ECan welcomes changes to resource consent law
Environment Canterbury (ECan) chairperson Peter Scott has resumed his role more than three months after stepping down while under investigation for farming without consent.
It comes in time for Scott to welcome news of changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) that could undermine a critical court finding against the council.
Scott welcomed yesterday’s announcement by Agriculture Minister Todd McClay that the Government would amend RMA rules relating to discharge consents.
The changes to section 107 would remove restrictions on councils’ abilities to issue, or re-issue, consent for discharges, providing “certainty” to councils, and avoiding consents for industry, farming, meat processing and wastewater discharges being declined or delayed.
McClay specified two court decisions – one in relation to the Southland regional council’s (Environment Southland) water and land plan, the other a landmark court decision earlier this year that found ECan unlawfully granted a resource consent to the Ashburton Lyndhurst Irrigation
Ltd (ALIL) irrigation scheme – that “threaten to make the law unworkable”.
Sections 70 and 107 are key environmental bottom lines in the Resource Management Act, requiring regional councils be satisfied the discharge of a contaminant will not result in “significant adverse effects on aquatic life” before it can permit, or issue a consent for that discharge.
ECan estimated at least 525 consents could be impacted in Canterbury alone before this time next year, McClay’s press release said. ECan and other groups including Irrigation NZ, Beef + Lamb, Dairy NZ and Federated Farmers lobbied government for the changes, claiming court decisions would have unintended consequences, risking “wide-ranging impacts on economic activity”.
ECan is appealing the ALIL decision.
Scott caused consternation among councillors after it was revealed by The Press he sent a letter to Minister for the Environment Penny Simmonds and Minister for RMA Reform Chris Bishop requesting an “urgent” law change to bypass the court ruling without having it signed off by councillors.
The council later said the departure from its usual protocol was because there wasn’t enough time to seek input from councillors.
Staff were told not to publicise the letter’s existence until it was put before the council, which happened shortly after Scott stepped aside as chairperson.