Fonterra - Waikato Regional Council

SUBMISSION TOWAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCILONPROPOSED WAIKATOREGIONAL POLICY STATEMENTFROMFONTERRA CO-OPERATIVE GROUP LTD28 FEBRUARY 2011

SUBMISSION BY FONTERRA CO-OPERATIVE GROUP LIMITED ONPROPOSED WAIKATO REGIONAL POLICY STATEMENTTo:Chief ExecutiveWaikato Regional CouncilPO Box 4010Hamilton East 3158HAMILTONName of Submitter:Fonterra Co-operative Group LimitedContact Person:Adrian PyneAddress for Service:Fonterra Co-operative Group LtdP O Box 10397Te RapaHAMILTONTelephone: 0-7-849 3969Facsimile: 0-7-849 7854Email:adrian.pyne@fonterra.comFonterra Co-operative Group Limited (“Fonterra”) wishes to be heard in support ofthis submission.If others make a similar submission, Fonterra would be prepared to considerpreparing a joint case with them at any hearing.1

1.0 INTRODUCTIONFonterra is New Zealand's major dairy co-operative and is the world's leadingexporter of dairy products, trading in more than 140 countries. It is responsible formore than a third of international dairy trade, comprising 25% of New Zealand'sexport earnings. As a co-operative, Fonterra is owned by more than 10,500 farmersthroughout the country. Its portfolio includes functional proteins, liquid and powderedmilks, cultured foods and yoghurts, butter, cheeses and specialty food-servicesproducts. Fonterra has significant assets, the total value of which is in the order of$14.1 billion dollars.Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited was formed in 2001, and has an annualturnover of over $16 billion. Approximately 14 billion litres of milk are collected andprocessed in 25 Dairy Manufacturing Sites throughout New Zealand. The companyexports 95% of its dairy products to customers in more than 140 countries.Dairy farming in the Waikato Region represents approximately 25.5% of NewZealand’s dairy herds and 23.7% of national production, and comprises 3,718Fonterra shareholder/farms (as well as those dairy farms supplying other dairyprocessors). In the 2009/10 dairy season a total of 341,479,000 kg of milk solids wasproduced within the Region. This had a farm gate value of approximately of over$2.175 billion (at $6.37 kgMs - fully shared supply less retentions). A recent reportby the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (Dairy’s role in sustaining NewZealand 1 ) assessed the contribution of dairying within the Waikato to regionalemployment (directly related to dairying) as being 8,945 jobs.The dairy sector, comprising farmers and dairy processors, directly contributedaround $5.0 billion of value added (or GDP) to the New Zealand economy in 2010,around 2.8% of the total GDP. By way of comparison, dairy GDP:• is greater than the GDP contribution of the fishing, forestry and mining sectorscombined;• is around 10 times as large as the GDP of the wine sector;• is about 3 times as large as the forestry and logging sector;1http://www.fonterra.com/wps/wcm/connect/fcf7000044f43b8bb2b2fbac5c5d2692/NZIER+economic+report+to+Fonterra+and+DNZ+2010.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=fcf7000044f43b8bb2b2fbac5c5d26922

• accounts for over a third of the GDP contribution of the entire primary sector(dairy and meat farming and processing, horticulture, fishing, forestry,mining);• is 40% larger than the entire utilities sector (electricity, gas and water);• is 2/3 as large as the entire construction sector; and• accounts for 15% of the total GDP of the goods producing industries.These figures are the direct contributions only. They do not take into account thelinks that the dairy sector has with the wider economy. In reality, the dairy sector alsohas indirect and induced effects on the New Zealand economy.Dairy farming is an efficient and high returning land use, providing both significantregional income and a large number of jobs both directly and through supportindustries. Dairy farms tend to have a higher level of staffing for a given land areathan most alternative pastoral land uses. This provides benefits in terms of creatingvalue to the regional economy and employment. It is also assists with themaintenance of current populations within the large number of rural Waikatocommunities where dairying is a significant land use.In the Waikato, the company owns and operates nine Dairy Manufacturing Sites atthe following locations:• Te Rapa• Morrinsville• Waitoa• Hautapu• Te Awamutu• Tirau• Lichfield• Reporoa• Canpac International.A wide range of milk products is processed at these sites, including cream, cheese,butter skim and whole milk powders, and specialty products such as casein,lactalbumin, ethanol and nutritional formulas. Te Rapa and Waitoa have large MilkSupply transport depots. Fonterra also operates a significant freight village operationat Crawford Street, Te Rapa. It has significant off-site warehousing for theseproducts, and among its subsidiary businesses also operates a network of RD1 retail3

