Reply from Mark Ford at Watercare

It was good to get a robust reply from Watercare today, in response to my letter to Watercare posted below at: Letter to Watercare Board and CEO

The letter to me from Mark Ford, (Watercare's CEO) is dated 7th March 2011, and says this:

Dear Dr Cayford,

Thank you for your recent letter. Watercare's interest in this issue is limited to the water-related aspects.

As you will be aware, Watercare takes its responsibilities for water quality very seriously. That's why - although we are not the statutory regulator - we commissioned expert opinion in this area.

To be clear on this, Watercare did not issue the consent. We have, however seized the opportunity to submit stringent conditions as the applicant sought to alter the quality of the fill.

Without getting into issues currently before the court, I'm advised that the consent conditions relating to water which are now proposed, are much more stringent than those proposed by the former regulator. You may well be familiar with those given your historical association with the former ARC.

If you want any further information on this matter beyond the documents available through the court, I suggest you make direct contact with the applicant or the regulator if you haven't already done so.

Yours sincerely,

KM Ford
Chief Executive

So. That's a good letter. I know Watercare is not the statutory regulator, but it is often the font of wisdom when it comes to water, so it's good that it has added to its knowledge by getting some expert information.

What is interesting though, is that no water discharge consent has been issued, despite what this letter says. Not even by the old regulator - the ARC. It was only after today in the Environment Court that I understood that the Winstone application to discharge contaminants to water - the one referred to in the posting: Steps Toward Permit to Pollute (1) and which was notified in 8th April 2010 - was not dealt with by the ARC as regulator.

Instead it was referred to the Environment Court for hearing and decision.

It appears that Sections 87C to 87I of the RMA allow applicants to make a request to the council for resource consent applications to be decided by the Environment Court instead of by the council. It appears that the ARC may have objected to this, and the applicant then appealed that objection to the Environment Court, which decided that the appeals to the original consents, and the new application to discharge contaminants to water, would all be heard together by the Environment Court.

Interesting. So it essentially means that Watercare's new expert evidence (described above in Mr Ford's letter) can form part of the Env Court hearing of the application to discharge contaminants to water. Which will be for the first time.