May 16, 2015
Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce was in Hawke’s Bay last week, breathlessly announcing that a new co-location of offices for our region’s economic development bureaucrats would unlease the area’s business potential. “All lagging Hawke’s Bay has needed to unlock its economic potential was a single water cooler or coffee machine around which the region’s umpteen economic development officers could congregate at tea break to agree on strategies,” he announced at the ribbon-cutting. Adding as an afterthought: “Oh, that and a $600 million dam investment and a bit of oil & gas development.”
At least that’s how HB Today covered the story.
But BayBuzz got the true scoop in this private interview with Minister Joyce.
“I’m really here to sell plastic … plastic bottles to be precise,” he confided.
“When the bottling of aquifer water really takes off,” he gushed, “there will be billions to be made in manufacturing plastic water bottles.
“Yes, you can sell the water. And I urge everyone living on top of the Heretaunga aquifer to get a water consent tomorrow. If you don’t grab one, foreign investors will. The Regional Council’s giving them out like there’s no tomorrow and — can you believe this — the water is free. Gushing out water consents is like printing money. Pretty soon with all its drilling derricks the Heretaunga Plains should look like Oklahoma oil country. If you can’t afford a well, then sell your tap water.”
“All you need is bottles.”
Now Joyce was getting really pumped up.
“And that’s where the big profit is. Forget the water; the real money and mark-up is in the bottles … you have to think about the entire value chain. If I lived in Hawke’s Bay I’d invest in manufacturing PLA bottles … PLA is polymerised lactic acid. And if manufacturing isn’t your forte, just grow the corn the PLA comes from. Hell, anyone can grow corn in their back yard! The corn-growers won’t make as much money as the bottle-makers, but hey, that’s the sad story of farming.”
“But what happens if we run out of aquifer water?” asked BayBuzz. “Won’t that dry up the market for polymerised lactic acid?”
“Put a cork in it!” retorted Joyce. “Your own Regional Council says that the Heretaunga aquifer has unlimited quantities of water, all of it simply washing out to sea. In two or three years the Regional Council will release research proving that.”
Asked if it wouldn’t be prudent to wait for the research before investing heavily in cornfields and plastic extruding machines, Joyce replied: “I’m confident your council’s science will suit the occasion. Anyway, once you make the investment in bottling plants, there’s no turning back … just like that dam of yours. The key is to first get the bottles made and the concrete poured. And if there’s an unexpected hiccup with the science, your councils can always institute water bans for lawn watering, showering and tooth brushing. In fact I heard a radio commercial urging water conservation and saying “our water is precious” on my way into town from the airport. That’s a nice touch … start building the guilt, just in case.”
So there you’ve heard it. Straight from the Uber Minister.
Think about the entire value chain coming to Hawke’s Bay …
More council staff to process consents. More corn crops. More fertiliser for the corn. More lawyers and accountants for farmers. More polymerised lactic acid processing facilities. More plastic bottle manufacturing. More work for creative agencies designing bottle labels. More paper for the labels, and logging to produce the paper. More trucks to carry the logs and then the containers of bottles to the Port. The value chain extends further and further. More stevedores for the Port. More beer for the stevedores, who ‘replenish’ the aquifer … a virtuous cycle. The velocity of money is mouth-watering.
All because of limitless free water and plastic bottles from corn.
Who says God isn’t smiling on Hawke’s Bay?
P.S. I ran Joyce’s strategy past the region’s expert in bottling, Tim Noble-Ustinoff. He operates the plant that bottles virtually every drop of Hawke’s Bay wine. Tim agrees that the real value of just about every product is in the packaging. But he emphasizes that high-end coloured water (i.e., wine as opposed to cranberry juice) is packaged in glass bottles, not plastic, hence the premium price that wine commands over pure water (and cranberry juice). “I wouldn’t say winemakers don’t contribute anything,” says Tim, “but everyone knows that above all else the high-end connoisseur demands a glass bottle with a flash label. If you want to make big money off water, it’s gotta be in a glass bottle. Has Minister Joyce never heard of Perrier or Pellegrino?”
no comments yet »
May 3, 2015
The Tukituki Board of Inquiry issued a draft decision on Friday aimed at resolving the final form of Plan Change 6, which sets the environmental regulatory regime for the Tukituki catchment, including the proposed Ruataniwha dam, if it proceeds.
In a victory for environmentalists, the BoI affirmed that the DIN limits (regulating nitrogen in the waterways), strongly opposed by HBRIC and the Regional Council, would in fact stand. Most importantly, the BoI made clear that the dam scheme and individual farmers using scheme water would need to operate such that the DIN limits would be met by 2030.