Fonterra’s key interests in the Proposed RPS include the management of soil andwater resources in the region, such as the protection of versatile productive land,water allocation and quality, and avoiding reverse sensitivity issues for farming anddairy manufacturing activities.In addition, Fonterra seeks more explicit recognition of the value of major land usesand industry such as dairy manufacturing sites (this will be the subject of specificsubmissions below) to the Waikato community, especially in supporting theachievement of economic and social objectives.Specific provisions supported by Fonterra and which are sought to be retained are asfollows:Section 1 – IssuesThis section identifies six regionally significant resource management issues.Fonterra supports this approach of clearly targeting the issues that will be addressedby the RPS.Objective 3.25 – High Class SoilsFonterra supports Objective 3.25, which is that “the value of high class soils forprimary production is recognised and high class soils are protected frominappropriate subdivision, use or development.”Section 4 – Integrated ManagementFonterra supports in part the intent of Section 4 Integrated Management in seekingintegration between councils for a consistent approach to resource management.Fonterra recognises the need for consistency in processes such as consent duration,but considers that this needs to be balanced with flexibility to allow situations to beassessed on their own merits. Fonterra’s specific submission to oppose in partSection 4 is provided later in this submission.Section 5 - Air PoliciesFonterra supports Policy 5.2 Manage Discharges to Air and supports in part Policy5.3 Limit Adverse Effects on Amenity as being realistic and appropriate. The policy5

lists matters to take into account when determining whether any degradation isreasonably achievable, and Fonterra has particular support for b) the age of andability to upgrade existing infrastructure; e) the extent to which it is possible to applythe best available technique; and g) economic and social issues.Section 6 – Built EnvironmentThe direction given in Section 6 is to provide protection of high value rural land andthe efficient and sustainable use of resources, especially for water. Fonterra issupportive of this approach and notes that one of the benefits of urban growthmanagement strategies is that it provides direction and certainty for not only urbanactivities but also for rural activities and major industry (the latter being located inboth urban and rural environments). The direction taken in the Proposed RPS isconsistent with the Bay of Plenty RPS, and this is appropriate for adjoining regions.Fonterra generally supports Policy 6.1 Planned and Co-ordinated Development,which recognises the long term planning horizons and seeks to guide through theprinciples in Section 6A. One of Fonterra’s specific submissions seeks the addition ofa further consideration to the principles in Section 6A to include the consideration ofthe availability of necessary resources, such as water, and the potential impacts onexisting resource users.Fonterra supports Policy 6.7 Access to Minerals for appropriately recognising, forexample, the potential benefits of further development of the region’s minerals.Fonterra generally supports Policies 6.12, and 6.14 to 6.18 concerning Future Proofand the principle of co-ordination amongst councils, but this is conditional onamendments to Sections 6A and 6C sought by Fonterra in specific submissions laterin this document.Section 6A sets out general development principles for new development andprinciples specific to rural residential development. The use of consistent principles toguide decision making is supported in part by Fonterra, and in particular principle “l”,which is that new development should “not result in incompatible adjacent land uses,such as with respect to industry, rural activities and existing or plannedinfrastructure…”. However, Fonterra has a specific submission (later in thisdocument) to oppose in part Section 6A, as the application of these principles needto retain flexibility to respond to particular situations.6

Policy 8.3 appropriately and realistically identifies the activities to maintain orenhance the values of water bodies.Implementation Method 8.3.8 Industry Self-management directs the WaikatoRegional Council to collaborate with primary industry to investigate self-managementto reduce non-point discharges. Fonterra supports this approach and notes that itcomplements Implementation Method 8.4.4 Work with Primary Industry, whichrequires collaboration with primary industry groups to investigate options to meetoutcomes for identified catchments.Section 9 - Geothermal ResourcesFonterra is generally supportive of the policy framework for the use and developmentof geothermal resources, as doing so helps to support the National Grid supplyelectricity to its Dairy Manufacturing Sites, and also provides security of supply forthe farming community.Section 12 - LandscapeFonterra supports the identification of outstanding natural regional landscapes in theProposed RPS, as this avoids argument about what is and what isn’t regionallyoutstanding.Section 14 - SoilsFonterra supports Policy 14.1 Maintain or Enhance the Values of the Soil Resource.Policy 14.2 High Class Soils is also supported as this seeks to avoid a decline in theavailability of such soils for primary production due to inappropriate subdivision, useor development.General Relief SoughtFonterra seeks that all the provisions of the Proposed RPS are retained, except tothe extent that specific changes are made in accordance with the relief sought byFonterra in the balance of this submission and any further submission that Fonterramay make at the appropriate time. Where specific relief is provided, Fonterra would7

