Thread: Demise of Waterfowl. Habitat destruction.

Subject: Watch NZH Local Focus: Resident blames Waikato River dam fluctuations for wetland destruction



Watch NZH Local Focus: Resident blames Waikato River dam fluctuations for wetland destruction


This article and video are only a tiny bit of the full story.

Here is a brief summary of my take on the situation.

The gross loss of habitat in the upper Waikato River was predicted by our submissions to the Waikato Regional Council in 2002-3 during the commissioned hearing for Mighty River Power's 35 year consent application. This section of the river and the hundreds of acres in nearly 30 wetlands in this area between Aratiatia dam and Orakie Korako are being systematically destroyed in the interests of Mighty River Power profiteering (now Mercury power) and their ambition to maximise profits to themselves and new owners other than the NZ public who used to own NZED.


The area was renowned for it's tens of thousands of various varieties of ducks, along with endangered bittern, marsh crakes, rails, and associated terrestrial birds such as fern birds and grey warblers, tomtits, fantails and others normally associated with wetland and riverine border environments. That these wildlife populations were healthy was scientifically surveyed and verified in 1996. Theses species have now virtually been exterminated by these man made river fluctuations and it's resultant domino effects.

Perhaps the worst condemnation can be directed squarely at Waikato Regional Council which has denied the public and ratepayers their rights to a public 10 and 15 year review of the ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS of this consent which was the intent of the issued RESOURCE CONSENT.

Furthermore, the annual assessment of the state of the riverbanks and erosion has been left to MRP staff with public participation again being disallowed by MRP and WRC.. Many requests have been made over the 15 years since the issuing of the consent for myself and other persons who have intimate knowledge of the river and its environs to be participants in these annual jollities, and we fully expected the WRC to HONOUR their obligations to conduct full hearings within the recent time frames to verify the environmental effects had not been deteriorating. This abdication of responsibility by both MRP and WRC has resulted undeniably in severe destruction to the land, marine and borders of river, wetlands and associated natural landscapes such that most of the pre consent populations and habitats of the animals, fish ,birds and wetland vegetation has been extremely modified or destroyed with siltation and weed invasions rampant. The effects we see today were predicted by our family, the Wildfowlers Assn of NZ and others, many of us highly qualified to do so. The predicted destruction has now occurred and urgent action is required to rectify an environmental disaster which was avoidable and is repairable if immediate action is taken.

It is staggering to realise that DoC, NZ Fish and Game and Waikato Regional Council did not make substantial submissions during the RC application process, instead, leaving the objections largely to the public while separate discussions with the Applicant MRP were held behind closed doors prior to the public hearings.

The claims made recently by WRC that the high levels of Lake Taupo (causing foreshore erosion) were unavoidable because of a lack of ability to release enough water downstream via the Waikato river are false. I have made requests to WRC to provide monitored river flow and levels data over the time period when L Taupo was full and eroding the shores. WRC have so (3 months now) far been unable to provide full information of this data and this confirms in my opinion that WRC were not properly monitoring the activities of MRP (Mercury) and probably had no intention of restricting their damaging practices. I have plenty of photographic evidence of extremely low river flow levels as well as flood levels , both fluctuating substantially over the period L Taupo was filling and full.

While farmers get monitored by aircraft by WRC and suffered instant fines of up to $20,000 for any runoff into paddocks of cowshed effluent, the same Council has in full knowledge allowed over a 15 year period so far, the destruction of hundreds of acres of wetlands in the same catchments by a greedy corporate and seemingly without Duty of Care under the RMA and their environmental protection function.

The intent of the Wai Ora scheme to heal waterways over an 50 to 80 year time frame is insulting and expensive to the public and ratepayers and laughable when one understands the underhanded agenda the WRC allows to destroy the same catchments they claim to be working to protect.

They have stuffed the bird environment at the bottom of the Waikato thru spraying etc so why not stuff it all.

Sounds like we need an environment court hearing, they (DoC etc) certainly didn't hold back on the hunters they caught modifying the Whangamarino swamp.

The conditions as issued in the MRP resource consent should never have been allowed in the first place. However a proper comprehensive review of Environmental Effects is aresponsible and reasonable demand to make of Regional Councils. That they have thus far avoided this is IMO a reason for Ministerial intervention. I am working towards this. However IMO it is lukely that political interference is actually the reason this RC and the effects ARE what they are today.

Another example of political interference. See below.
There was a hint late 2016 that The Minister of Resource Consents (RMA Hon Nick Smith) was about to have the EPA become the sole Centralized Authority issuing resource Consents for 1080 poison applications for all of New Zealand and that Local / Regional Councils (meaning ratepayers) would no longer have their traditional responsibility of this " democratic right ". This was reiterated on TV Three AM show this morning. In addition the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (Dr Jan Wright) commented to the effect, that this proposal was a good thing in that where proposed 1080 poisoning was to occur (for example) across regional boundaries, that those bordering authorities which often had differing constraints to any permissions conditions they might wish to impose and which differences made things more complicated would now have no issuing authority and the process would become much simpler by being controlled by central government; or words to that effect.



My opinion on this issue is that Dr Nick Smith, Dr Jan Wright and the central NZ government are creating a de facto rule which if allowed to be enacted could be applied to practically any person or council in our country depriving those persons or their elected councillors and their councils of all and any rights of management of their areas, environment, or even their property and to have imposed upon them by central government edict an application of virtually any lethal substance including unrestricted access OVER AND UPON public and private property for ANY purpose CONVENIENT TO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND ULTIMATELY THOSE WHO FINANCE OR OTHERWISE INFLUENCE THE SEATS OF POWER IN OUR COUNTRY. This new de facto imposition cannot be assumed to restrict itself to just one issue. It could be applied to ANY type of resource consent application rule or edict ANYWHERE on any persons property at any time.



Where then is your right of appeal or indeed your ability to have accountability of these persons guaranteed? (It is almost impossible even within councils today as you will know.)



The disgusting situation we face in this CURRENT example is the application of one of the deadliest poisons known to man, into our streams, lakes, waterways, drinking supplies, over agricultural as well as forest land and even into marine foreshore environments. The platitudinious verbiage coming from the mouths of the advocates for this bullying policy and at least one set of representatives of corporate interests should do nothing to convince New Zealanders that this type of governance is acceptable to us.



I quote a few definitions below:__



A centralized government (also centralised government (non-Oxford spelling)) is one in which power or legal authority is exerted or coordinated by a de facto (De facto (/deɪ ˈfæktoʊ/), Latin for "in fact", describes practices that exist in reality, even if not legally authorized.[1][2][3] It is commonly used used in contrast with de jure ("in law"), which which refers to things that happen according to law, as opposed to de facto, which refers to what happens in practice.) political executive to which federal states, local authorities, and smaller units are considered subject.

Centralized government - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralized_government



and:- Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated and centralized power maintained by political repression and the exclusion of potential challengers. ... The transition from an authoritarian system to a more democratic form of government is referred to as democratization.

nick smiths a cock of the highest order everything he touches he roots up.
doc is just a tool for the destruction of f&g and happy to be so.
remember they only like native species and not all of them
everything we hunt is a blasphemy to their preservationist philosophy.