To that end, a monitoring, reporting and review requirement was added as a condition to the consents earlier granted. If this monitoring indicates the DIN limit is being exceeded, then HBRIC must identify specific actions that will be taken by irrigator-landowners to ensure compliance.
In short, farmers using dam water must meet the new DIN limits within fifteen years. The Regional Council is also required to review the nitrogen leaching limits in Plan Change 6 to ensure that the DIN limit is on a trajectory to being met.
With the DIN limit firmly in place, HBRIC must now argue, reversing its position when the BoI originally proposed the DIN limit, that the dam consents with these conditions are now indeed ‘workable’.
HBRIC must now convince CHB farmers that they needn’t worry about meeting DIN limits in the far away future, and can therefore feel secure entering long term water purchase agreements.
HBRIC chief Andrew Newman began the renewed water sales campaign on that note in the weekend HB Today, commenting that 2030 was “a long, long way from now. We believe farming practices and technology will improve substantially over that period of time in relation to nutrient management.”
In other words, sell 35-year water contracts and pour the concrete now, and hope for the best in terms of meeting environmental requirements in the future. Effectively, to reassure the public and to sell its water contracts, HBRIC must convince farmers that a rescue party will arrive before 2030.
In contrast, dam advocate and Irrigation NZ chief executive Andrew Curtis called the BoI decision “a far from practical outcome” and said: “We believe nutrient limits set for the Tukituki system remain unrealistic for what is a productive working agricultural landscape.” He apparently failed to get the ‘all’s well message memo’ from Andrew Newman.
Environmental leaders, while pleased with application of the DIN limit to the scheme and its users, are less sanguine about where this all leads:
Environmental Defense Society chairman Gary Taylor commented:
“…we are concerned as to whether there are gaps remaining in the conditions of consent that would enable on-going degradation through to the target year for compliance with the DIN limit of 2030. New condition 12A which addresses the obligations between now and then relies on the regional council acting if exceedances are found. But the regional council will have invested hundreds of millions into the Dam project and so will be conflicted in its regulation role.
“There are still questions over the viability of the irrigation scheme and we would be dismayed if a scenario unfolds where the dam goes ahead and pressure then comes on to ease the compliance regime to help make it work. Poor water quality should not be an outcome from this project.”
Forest & Bird’s Kevin Hackwell echoed that, saying:
“…any proposals for intensification in the TukiTuki valley are going to have the meet new nitrogen requirements to protect the river. In light of this draft decision it would be irresponsible for the Regional Council to commit ratepayers’ money, or to sign up farmers, to the scheme without having proved to their satisfaction that the formidable reductions in nitrogen pollution were possible.”
Obviously, if the dam proceeds as HBRIC wishes, it will be built and farming will intensify long before anyone – including the conflicted regulator HBRC, who will be panting for a dam dividend – ever sees the adverse environmental impact. The farm environmental management plans needed to reduce on-farm nutrient leaching are not even due until 2018, and will only begin to gain traction after that.
Simple common sense would dictate a different scenario than the one HBRC and HBRIC have driven against all criticism and legal setbacks.
The common sense scenario:
- Accept that the Tukituki is already seriously degraded.
- Implement Plan Change 6 vigorously and demonstrate that water quality in the Tukituki catchment is actually being improved.
- If and when a clearly improving water quality trajectory was confirmed, then consider the viability of any dam.
But contrary to common sense, HBRIC/HBRC has the cart before the horse.
Parties have until 15 May to comment on the new draft BOI decision. And then legal appeals are possible.
Tom Belford2 comments »
March 16, 2015
As we endure this dreary, rainy day, take satisfaction in knowing that Hawke’s Bay’s 2015 wine harvest has begun.
From the hand pickers …
To the mechanical harvesters … [click image to view video]
Here’ s hoping for another great Hawke’s Bay vintage.
P.S. BayBuzz is producing a ‘coffee table’ book, a history telling the fascinating stories of Hawke’s Bay winemaking, written by Mark Sweet (with a ‘vineyard to bottle’ essay by Peter Cowley), photographed by Tim Whittaker, and designed by Max Parks, for publication in November. A project supported by WineWorks. Stay tuned!3 comments »
March 13, 2015
Last weekend HB Today ran a ‘Talking Point’ I submitted (less a sentence or two) proposing an initiative to look systematically at alternative proven farming methods that would help the region deal much better — profit-wise and environmentally — with dry climate conditions.
