RETURNING THE WATERS TO THE WHAKAPAPA

Forest and Bird, Issue 267, 1 February 1993, Page 29

RETURNING THE WATERS TO THE WHAKAPAPA

Ian Close

Five years ago a coalition of King Country residents took on the huge New Zealand electricity machine in defence of the mountain rivers of the North Island volcanic plateau. IAN CLOSE visits the Whakapapa River and attends the final celebratory meeting of the coalition. N A WET FRIDAY afternoon in early December, a small group of people arrive for a meeting in the Owhango Public Hall beside State Highway 4. In the gentle King Country rain they have come to formally wind-up the Wanganui River Flows Coalition. The fight has seemingly been won. In June, the High Court dismissed Electricorp’s appeal against the Planning Tribunal’s decision to return partial flows to the Whakapapa River. In September, the minimum flow for the Whakapapa set by the tribunal’s Judge Sheppard had been instituted, and in December, the tribunal’s decision on the higher summer flow on the Whanganui would take effect. A few kilometres from the hall is a small bridge over the Whakapapa, once one of the finest mountain rivers in the country and the focus of much of the coalition’s campaign. It was a river celebrated by poets and painters. For Greg Kelly in 1967 it was: ". . . an introduction to glory. The highland air of the mountain country, the sweet smell of rich forest with its groves of splendid totara trees, the dark blue bluffs below which rare blue ducks sported fearlessly, the white stillness of high pumice banks under which trout pools curled and gurgled. Where birdlife was orchestral in dawn light. Where in winter, crisp white morning

reflected the clear warm sunlight." But within a few years the Whakapapa’s waters had been diverted underground for power generation. For two decades only a derisory trickle, less than five percent of the river’s natural flow, ran from the top of Electricorp’s intake shaft to the confluence with the Whanganui 55 kilometres downstream at Kakahi. The significant population of blue duck for whom the river had been home was now reduced to a remnant of its pre-1972 numbers. The other upper tributaries of the

Whanganui were similarly de-watered. The result was the longest navigable river in New Zealand — over 200 kilometres to its mouth — with the life choked out of it. Silt has built up, and trout fishing, canoeing and rafting have all suffered. In drier periods it has been described as "quite rotten" with decaying algae. The fight for the Whakapapa and the other headwaters of the Whanganui River had, of course, been going far longer than five years. In started in 1964 after news of the proposed Tongariro

Power Development had leaked out and Peter McIntyre, artist and fisherman, penned an eloquent plea to The Evening Post. "The Philistine with his bulldozer is on the rampage in New Zealand," he wrote. Even in 1964, in an era when development was largely unquestioned and environmental impact assessment unheard of, the arrogance and greed of the Electricity Department in taking nearly all the water from these rivers aroused opposition and a sense of great unfairness. OR KEITH CHAPPLE, chairperson and driving force of the coalition (see Forest & Bird November 1990), it has been a long struggle. For much of 1989 and 1990 he had to take leave from his job at Taumarunui District Hospital to attend the mammoth Planning Tribunal hearing in Wellington. As the rain pours down on the roof of the hall in Owhango, Chapple gives a brief summary of the campaign. He notes that the meeting to set up the coalition five years earlier was held in the same hall, "even the chairs and tables arranged the same way". In 1987 the level of the minimum flow of the Whanganui, set four years previously, was soon to come up for renewal. The Wanganui River Flows Coalition — 35 groups including such unlikely environmentalists as the King Country Federated Farmers, the local Young Nationals and the Wanganui Chamber of Commerce — came together to argue that the water should be shared. "The coalition at no stage argued that the Tongariro Power Development, or indeed any part of it, should be scrapped," Chapple explains. "But 1987 was the celebration of the centenary of Tongariro National Park, our first national park, and yet just across the road, all the rivers coming out of the park disappeared into

frigging holes in the ground!" The struggle to cut back Electricorp’s share of the water took the coalition through two major tribunal hearings and to the High Court. Tom Wells takes the floor. For the

