Our purpose is to preserve New Zealand's whitewater resources and enhance opportunities to enjoy them safely.

Appeal against Genesis Power re Tongariro Power Development Scheme

BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT
RMA No.
IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991
AND
IN THE MATTER of an appeal under section 121 of the Resource Management Act
BETWEEN NEW ZEALAND RECREATIONAL CANOEING ASSOCIATION
Appellant
AND WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL AND MANAWATU-WANGANUI REGIONAL COUNCIL
Respondents

NOTICE OF APPEAL OR INQUIRY UNDER SECTION 121 OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991

To: The Registrar
Environment Court
Wellington

  1. Name and address of appellant, along with statement that appellant is the applicant, consent holder, or person who made a submission:
    New Zealand Recreational Canoeing Association
    c/o 464 Somme Parade
    Wanganui
    The New Zealand Recreational Canoeing Association is a party who made a submission on the applications.
  2. Name of decision-maker or recommendation-maker [The respondents]: Environment Waikato (Waikato Regional Council), horizons.mw (Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council)
  3. Date of decision or recommendation appealed against: 30 August 2001
  4. Date on which notice of the decision or recommendation was received by appellant: 8 September 2001
  5. Nature of the application on which the decision or recommendation was made:

    Applications by Genesis Power Ltd for Water Permits, Discharge Permits and Land Use Consents to use water from rivers and streams that flow from the Ruapehu/Ngauruhoe mountain system and related catchments to generate electricity, incorporated within the Tongariro Power Development Scheme.

  6. Description of the land or resource affected by the decision or recommendation. Whangaehu River, Moawhango River, Tongariro River, Whakapapa River and Whanganui River catchments.
  7. The grounds on which the appeal is based:
    1. Whakapapa Intake - Manawatu-Wanganui Region - Consent no. 101282

      In the context of this consent to dam, divert and take water from the Whakapapa River, the Respondents erred as follows:

      1. The Respondents failed to appropriately recognise and provide for section 6 (a), (b) and (d) of the Resource Management Act 1991.
      2. The Respondents failed to have particular regard to the matters defined in section 7 (b), (c), and (f).
      3. The Respondents failed to apply section 105 (2A) correctly, in that the damming, diversion and take of water from the Whakapapa River are non-complying activities. The adverse effects of these activities on the recreational and amenity values of this previously significant recreational resource are more than minor, and are not appropriately mitigated by the conditions imposed.
      4. The Respondents therefore made an incorrect finding, in concluding that the adverse effects of the proposal on the Whakapapa River are no more than minor.
      5. The Respondents failed to apply the correct baseline test, determining the environment against which the applications should be assessed.
    2. Rangipo Dam and Power Station Take - Waikato Region - Consent no. 103867

      In the context of this consent to dam, divert and take water from the Tongariro River at the Rangipo Dam, the Respondents erred as follows:

      1. The Respondents failed to appropriately recognise and provide for section 6 (a), (b) and (d) of the Resource Management Act 1991.
      2. The Respondents failed to have particular regard to the matters defined in section 7 (b), (c), and (f).
      3. The Respondents made an incorrect finding, in concluding that the adverse effects of the Rangipo Dam operation on the recreational and amenity values of this section of the Tongiraro are adequately mitigated by the conditions imposed.
      4. The Respondents failed to apply the correct baseline test, determining the environment against which the applications should be assessed.
    3. Poutu Intake - Waikato Region - Consent no. 103875

      In the context of this consent to dam, divert and take water from the Tongariro River at the Poutu Intake, the Respondents erred as follows:

      1. The Respondents failed to appropriately recognise and provide for section 6 (a), (b) and (d) of the Resource Management Act 1991.
      2. The Respondents failed to have particular regard to the matters defined in section 7 (b), (c), and (f).
      3. The Respondents made an incorrect finding, in concluding that the adverse effects of the activity on recreational and amenity values are appropriately mitigated by retaining the existing minimum flow regime.
      4. The Respondents made an incorrect finding, in concluding that the adverse effects of the Poutu Intake operation on the recreational and amenity values of this section of the Tongiraro are adequately mitigated by the conditions imposed.
      5. The Respondents failed to apply the correct baseline test, determining the environment against which the applications should be assessed.
    4. Scheme wide effects
      1. The Respondents made an incorrect finding in concluding that the adverse effects of the scheme in total, incorporating both the eastern and western diversions, are adequately mitigated by the conditions imposed.
      2. The Respondent made an incorrect finding in concluding that safety signs were unnecessary at locations throughout the scheme where hazards exist.
      3. The Respondent failed to appropriately recognise and provide for section 6 (a), (b) and (d) of the Resource Management Act 1991.
      4. The Respondent failed to have particular regard to the matters defined in section 7 (b), (c), and (f).
      5. The Respondent failed to apply the correct baseline test, determining the environment against which the applications should be assessed.
      6. The Respondent failed to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.
      7. The Respondents failed to give adequate regard to relevant statutory planning documents including Waikato Regional Policy Statement, Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Policy Statement, Proposed Waikato Regional Plan, Proposed Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Plan for the Beds of Rivers and Lakes.
  8. The relief the appellant seeks:
    1. Whakapapa River - Consent no. 101282
      1. Inclusion of additional condition requiring appropriately scheduled and managed natural flow recreational releases down the Whakapapa River.
      2. Inclusion of additional review clause to monitor appropriateness of the above condition, and redress if necessary.
      3. Any other such relief as the Court shall deem fit to mitigate the adverse effects of the activity on the recreational amenity values of the Whakapapa River.
    2. Rangipo Dam - Consent no. 103867
      1. Amendment of condition 6, increasing the volume of the recreational releases to not less than 35 cumecs.
      2. Amendment of condition 6, increasing the frequency of the recreational releases from 2, to 4 per year.
      3. Amendment of condition 6, further defining with certainty and fairness the occasions when a recreational release may be cancelled.
      4. Amendment of condition 6, determining that if a release is cancelled an additional "make-up" release will be provided within 12 months.
      5. Inclusion of additional review clause to monitor the appropriateness of the above conditions, and redress if necessary.
      6. Any other such relief as the Court shall deem fit to mitigate the adverse effects of the activity on the recreational amenity values of the Tongariro River.
    3. Poutu Intake - Consent no. 103875
      1. Amendment of condition 6, increasing the volume of the recreational releases to not less than 35 cumecs.
      2. Amendment of condition 6, increasing the frequency of the recreational releases from 2, to 4 per year.
      3. Amendment of condition 6, further defining with certainty and fairness the occasions when a recreational release may be cancelled.
      4. Amendment of condition 6, determining that if a release is cancelled an additional "make-up" release will be provided within 12 months.
      5. Inclusion of additional review clause to monitor the appropriateness of the above conditions, and redress if necessary.
      6. Any other such relief as the Court shall deem fit to mitigate the adverse effects of the activity on the recreational amenity values of the Tongariro River.
    4. Scheme wide
      1. A condition requiring a specified contribution towards the construction of an appropriately situated artificial white water feature to mitigate the adverse effect of the scheme on the total recreational amenity of the affected catchments.
      2. A condition requiring that the consent holder provides and maintains suitable warning signs at all diversion barrages, Rangipo Dam and Tree Trunk Gorge.
      3. Such other general relief as the Court shall deem fit to mitigate the total adverse effects of the activity on the recreational amenity of the area.
      4. Or alternatively decline the relevant consents numbers 103875, 103867, 101282.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Signature person authorised to sign on behalf of appellant, M A Baker
28 September 2001

Annexures:

  1. Copy of application or copy of submission on application:
  2. Copy of decision or recommendation of respondent or relevant part thereof:
  3. Any other documents necessary to an adequate understanding of the appeal:
  4. Name and addresses of persons to be served with appeal.
This site is a beta version.