grant

115

38181 Yule Lawrence Individual Yes Range of views Not specified Supports the

Horticulture New

Zealand submission

water conservation order: ngaruroro and clive rivers · 2019. 4. 6. · 25 government agencies and...

Documents