former college headmaster and one of Chapple’s chief aides and strategists, it was a great victory for the local community. "The whole campaign was an immense learning experience," he says. "It is one of the very special delights and privileges of life to work with kindred spirits on an issue that really matters. And this one did." He pays tribute to Chapple who was "inspiring to work alongside and to see at work". HE COALITION, of course, didn’t do all the work by themselves. In 1988 when it looked as though Electricorp was going to stretch the dispute out for as long as they could and test the resources of the conservation groups, the coalition had thrown down the challenge to the recently formed Department of Conservation. The department was asked to take up the cause of the rivers and its wildlife and join the coalition and the local Maori trust board

in opposing Electricorp’s application for continued near-monopoly of the Whanganui headwaters. John Ombler, the local DoC conservator at the time, was put in an interesting position. The new department had been set up, with the high hopes of all conservationists, under legislation that gave it a role as an "advocate for conservation". Ombler knew that environmental groups had great expectations of the department using its financial, technical and scientific resources to take up this, as yet untried, advocacy role. Here was a readymade case where there were significant conservation values at stake and underresourced conservationists attempting to maintain the struggle against a corporate giant. "The department was entering untested waters," says Ombler. "The challenge had been laid down, and it was the sort of challenge that if not taken up, would have been very damaging for the new department. At first we chose some rather careful words in saying we’d do some research to determine the exact

effect of the reduced flows and the changes necessary to remedy the negative effects. At the time I did wonder what exactly I was getting us into. "DoC of course, ended up with a large team working on the case, some in the department, some consultants, some volunteers. The interesting thing we were finding as a department was just how far we could push, how much the department was following the public groundswell of opposition and how much it could lead."

OW THAT IT IS OVER, what has come out of the struggle for the rivers? First, the decision has set a precedent for any future conflicts over water rights in New Zealand. It can be safely said that never again will any river be totally de-watered. Compromises may be made between competing parties but, as Chapple says, it is now stamped into the New Zealand psyche that rivers actually count, and that their natural values are just as important as their potential megawats. A second lesson is that you need significant resources to contest the actions of a huge state-owned enterprise such as Electricorp. The coalition spent about $100,000 on the case, two-thirds of which came from Forest and Bird. But this was small beer compared to the $1 million that DoC estimates it spent and the minimum of $7 million spent by Electricorp. Electricorp, of course, was the only party not disadvantaged by spending money. The corporation stood to lose $35 million a year from an unfa-

What is the Tongariro Power Development?

HE IDEA of diverting some of the rivers running off the central North Island mountains for electricity had been kicked around since the 1930s, but was only given serious consideration during the power shortages of the 1950s. The scheme, which was later to be slated by Treasury as "one of New Zealand’s most misguided engineering projects", was authorised by a government decision in 1958. No consideration was given in the planning stage to issues of soil and water conservation, fisheries, recreation, tourism or aesthetics, let alone river ecology. No local authorities were consulted. Built in two main stages from 1967 — known respectively as the Western and Eastern Diversions — the scheme diverted water from all

the four major catchments flowing from the volcanic plateau, affecting over 60 rivers and streams. In all, the scheme provides 30 percent of the North Island’s hydro capacity or six percent of New Zealand’s total electricity generating capacity.

The Western Diversion, which covers the Whanganui and its tributaries, accounts for slightly less than half of this. Thus the water lost by Electricorp in the final Whanganui flows decision amounts to only about half a percent of the country’s generating capacity.

The Planning Tribunal decision Minimum flow: the natural flow in the Whakapapa will be increased from about 5% to 25%. Summer flow: The minimum summer flow allowed at Te Maire on the Whanganui will rise from 22 to 29 cubic metres a second by an increased return to the Whakapapa. No water will be returned to the upper Whanganui or its four other dewatered minor tributaries.