accept words to like effect or as otherwise may be required to ensure sustainablemanagement.3.0 SPECIFIC SUBMISSIONSWithout limiting the generality of Section 2 above, Fonterra wishes to submit onspecific provisions of the Proposed RPS as set out below.4.0 Introduction - Section 3.4 – National Policy Statements4.1 SubmissionThe reference in paragraph 1 to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement(currently under review) is now out of date as the New Zealand Coastal PolicyStatement 2010 is now operative.A National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity has also recently beenproposed and should be noted along with the proposed NPSs on FreshwaterManagement and Renewable Energy Generation.4.2 Relief SoughtAmend the first paragraph of Section 3.4 to refer to the New Zealand Coastal PolicyStatement 2010.Amend the second paragraph of Section 3.4 to refer to the Proposed National PolicyStatement on Indigenous Biodiversity.5.0 Introduction - Section 4 – Policy Horizon5.1 SubmissionThe second sentence of the first paragraph refers to the fact that issues oftenemerge or evolve over time and that it will also take time to “address them and halt orreverse any downward trends.” Some downward trends, however, may be desirable,for example decreasing nutrient or bacterial levels in soils and so less prescriptiverewording is appropriate.5.2 Relief SoughtAmend the last sentence of Paragraph 1 as follows:“...reverse any undesirable downward trends.”8

6.0 Reader’s Guide - Section 1 – Structure of the Regional Policy Statement6.1 SubmissionThe second sentence of Part A: Issues and Objectives states that there are twentysixobjectives that address the six identified significant resource management issues.However, Section 3 of the Proposed RPS only enumerates 25 objectives.6.2 Relief SoughtReword the second sentence of Part A as follows:“Twenty five six objectives address the issues.”7.0 Reader’s Guide - Section 2 – General Interpretation7.1 SubmissionThe fifth bullet point provides guidance as to how the words ‘should’ and ‘shall’ are tobe interpreted within the RPS. Fonterra submits that there should also be advice onhow the term ‘will’ is to be interpreted. It is understood that methods that incorporatethe word ‘will’ are activities that the Waikato Regional Council will undertake, and thispoint should be clarified in the text.7.2 Relief SoughtAdd a new sixth bullet point to Section 2 as follows:“Methods that are required to be undertaken by the Waikato Regional Counciluse the word ‘will’.”8.0 Reader’s Guide - Map 16-18.1 SubmissionMap 16-1 is entitled “Waikato region”, however the word ‘region’ should becapitalised as the term is a proper noun and refers to a defined rather than a generalarea. Fonterra notes that this error occurs elsewhere in the Proposed RPS, andshould be corrected.8.2 Relief SoughtAmend the title of Map 16-1 to read:“Map 16-1: Waikato Rregion”9

Make global changes throughout the RPS as necessary to correct this error where itoccurs.9.0 Issue 1.1 – State of Resources9.1 SubmissionSubsection e) of Issue 1.1 needs to give broader recognition to the potential forconflicts between activities, not just those in the coastal marine area.9.2 Relief SoughtAmend subsection e) of Issue 1.1 as follows:“e) increasing potential for conflicts between activities throughout the WaikatoRegion including in the coastal marine area; and”10.0 Issue 1.2 – Effects of Climate Change10.1 SubmissionThe second bullet point in the explanation in relation to Issue 1.2 refers to different“crops”. In this context it would be more appropriate to refer more widely to different“types of farming”.10.2 Relief SoughtAmend the second bullet point in the explanation in relation to Issue 1.2 to read:“changes to the region’s suitability for different crops types of farming.”11.0 Issue 1.4 – Managing the Built Environment11.1 SubmissionWhile Fonterra supports the matters identified in subsection d) of the secondparagraph, Fonterra seeks that coal be explicitly noted as a particular mineralresource, given its importance as an energy source.Fonterra submits that a key issue in the management of the built environment is theability to access resources when such development is under consideration and theimpacts that development requiring such access may have on existing resourceusers. This is especially significant in relation to access to water for increases in thebuilt environment, whether for industrial or domestic supply, given the allocation10