Here is the article.
Needed: Plan B … Farm the Water!
The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council needs a Plan B. A comprehensive plan of action to replace its singular — and all-consuming — focus on building a mega-dam at the top of the Tukituki.
The dam has been presented as a silver bullet for increasing farm productivity in Central Hawke’s Bay while simultaneously improving the environmental condition of the Tukituki river system, despite massive projected farming intensification.
Both outcomes are doubtful.
And whether one accepts that reality yet or not, the dam twists in the wind, its germination costing $250,000+ a month, since sufficient farmer/irrigators are yet to endorse the project with their cheque books.
Nevertheless, HBRC has refused to date to consider or present proven alternatives that might better enable CHB farmers (to say nothing of other farmers in Hawke’s Bay) to optimize the value of their productive land in dry conditions, to improve soil health and mitigate erosion (especially in hill country), and to better capture and store the rainwater that is available.
Moreover, other cutting edge farmers and farm consultants are demonstrating how sharply reduced fertilizer use (and therefore markedly reduced nutrient leaching) and improved farm productivity and profitability can co-exist.
Although approaches to accomplish each of these goals are being proven today in various parts of New Zealand, HBRC has shown zero interest in those approaches or their practitioners.
A miserable failure of leadership. Five members of our Regional Council – you can guess who they are — have twice voted down my resolutions merely proposing a Hawke’s Bay forum to explore these approaches and showcase their advocates.
Advocates like sheep farmer Doug Avery — from drier-than-Hawke’s-Bay-Marlborough – and Lincoln University dryland farming expert Derrick Moot, who have shown conclusively that smart growing practices can yield twice the return to farmers as irrigation. Indeed, Avery thinks of himself as farming water, not farming sheep. Farmers like Avery are making 25% rates of return or better with their dryland systems. Did you hear that CHB farmers?!
The current Listener magazine (‘Going with the Flow’, 26 Feb) profiles the accomplishments of these two (and others). And the farm trade press regularly covers them. Farm consultant Graeme Ogle, who has studied systems like Avery’s around New Zealand, says of Avery: “I think Doug Avery single-handedly has probably brought about the biggest change in farming practice in New Zealand.” Ogle adds: “It’s always an option not to irrigate. And the best option is to drought-proof your farm.” Did you hear that CHB farmers?!
But as I said, don’t expect the Regional Council to take note of the alternatives to irrigation promoted by these achievers. The accomplishments of Avery and his successful band challenge the case for the Ruataniwha dam.
So some of us are not waiting any longer for HBRC leadership, at either the political or staff level … although we hope they will follow.
A working party consisting of experienced farmers, soil experts, farm advisors and farm economists is now taking shape. This ‘hands-on’ group aims to showcase farming practices that can sustainably improve farm productivity here in Hawke’s Bay. And to do so not on some theoretical basis, but by helping design practical farm plans, farm by farm, and demonstration projects that can achieve the complementary and simultaneous goals of increasing profitability and improving the environment.
The first focus of the group will be on Central Hawke’s Bay, because farmers there have been promised much that the dam will simply not deliver. They deserve a Plan B.
That said, the methods and strategy involved will have applicability and relevance throughout Hawke’s Bay, and hopefully farmers throughout the region will want to become informed and involved. But all of this will require financial assistance.
This is the kind of initiative that HBRC should welcome and support. But unfortunately, when it comes to helping farmers raise the bar, HBRC’s ruling group is either remarkably unmotivated, or utterly clueless about successful ‘multiple bottom line’ practices.
A real pity, as some work generated by the $20 million dollars (and rising) spent on preparing for the dam (eg, detailed soil mapping) could be salvaged and used constructively in a Plan B initiative.
Similarly, the requirement now set by Plan Change 6 for 1000+ farmers in CHB to prepare Farm Environmental Management Plans (FEMPs) could be much better conceived and better supported to produce Adaptive Farming Plans. Such plans, designed to achieve both economic and environmental goals, would be of far greater value to farmers and the broader community alike.
The working party is now organising itself, expanding participation, and refining its plan of action. Stay tuned!
P.S. Here is the Talking Point as it appeared in HB Today.4 comments »
March 8, 2015
Back in June 2009, having made a submission to the Napier City Council, I then wrote a post about Napier’s infrastructure shortcomings, titled When will the s**t hit the fan?