vourable decision and the longer the case went on the longer its preferred 1983 regime continued. Thirdly it showed how, despite the odds, a group of local activists can take on a mighty corporation. It was the first tume that the electricity industry in this country had lost a major battle. In many ways, says Chapple, Electricorp was the perfect villain. "They never did anything right. Every time they opened their mouth they put their foot in it. Their public relations were awful." The case drew attention to issues of energy efficiency and conservation — mere empty words before the mid 80s. They now mean something and Electricorp’s only real future option is to promote them. Its loss on the Whanganui has sent it the message that it cannot rely on its present water allocation. And under the new Resource Management Act all the

corporation’s hydro as well as thermal operations will be subject to more rigorous environmental scrutiny. For DoC’s John Ombler one of the major lessons of the whole campaign was in showing how DoC’s advocacy role is not enough in isolation. DoC needs to work in tandem with environmental groups, so that the department is not seen as getting too far ahead of public opinion. "Without the coalition, DoC may not have been able to go so far," he says. "And that’s important in the ongoing relationship between environmental groups and the department". EANWHILE back in Owhango, the members of the now-dis-banded River Flows Coalition have moved along to the hotel. Reminiscences of the five-year battle

flow as freely as the Waikato bitter. Tales of how one witness was cross-examined. by Electricorp lawyers for three and a half days, how a mole in Electricorp ("we never found out who") provided Chapple with internal documents showing how the corporation would try and split the coalition, the shock at seeing the size of the lever-arched files of Electricorp evidence, and how the tribunal conveniently went into recess for two weeks so that Chapple could attend the birth of his son. At the Chapple homestead at Kakahi the stories continue into the early morning. The Whakapapa, in full flow from the rain, roars away below, as it has down the centuries. There are further battles for this river and its wildlife in the years ahead. Is it too much to hope that one day it will flow free again?

is the editor of

Forest & Bird.

A brief chronology

Order-in-Council signed by the government giving the NZ Electricity Department authority for the Tongariro Power Diversion. No public discussion or consultation. Peter McIntyre launches his ""Hands off Tongariro River’ petition. CI BE raksd Fl VEN Geen a ob Seas 30 Construction of the western section of the scheme. The scheme diverts water by a system of intakes, tunnels and canals from six headwater streams of the Whanganui River, effectively removing all their flow.

After pressure from recreational users, the National Water and Soil Conservation Authority sets a minimum flow at Te Maire (17 kilometres downstream from Taumarunui) of 22 cubic metres a second in summer (not enough to get your shorts wet) and 16 cubic metres a second (about knee deep) at other times. In effect Electricorp loses only three percent of the total flow. This decision is to expire in 1988. October T9875 4 oo ois cadesng i cee Formation of the Wanganui River Flows Coalition at the instigation of the King Country Branch of Forest and Bird. The 35 organisations in the coalition argue for a more equitable sharing of the available water. The coalition’s first act is to organise petitions to force Electricorp

to apply for a water right. March 988 osc ig 8G ests es Electricorp bows to pressure and agrees to apply for water right. RangitikeiWanganui Catchment Board sets up tribunal in Taumarunui to review the 1983 minimum-flow regime. October 1988 i. cs ec Catchment Board tribunal rules that the upper Whanganui be restored to full natural flow. Increased natural flow (33% in winter; 66% in summer) to Whakapapa. Overall, Electricorp’s share of the water reduced from 97% to 69%. Electricorp announces it will appeal. The 1983 regime continues. September 1989 — March 1990........ The Planning Tribunal hears appeals by Electricorp (wanting more diversion) and

e rivers The future of th

HILE THE COALITION and other environmental groups accepted the Planning Tribunal’s decision as 4 reasonable compromise at the time, it was considerably less than they had originally wanted. "We argued for a proportional flow," says Chapple. "We said that 30 percent was the maximum that could be taken without damaging the ecology of the river, that this proportion could be taken at all ume, put that 70 percent should be left — floods, droughts and whatever. This way the natural variation would be maintained." DoC had pushed for a similar arrangement whereby below 4 certain minimum level all water removal would cease but that above that level the water should be split — half for the river, half for power generation. That would ensure an adequate base flow and some semblance of natural fluctuation. It was an argument that wasn’t accepted by the Planning Tribunal. Richard Heerdegen, @ hydrologist from Massey University and a DoC witness at the tribunal hearing, has serious doubts whether the new flow regime will markedly improve the life of the river. "The river is still a regulated ene." he says. And with a regulated river the natural rhythm of the flows 1s Jost. Regulation disrupts the life cycles of the many animals dependent on the river and allows for much greater growth of algae and other slimy depos

