Whanganui Waters of Life

Forest and Bird, Issue 250, 1 November 1988, Page 6

Whanganui Waters of Life

by

Keith Chapple

"| he Whanganui* River starts its long ". journey to the sea high up in the mountains of Tongariro National Park. Rushing torrents of pure mountain water cascade on down past tussock and beech forest; to the Maori, the river was alway sacred, renewing; to whio, the blue duck, the headwaters of the Whanganui are life-giv-ing, for this part of the river contains the precious food for this specialised torrent duck, one of only four such ducks in the world. Not far along its course, the Whanganui disappears, and in defiance of all natural laws, heads north rather than west, its clear waters becoming part of the Tongariro power project. The Whanganui slowly picks up momentum again downstream from the alien diversion structure, but today it is ailing, deprived of its vitality. Why? The answer has its origins in the early 1950s. The pioneering spirit was in full cry. Forests were still being destroyed at a ferocious rate, wild rivers were being tamed and an industrial/manufacturing base was swiftly being built. Electricity capacity was an.important factor. Indeed, the requirement for electricity generation tended to outweigh all other considerations. Little wonder then, that when a brighteyed developer proposed exploiting all the rivers of the Central Plateau, the idea was eagerly seized upon. The sheer audacity, the grandeur, the ability to dominate nature, the enormous engineering difficulties of what was to become the Tongariro Power

Scheme, electrified the imagination of politicians, engineers and planners. Europe had its monastries and cathedrals -- New Zealand would have its dams. Investigation and planning proceeded immediately and as befitting such a grandiose concept, it was jealously guarded. No interference was tolerated and none was offered ~- in the beginning. The word ‘‘environment" was not in common usage. The age of questioning and probing Government decisions had not yet arrived. But as the enormity of what was to happen leaked out, major controversies erupted — in 1964 (when Peter McIntyre made the scheme public knowledge, even though final approval to build had been given six years earlier), in 1967 and 1972. However, these brave attempts to control the ambitious plans of the autocratic Ministry of Works and the Electricity Department had no real effect. The ideas of 1953 commenced operation in 1974. What happened?

Waterway Beheaded

Virtually every waterway flowing from Tongariro National Park was beheaded, their waters being led through a series of tunnels, lakes and canals to Tokaanu Power Station on Lake Taupo. From Taupo, they pass through the Huka Falls and a further nine power stations on the Waikato River. Sixty-six pure cold mountain rivers and streams were sacrificed for hydro generation. Just two survived — the Manganui-a-te-Ao which was too far away, and the Upper Whangaehu because of its toxicity. Ninety-seven percent of the Whanganui headwaters were diverted, leaving a miserable 0.6 cumec residual flow in the Whakapapa tributary. (A cumec is a cubic metre of water passing a given point per second).

Fish stocks were depleted by 75 percent above the dam sites; 90 percent below the dam sites; and 60 percent 30 kilometres downstream. Algae blooms flourished where none had been known before. Weeds swiftly colonised exposed riverbanks. Further downstream, temperatures of 37 degrees celsius were recorded in isolated pools of papa shelving — whole ecosystems were boiled alive! Anglers lost the best dry-fly fishing river in New Zealand when the Whakapapa was decapitated at the same time, recreationalists lost one of the finest white water rivers in the North Island. The whio (blue duck) population was decimated — it lost about 75 percent of its central North Island habitat. The Maori people of the Whanganui River, already stripped of their traditional self-sufficiency, suffered the final indignity. They lost the source of their Mana. * The name of the Wanganui as spoken by the tangata whenua.

Highly Polluted River

In a mere 150 years, the mighty Whanganui of Maori mythology had been reduced from a magnificent waterway displaying all the classic signs of ecological diversity from snow to sea, hosting a remarkable array of plant life, aquatic species, bird and wildlife, including the short-winged bat; and sustaining a Maori population of about 30,000 toa dirty, silt-laden, highly polluted river. Such was the situation confronting King Country Forest and Bird when research began for submissions to the Whanganui National Park draft Management Plan in early 1987. Gazettal of the park presented an ideal catalyst to return the Whanganui to a normal and healthy state — for if the national park was to be managed according to accepted conservation principles, surely its raison d’étre, the mighty Whanganui, should be accorded equal status? If the status quo prevailed, (viz the land managed for maximum protection and the river for maximum exploitation), New Zealand's national

