TDC's attitude to Motueka's water supply

February 24th, 2010
Tara Forde, Motueka Community Board

I am extremely bothered by last weeks statement by the head of the TDC Engineering Services Chairman about a matter relevant to the Environment and Planning Committee. It is exactly this conflict of interest that the Motueka Community Board is concerned about that is leading us to consider appealing the decision to take more of Motueka's water.

The TDC is trampling over existing water users rights, and this will cost Motueka ratepayers when they allocate it out of here. TDC wouldn't be trying to increase the water take if they didn't want to build the water pipeline. There will be drawdown effects that will mean some bores will run dry. The targeted rate will add a lot to Motueka's rates for the next 20 years, which is silly when what we have now is working.

Finally, perhaps Trevor should consider that the Community Board are actually representing valid resident concern that the council and councilors have steadfastly ignored throughout the 'consultation' process. Democracy means you listen, and adjust as necessary, rather than use bully boy tactics of intimidation.

[Added later, 10 March 2010]
A group of citizens are seeking donations for the community board's Environment Court appeal against TDC's decision to increase the water take from Motueka's aquifer. The appeal will be expensive, so any financial assistance will be gratefully accepted. Donations can be made to the Motueka Water Appeal Account,

Comment by Jim Butler:
[Posted 14 April 2010]
(Editor's note: This is part of a report Jim presented to the Motueka Community Board meeting open forum yesterday. Another part of the same presentation can be seen on the Motueka River Stopbank issue here)

On the 30th of March at 4 pm, I took the opportunity to attend the meeting in St John Hall where more Councillors were present than members of the public. This gave me a great opportunity to have an hour long, wide rangeing discussion with Cr Norris and Peter Thompson (Manager Engineering Services) on my perception of the activities of TDC' s Engineering Services.

In regards to the Motueka Community Coastal Water Supply, I said this would seem be another unnecessary project. In my opinion its likely effect will be to cost many Motueka ratepayers who now have their own bores, a lot of money. Also, possibly, limit the amount of water available to many Motueka households by having to connect into a metered water supply through reticulation of all the urban area. TDC would then have the ability to limit the amount of water used by many households by increasing its cost per cubic metre.

The reason why TDC wishes to limit water use in Motueka is because, in my opinion, there is insufficient water in the Motueka aquifer in the dry summer months to meet both the future requirements of Motueka and those parts of the Waimea Ward to be supplied via the Coastal Pipeline, without lowering the water table in the Motueka aquifer. This was the conclusion I reached when studying the evidence presented by TDC at the Hearing, early in March, of the Resource Consent on their Application to withdrawn 20 000 litres per day from the bores to be developed in Parker St. If this proceeds, many households with their own bores in urban Motueka will lose their water supply during the dry summer months because the drawoff will lower the water table under Motueka. So they will be forced to connect into a reticulated metered supply at both a large initial and then a ongoing cost.

I voiced my support for Board's legal action against TDC's Water Allocation for Motueka. If I recall correctly, the Chairman of the Hearing on TDC Water Application said that most of the 900 objections received were really not relevant to the Application and should have been directed against Variation 66 to Tasman Resource Management Plan that determined Motueka's Water Allocation. But apparently not one objection was lodged against this Variation. I vaguely recall looking at a Variation written in such bureaucratic jargonese that it was difficult to understand its implications. So no wonder then, there were no objections to it. I presume the aim of the court case the Board is taking against Council is to overturn this Variation. But I would not be surprised if Council attempts to cover its legal costs with yet another targetted rate on Motueka Ward ratepayers. For as I pointed out, it is my perception that if there is an expensive work in the Richmond area, all the District pays for it. But if it is in Motueka, we get a targetted rate imposed on us.

Comment by Alan Dones:
[Posted 30 April 2010]

May I expand on Jim Butler's comment (above) about bore owners who will experience a possible loss of water under drought conditions if the coastal pipeline goes ahead.

Fistly, I wonder if bore owners are fully aware that even if they intend to not take advantage of the scheme because of cost and a satisfaction with the supply they now have, that they will still have to pay for the pipeline to go past their property and should they be forced to connect to the line because of a depleted bore, they will have the added cost of not only the house-to-line connection but also they may find that their domestic pipework and hot water cylinder will not handle the increased pressure, particularly in older properties with the older type of pump, all adding up to a significant cost and for what! To supply the properties in Zone 3 that were allowed to be built without proper water availability and the horticulturists of the Waimea Plains who are sucking their source dry!

As a bore owner, I say thanks but no thanks. I am happy with the status quo and me in control of my water/costs. If it ain't broke don't fix it!!

I may, of course, be forced to reconsider if the council offer free upgrade of domestic pipework and connection to existing bore owners, but I won't hold my breath.

>> , to be added to the page. [If this link doesn't work, use this form instead]

[ Return ]