Id er NS 1S icles 1 the eposits. The fine sediments are able to settle between the rocks and gravels so that they are more likely to cement in place." Heerdegen believes that the new regime will provide some improvement in the natural rhythm of flows. "But only a complete absence of regulation will allow the variability in flow which more water in the summer but summer flows will be even more like winter flows than at present. Whether the increased flows will increase blue duck habitat and allow numbers to rebuild is open to doubt. "We may have won something for the users," he says. "But have we really won anything for the river?" Electricorp toyed for some time last year with the idea of meeting their obligations for a minimum summer flow downstream at Te Maire by putting summer water back into the four dewatered minor tributaries (the Okupata, Taurewa, MangatepoPpo and Tawhitikur), rather than the Whakapapa. Chapple was particularly unhappy with these "ghenanigans". The coalition’s reading of the decision was that the tribunal sntended that the Whakapapa ghould always be the main control point — ecologically a far more satisfactory arrangement. Electricorp was now arguing that there were engineeting difficulties sn doing this but Chapple

OW ta, ain ore p was yeerrapple points out that the corporation had had two years to prepare itself for the new flow regime. Only at a meeting in January this year, convened by the regional council at the instigation of Forest and Bird, did Flectricorp finally agree that the Whakapapa be the first and main control point for the increased summer flows. DoC is planning to monitor the effects of the new flow regime on the biology of the river. A number of baseJine studies will be set UP: which will be funded by Electricorp. Under the Resource Mangement Act Electricorp must apply for renewal of all its water rights, including those over the Whanganui, ovet the next decade. The Whanganul, indeed the whole of the Tongariro Powet Development, will remain one of the corporation’s biggest problems. Groups such as Forest and Bird are keen to see further river habitat restored. A consultative forum on the TPD, including most snterested parties, has been established to try and resolve the scsues around these permits and avoid recourse to the courts. There 1s some doubt as to whether the Planning T1bunal decision on the Whanganul, which was announced before the Resource Management Act came into force, is actually adequate as a water permit under the Act. In any case the decision will be revisited before long.

the Whanganui Maori Trust Board (arguing for less diversion) against the catchment board decision. DoC and the River Flows Coalition oppose Electricorp’s appeal. The issues canvassed include the cultural values of the river and traditional fisheries of the tangata whenua, ecological effects of disrupted flows and increased sediment on the river’s biology, and recreational pursuits such as fishing, rafting, canoeing and jetboating. The hearing is the longest and most costly of its kind in New Zealand history, with 94 sitting days over eight months, 104 witnesses and over 2,500 pages of transcript. October 1990 ..--cccccccccccccccccccees Judge Sheppard hands down the tribunal’s decision setting a new flow regime. Dramatic increase in the flow of the

Whakapapa to about 25 percent of average natural flow, no minimum set for upper Whanganui. Minimum flow to increase, as measured at Te Maire, from December to May. Overall, Electricorp’s share of the water reduced to 78%, somewhat better for them than 1988 decision. Decision to take effect from June 1991. The compromise is accepted by the River Flows Coalition as probably the best that could be achieved given the balancing act required by the old (pre-Resource Management Act) legislation. Electricorp general manager initially accepts the decision. November. 1990 «2: odsesicecivcsccccicces Electricorp announces it will appeal. The SOE’s huge financial resources "have become an arsenal to wear down those who challenge its single-minded power

play," says The Dominion. Keith Chapple describes Electricorp as "the biggest corporate bully this country has ever seen"’. The 1983 regime continues. Jee 1992 eos os cae Sadeades taeeaeeeeues After a four-week case based largely on points of law, the High Court upholds all of the Planning Tribunal’s decisions. 1 Septembes.1992 60s ee Minimum flow is returned to the Whakapapa. Tt December 1992. os55 oases ce teens Summer flow returned to the head-waters as measured at Te Maire. 4 December 19925) oa. or ea Keith Chapple formally proposes that the Wanganui River Flows Coalition be wound up.