Now that post was about Napier’s sewage and stormwater disposal problems, which were candidly reviewed in an appendix on water system issues, required at the time as part of each council’s LTP documentation. Somehow, the candor in this appendix managed to slip by the sanitising eyes and ‘Delete’ keys of then-ruling Mayor Arnott and chief executive Neil Taylor.
In view of the current Dalton/Jack regime’s histrionics over supposedly unfair treatment by the Local Government Commission regarding lagging infrastructure spending (with the focus this time on roads), I thought it might help the debate to remind the Napier parties involved of their own assessment of the dilapidated state of their wastewater handling systems.
Here’s the pertinent part of that original post (and submission) … and indeed the question remains: When will the s**t hit the fan?!
“…the “biggest ticket” item in the Napier LTCCP that I find alarming is the state of Napier’s sewage and stormwater systems.
As cheery and upbeat as the LTCCP documents are regarding all other aspects of the Napier good life, we find the extreme opposite in the discussions of Napier’s waste!
The NCC would have us consider that the cost of kerbside recycling is the paramount “waste” issue, when in fact the far more serious – and expensive – issues relate to managing Napier’s stormwater and sewage.
It goes well beyond the scope of this submission to comment fully on what appears to be the quite fragile and over-taxed state of Napier’s stormwater and sewage systems. The documents give the impression that NCC is triaging its spending against rising needs, as opposed to fronting up fully – and being honest with ratepayers – about the inherent risks and costs associated with living in a low-lying area that requires constant pumping of all wastes, posing public health risks as well as increasing threats to the integrity of the underlying aquifer that supplies drinking water.
From the LTCCP:
• Infill development, which is assumed to account for 53% of Napier’s growth in coming years, is projected to increase stormwater run-off three times.
• Although stormwater run-off is impacting the environmentally sensitive Ahuriri Estuary, industrial development is envisioned for the adjacent Lagoon Farm.
• Listing stormwater items in need of funding, the LTCCP observes: “Each of the items requires a significant expenditure exceeding six years of the accumulated annual stormwater pipe upgrading budget to achieve any significant benefit to the area.”
• Parts of Bayview, and all of Jervoistown and Meeanee, have no reticulated sewage systems (and no plans to provide such) and rely on on-site septic systems … in the face of more stringent regulation of on-site systems (many of which are known to be sub-standard) about to issue from the Regional Council, if not from central Government.
• Meantime, NCC hopefully awaits confirmation that an unproven Hastings waste treatment system, which has plenty of critics, will indeed pass muster and represent a solution that Napier can embrace.
• Says the LTCCP: “Both the Latham and Greenmeadows sewerage systems are overtaxed during periods of wet weather.”
• Referring to the difficulty of monitoring the degrading of pipes by wastewater and sewage, the LTCCP observes: “The relatively recent usage of in-line cameras has both provided the means to investigate, but has also revealed the potential extent of problems.”
• And commenting further on the system: “It should be noted that the proposed renewal budget, based on the current set of standard economical lives that is used, is not sufficient to meet the long-term decline in service potential.”
I could go on. The overall impression … the s**t could hit the fan at any time!
One wonders whether Councillors have even bothered to read this material, let alone appreciate its implications. Were I a Napier Councillor, this situation would terrify me. I would be demanding an outside review of Napier’s stormwater and wastewater systems. And by “outside review” I mean independent peer review by experts who are not presently on the NCC teat as employees or consultants. An independent “report card” should be issued to the public.
These systems appear neglected, and their improvement under-funded, while this Council stands by and asserts its financial prudence. These are arguably the most vital systems and services that NCC provides its residents. If they are literally “going under,” the Mayor and Councillors should be held accountable, and of course the LTCCP spending levels should be modified accordingly.”
One might reasonably ask: Has anything changed since 2009? Other than building a sewage treatment plant, that like the Hastings plant, passes its remaining effluent over ‘sacred rocks’ on its way into Hawke Bay.
Short-changing maintenance of roads might be just the tip of the iceberg over at NCC. A situation that begs for accountability regardless of where one stands on amalgamation.
Although I can’t help asking … Doesn’t all the fussing and fuming of consultants and councils over ‘who’s got the numbers right?’ in and of itself underscore the case for amalgamation? It’s simply ridiculous — third worldly — that we are having such a bun fight in 21st century Hawke’s Bay. Alexander the Great kept better track of his assets and supply lines when he conquered the known world by 323 BC.
And then there’s the fundamental question: Shouldn’t Hawke’s Bay residents enjoy the same level of infrastrucutre support regardless of where in the Bay they live?
one comment so far »