I wish to address this meeting on the issue of water catchment in the area proposed for the Puketiro Wind farm, and whilst this has come to light as a result of the wind farm proposal, I am addressing you today, not specifically about the wind farm, but about Council process – or lack of it.

In 2005 the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Act was enacted to entitle GWRC to use land held for water catchment purposes for renewable energy.

 

Although this law grants GWRC certain rights, there are also responsibilities and obligations that accompany this and I put it to you that GWRC has not fulfilled these.

 

Council gave the Select Committee on the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Act an assurance that it would consult the public about wind farms on water catchment land.

 

Since then Council claims that it undertook “extensive consultation” on the Puketiro wind farm. One presumes that this was based on the subject being included in the Elements newsletter of July 2005 which should have reached every household within the Greater Wellington region.  However if, as I understand it, extensive means that Council should, through a variety of means, canvas ratepayer opinion, particularly those most likely to be affected - then this consultation was woefully inadequate.

 

The question asked in that publication was “Should Greater Wellington Regional Council makes its land at Puketiro available for a wind farm?” There was no question regarding the Akatarawa Forest or water catchment land and in fact the Elements specifically stated that it would not be in land currently used for water catchment.

 

Since then GWRC has on a number of occasions, the most recent being the unfortunate press release of 29 September, stated that RES has been given permission to look at placing turbines further back in Akatarawa Forest which is into water catchment land. 

 

I put it to you that before giving RES permission to consider turbines in water catchment areas, GWRC must consult on this with all interested and affected parties.

 

In case you are under the impression that the turbines will not necessarily be in water catchment areas, I am presenting you with a map which shows the wind farm infrastructure taken from an RES map, overlaid with a map showing the water catchment area for the Whakatikei dam from GWRC’s website, following the announcement by Council on the Whakatikei Dam as council’s preferred site for future water collection. It is obvious from this that turbines and wind farm infrastructure will encroach on the proposed water catchment area.

 

Clause 4 of the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Act requires Council to be satisfied that any wind farm development will not impede the prime purpose for Council holding the land, namely future water collection. 

 

I have been advised in writing that Council does not have a definition for the term impede so my question to you is how can you satisfy yourselves that the Puketiro wind farm will not impede water catchment when you cannot define something on which you have made a decision?

 

In November 2006 Council received a “Certification to Council” and accepted, on the basis of this two-page undated, unsigned document, that the wind farm would not impede water catchment.   That a decision could be made on the basis of such a brief and unscientific report defied belief so I asked for copies of the reports and studies which were used to support this certificate. I was advised by your officials that no reports or studies were carried out.

 

Finding it difficult to believe that Council would not have some factual background information to support a decision which is a legal requirement, I requested the documentary evidence which was used to support each and every statement made in the Certification.

 

I am informed that the primary evidence used to support this Certification, is the contract between GWRC and RES dated 1^st December 2006. The Certification to Council however was attached to a report dated 2 November 2006. 

How can a document post-dating the Certification be used to support it?

 

The contract between GWRC and RES was cited as the evidence for 21 of the 30 statements contained in the Certification. This contract is the legal document setting out the terms and conditions of the agreement between the two parties. It does not consider issues such as soil type, topography, vegetation, sedimentation and other possible impacts on water quality. Surely these factors should be amongst those put before a council required to satisfy itself that a wind farm will not impede water catchment. 

 

You may well argue, that there will be opportunities for public input at the resource consent stage, but this is not about a wind farm or RES’s resource application - this is about Council processes.

 

Surely GWRC has a mandate and a responsibility to represent and protect community and ratepayer interests, including the provision of water. Why should communities such as ours be continually forced into an adversarial role, (which is what the consent process does, pitting communities against developers with deep pockets) to protect our interests?

 

Can I remind you that this Council is already being called to account by Pauatahanui Futures Society because it failed to follow due process with regard to Battle Hill.

 

I am challenging you here today because this is another example of GWRC acting illegally, not having regard for the due processes and neglecting the faith put in it when you were elected by the ratepayers of Wellington.

 

In a 2006 GWRC presentation, titled ‘Greater Wellington’s Work on Wind’, the final statement read “We’re walking the talk” ….but need to be extra careful where we tread.” Can I ask why you needed to be extra careful? Was it because you were acting unlawfully? Because you were acting outside your mandate? Because you were ignoring Council process?  Because you were hoping no one would notice?

 

Maybe it is time that this Council heeded its own advice to be extra careful where it treads.

 

Diane Strugnell

23 October 2008