status of a number of the Region’s catchments. In many ways this is an equivalentconsideration to point c); demand for and conflicts with infrastructure.11.2 Relief SoughtAmend subsection d) of the second paragraph as follows:“d) the effect of development on access to mineral resources (particularly coaland aggregates), high quality soils, and future energy development sites.”Add a new subsection to the second paragraph as subsection e):“e) increasing demands for constrained resources e.g. water, and increasingimpacts on, and conflicts with, existing resource users.”12.0 Objective 3.24 – Values of Soil12.1 SubmissionThe value of soil is also to generate social and economic benefit, and this should berecognised in Objective 3.24, in addition to the other values listed.12.2 Relief SoughtAmend Objective 3.24 as follows:“The values of the soil resource are maintained or enhanced, including:a) the existing and foreseeable range of uses; andb) its life-supporting capacity; andc) the creation of social and economic benefit.”13.0 Objective 3.26 – Economic Benefits13.1 SubmissionFonterra considers that an explicit objective recognising the economic benefits thatcan accrue to the Waikato and national community through the sustainable use of theresources and infrastructure should be added. This would be similar in principle toObjective 3.7 – Ecosystem Services.13.2 Relief SoughtAdd a new objective (Objective 3.26) as follows:11

“The economic and social benefits to the regional and national community bythe sustainable use and development of the Region’s resources andinfrastructure are enabled.”14.0 Section 4 – Integrated Management14.1 SubmissionImplementation Method 4.1.2 Land Use Change provides for Waikato RegionalCouncil to manage the adverse effects of large-scale land use intensification,including by c) “collaborating with territorial authorities, tangata whenua, industry,landowners and other stakeholders to identify potential future land use pressures thatmay cause or increase the pace of land use change”.Although subsection c) gives an appropriate list of parties to be involved, Fonterranotes that the term ‘landowners’ isn’t used consistently throughout the ProposedRPS. This could be interpreted by plan users to mean that such parties have a lowerstatus than others that are explicitly listed. ‘Landowners’ should be included in anysimilar list in the Proposed RPS to avoid confusion, for example in the first sentenceof Implementation Method 8.3.6 Management of Lakes.14.2 Relief SoughtMake global changes throughout the Proposed RPS to ensure inclusion oflandowners in lists of parties, where relevant.15.0 Section 4.1.10 - Terms of Consents15.1 SubmissionIn considering the appropriate term for which resource consents should be granted,consent authorities should also consider the economic and social benefits of anactivity, rather than exclusively focussing on risks and adverse effects. For example,stopbanks have considerable economic and social benefit and this is a relevantmatter to take into account when determining an appropriate consent term.Section 123 of the RMA provides a maximum of 35 years for the duration of aconsent. Fonterra seeks that rather than limiting the term of the consent, reviewconditions should be included in consent conditions as consent holders requirecertainty of their investments.12

18.0 Section 4A – Coastal Environment Maps18.1 SubmissionFonterra supports the definition of the landward extent of the coastal environmentshown on maps. The scale of the maps, however, presents an issue for users, as thewidth of the mapped line is approximately 100m wide and will not allow landownersto determine if their properties are within the coastal environment or not, and to whatextent.18.2 Relief SoughtProvide the maps in Section 4A at a large scale to enable landowners and other planusers to determine which properties are included within the coastal environment.19.0 Section 5 Air – Objectives and Policies19.1 SubmissionThe applicability of objectives and policies (e.g. Policy 5.1) to resource consentapplications is unclear. The Proposed RPS does not clarify which policies apply towhich processes, and in what cases they do not apply. Most of the ImplementationMethods throughout the Proposed RPS refer to regional and district plans being themeans by which the policies will be implemented, but there are very few referencesto the policies being considered in the context of a resource consent application or anotice of requirement. This uncertainty creates the potential for all policies to beapplied to a resource consent application, even though they may not be relevant. Inaddition, there is uncertainty about what happens in the event that tasks assigned toWaikato Regional Council in this section have not been completed.By contrast, Fonterra has found the guidance in the Proposed Bay of Plenty RPS onpolicy applicability to be helpful, in principle. The Proposed Bay of Plenty RPSintends, in its policy numbering, to make it immediately clear which policies are to beused in what circumstances. For example, the ‘A’ policies are intended to relate onlyto district and regional plans and are not a consideration in the assessment ofresource consent applications and notices of requirement. ‘B’ policies are to apply toresource consents and notices of requirement.The Waikato RPS would benefit from this level of clarity.14