parks were clearly under the gravest of threats. Such a precedent could easily be transferred. The branch worked out a general strategy — the principle objective being to return the Whanganui to a normal and healthy state with compatible management structures. The review of the so-called ‘‘minimum flow regime’ set down for May 1988, was identified as the suitable means to institute fundamental change. The regime was set in place in 1983 following an application for more water by the NZ Canoeing Association in 1977. It was not ideal and was implemented to satisfy recreational demand rather than the general ecology. It allowed a 22 cumec minimum flow at Te Maire for 10 summer weeks and Easter, and a 16 cumec minimum for the rest of the year. As a reference yardstick, this is about 50 percent below normal low

flow conditions. Artificial and unsuitable though the regime was, it held one enormous advantage. It provided a legal base to mount a determined challenge to recover a biologically acceptable quantity of water. Research indicated that 70 percent of the natural flow was required. Basic themes were decided, some of these being canvassed in submissions to Doc. The branch would propose no solutions, suggesting instead that an authoritative forum should be constituted with wide terms of reference, whereby solutions would be arrived at following examination of scientific and social evidence. The minimum flow regime was judged a mistake, for it visited upon the river an alien environment. If water had to be diverted, then it should be on a proportional basis, (i.e. a fixed percentage to the Electricity Corporation, the rest to the river.) We rejected any notion of ownership of the river. The concept of sharing would be vigorously promoted.

These strategies and themes were then discussed with Forest & Bird staff during the 1987 AGM. Over one matter we held no doubts the stakes were high! Electricity Corp stood to lose up to $30 million per year — a figure which has since risen to $300 million plus!

Taking it to the Public

We decided, therefore, to take the matter to the public. On 20 October 1987, the King Country Branch hosted a public meeting in Taumarunui with two aims in mind. Firstly, to explain the basic workings of the scheme and some of its history. Secondly, to form a community-based coalition of organisations to lobby for fundamental change. The meeting was a huge success. The Whanganui River Flows Coalition eventually came to represent over 35 organisations as

diverse as: King Country Federated Farmers, Whanganui Chamber of Commerce, Friends of the Shoreline, Forest & Bird, Tramping Clubs, Owhango Electrical. The campaign message was simple — the Coalition rejected outright a review of minimum flows as merely tinkering with the problems, and said Electricorp’s right to the water itself ought to be reviewed. This was later upgraded for Electricorp to apply for a water right to take and use the headwaters of the Whanganui. This was a fundamental distinction, in that a water right applicant must prove the requirement for water. However, the Government planned to sell all of the electricity generation and transmission assets to Electricorp — including water rights. The public were excluded from the negotiations. In retaliation the Coalition began a round of public meetings, TV appearances, press statements and radio interviews. The Minister of Conservation was seen as a natural ally, and her advice was sought. Six Ministers were informed that very serious mistakes were being made. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment was asked to intervene on the grounds that a national resource was being allocated in advance of public participation and little investigation. It was made known that a legal case was being investigated to take the Government to court on the grounds they were acting against the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. (The StateOwned Enterprises Act binds Electricorp to the principles of the Treaty). Forest & Bird were briefed on the issue during the National Council Meeting at Mt Ruapehu in November 1987.

Simple Message

Once again the message was kept simple — ‘‘.., the Government planned to sell New Zealand's rivers . . . customary rights of access were in jeopardy.’’ The NZ Maori Council held similar fears, and the sale of water rights was abandoned in mid-December 1987. By Christmas 1987, advice had been received that the National Water and Soil Conservation Authority was to be axed with functions devolving to Catchment Boards and the Ministry for the Environment. This meant the Ministry's policies, particularly the legal status of intrinsic values and sustainability, would/should preside over any allocation decisions. Good news indeed. All efforts were now directed down two avenues. The first was to persuade the Government that Electricorp must apply for a water right. This was achieved remarkably quickly. A nationwide petition was launched on 28 January 1988 calling on the Government to take whatever action was required to have Electricorp apply for a water right. Six weeks later and six weeks in advance of the petition deadline, Electricorp announced they would apply for such a right. . . in five years. Despite the tag, Electricorp were publicly congratulated for a sensible and coura- geous decision. An important principle had been established; for the first time in New Zealand history, Electricorp would have to stand in the market place and prove its case. 5,500 people from just about every

place name in New Zealand signed the ‘"Speak up for the Whanganui River" petition in the first five weeks, thanks to the help of Conservation News and distribution by environmental/conservation organisations. Electricorp’s dramatic cave-in however, caused the 2nd and 3rd phase to be called off. The second avenue concerned the ‘"‘review of minimum flows", still set down for May 1988, but later postponed to early July. The constant publicity had had its effect. The Rangitikei Wanganui Catchment Board announced the review would not be the singular affair it had been in 1982/3, but broadened to encompass any matters the public wished to discuss. And, in February, the Ministry for the Environment announced radical changes; namely, Catchment Boards would in future deal with all water rights as if they had issued them; privilege was a thing of the past — Crown Water Rights no longer applied. Put together, these factors meant the Coalition had achieved what it set out to do. Under these acceptable circumstances, it was agreed to present submissions to the minimum flow hearing which, to all intents and purposes, now took the form of an interim water right application. Others were urged to participate and 70 ‘‘submission advice kits’’ were distributed. Over 1300 submissions were received. As a safety net, the Commissioner for the Environment was asked to monitor the proceedings, which she agreed to do. With the "‘pressure politics’ stage of the campaign over, it was decided to disband the Coalition, leaving a watchdog committee in place to draft submissions and present evidence at the hearing. The Catchment Board had appointed a four-member tribunal to conduct the hearing and report back their findings and recommendations. As such, a legalistic and scholarly approach was called for — tribunal hearings being no place for pressure politics.

Enormous Workload

It is perhaps an understatement to say the workload became enormous, particularly that of Branch Secretary, Brenda Chapple. Not only did we have to draw up the submissions and compile evidence for the branch, but had the responsibility of conducting a like case on behalf of the Coalition Watchdog Committee and the huge family of 1100 individual submissions collected by the Taumarunui Promotion Association. Dark clouds, though, have silver linings and in this case, the size of the task allowed us to present evidence on just about every subject available. The Whanganui River and its whio population in the upper reaches was considered of national importance. Accordingly, Forest & Bird would present its evidence at national level, (a factor which carried considerable influence during the hearing), including the three local branches who made submissions, Manawatu, Wanganui and King Country. A top environmental lawyer was appointed by Head Office to act for Forest & Bird and the Coalition-an absolute requirement in view of the complex legal and technical evidence which tended to dominate.

The hearing was both tiring and exhilarating. Held in the Taumarunui Courthouse, it became the best show in town and played to packed audiences every day. The very strong Maori presence brought tremendous dignity to the proceedings. The star of the first six days was undoubtedly the Department of Conservation. From scratch the Wanganui Office team had produced in six short months a highly professional, scientific statement, supported by acknowledged experts in all the social, aesthetic and tourism fields — and it was easy to understand! The submission set of three documents, presented by counsel, Jim Guthrie, is a telling indictment of present and past water management practices. DoC called for a return of ALL the diverted waters — only thus could the aspects of the law governing the hearing be acknowledged; only thus could the Whanganui be returned to a normal and healthy state. This was qualified by the statement that if this were not acceptable, then a proportional flow of 70 percent

of the natural flow was the absolute minimum required. Curiously, despite the many different sector groups represented and the various means whereby they reached their recommendations, this is what they all asked for a fair share — including Forest & Bird.

Wanted the Lot

Except Electricorp! They wanted the lot for five more years when they would apply for a water right! As expected, Electricorp put forward a voluminous, highly polished, technical case. Speaking on behalf of the Coalition, Forest & Bird member Tom Wells likened Electricorp to the White Witch of Narnia. His evidence and presentation was brilliant and intellectually devastating. The last day of the hearing was held on the Ngapuwaiwaha Marae in Taumarunui appropriately, this means "’. . . the meeting place of the waters Te Taurawhiri a Hinen-

gakau .. . the twisted strand of rope that binds people together . . ." Kaumatua travelled from Pipiriki, Whanganui, Raetihi and Ohakune to join their Taumarunui relations — all 15 sub-tribes were represented. The kaumatua pleaded for the return of the headwaters and hence a return of mana. They said: "... The interference with the flow conjures up an image of a body without a head or, in a Maori sense, of the Whanganui tribes without the source of their mana. The water which moves in the river and its tributaries is not just water but also the blood of the ancestors; the water’s murmur is the voice of our tipuna . . . all things are connected.’ At time of writing, the "‘jury is out’’ and no decisions have been reached. The campaign, however, has had other beneficial effects, the most notable being that it has forced local authorities to carefully inspect their impact on the river. The Taumarunui Borough Council, for example,

have announced they will investigate a land-based sewage outlet to stop the river outfall. The Whanganui City Council are also moving to stop sewage pollution. All the evidence and all the submissions point to the Whanganui retrieving a substantial portion of its water; and there is no doubt within King Country Forest & Bird that the water will be returned. The question is . . . how much? For the whio . . . the answer is critical to their survival. Keith Chapple is chairman of the King Country branch of Forest & Bird. He and his wife Brenda have been active in seeking protection for rivers surrounding Tongariro National Park since the early 1980s. They and the Tongariro Forest Park Promotion Committee campaigned successfully between 198 4-86 for a forest park.