19.2 Relief SoughtInsert a section at the beginning of Section B to explain how the subsequent policieswill be applied (e.g. do all policies apply to all situations?), and renumber policiesaccordingly to enable plan users to easily determine whether they are relevant to aparticular situation.20.0 Implementation Method 5.1.2 – Determine Unacceptable Risk20.1 SubmissionNot all of the documents listed (a) – (e) in Method 5.1.2 are relevant or applicable inany given situation. The method should be amended to indicate that suchdocuments will be referred to as relevant and applicable.20.2 Relief SoughtAmend Method 5.1.2 to read:“In determining unacceptable risk to human health and ecosystems WaikatoRegional Council will, as relevant and applicable, have regard to: …”21.0 Implementation Method 5.3.1 – Control Discharges21.1 SubmissionIn determining whether an objectionable effect has occurred Fonterra submits thatregard should also be given, not only to the location, but also to the reasonable landuse practices that may occur at that location e.g. the smell of silage in the ruralenvironment.21.2 Relief SoughtAmend Method 5.3.1 to read:“a) frequency, intensity, offensiveness, duration, and location of the incidentand reasonable land use practices; while …”22.0 Section 6 – Built Environment22.1 SubmissionThe RPS is an important document against which proposals are required to beassessed under s.104 of the RMA in the context of a resource consent applications.There appear to be few or no policies in the RPS that specifically focus on, or seek toachieve, the positive social, economic, and cultural outcomes (and the health and15

safety of people and communities) that are achievable from the development, ongoingoperation, and/or expansion of major industries and land use within theWaikato Region.22.2 Relief SoughtThe section of the Proposed RPS dealing with the ‘built environment’ should beexpanded to cover major industries and land uses within the Waikato Region.Alternatively, there should be a new section in the Proposed RPS which sets outregional objectives and policies focusing on major industries and land use within theWaikato Region. Such provisions should recognise and encourage the positivesocial, economic, and cultural outcomes that are achievable from the development,on-going operation, and/or expansion of major industries and land use within theWaikato Region.23.0 Section 6 – Built Environment – Policy 6.123.1 SubmissionAlthough the provisions of Section 6 provide a level of detail on how developmentshould occur, there is no specific mention of reverse sensitivity issues in the policyframework, even though this is given particular mention in Objective 3.11 BuiltEnvironment, subsection e). Fonterra considers that Policy 6.1 Planned and CoordinatedDevelopment needs to specifically refer to the adverse effect of reversesensitivity.Further, there is no explicit recognition of either the current ability of resources tosupport expansion of the built environment (e.g. the ability to access the waterresource to the extent necessary to allow such growth to occur at all), or the impactsof such a demand on resources on existing resource users.23.2 Relief SoughtAmend Policy 6.1 as follows:“Development of the built environment, including transport and otherinfrastructure, occurs in a planned and co-ordinated manner which:a) …b) recognises and addresses potential cumulative effects of development,including reverse sensitivity effects; and…”c) …..; and16

d) has regard to availability of necessary resources, the ability to access suchresources, and the implications for existing resources users should thisoccur.”24.0 Policy 6.6 – Significant Infrastructure and Energy Resources24.1 SubmissionPolicy 6.6 is opposed in part by Fonterra. Although the policy appropriately refers toexisting and planned regionally significant infrastructure and energy resources, thisdefinition of regionally significant infrastructure does not include major industry andland use such as dairy manufacturing sites, freight hubs, cool-stores, and othersupporting facilities.24.2 Relief SoughtAmend Policy 6.6 to refer to major industry and land uses, or in the alternative,amend the definition of “regionally significant infrastructure” and “infrastructure” assought by Fonterra later in this submission.25.0 Implementation Method 6.6.1 – Plan Provisions25.1 SubmissionMethod 6.6.1 in relation to regionally significant infrastructure is supported, howeverit should be noted that the social, economic, cultural and environmental benefits ofregionally significant infrastructure cannot be realised without non-renewable energyforming part of the country’s generation portfolio for the foreseeable future.The list of plan provisions in Policy 6.6.1 includes provision f) recognising “theincreasing requirement for electricity generation from renewable sources such asgeothermal, wind and marine.” Fonterra’s farming shareholders (and others) mayconsider small scale electricity generation such as that fuelled by biogas. Theseactivities will help to reduce the demand on the regional and national electricitysystem and should be explicitly provided for.25.2 Relief SoughtAmend Policy 6.6.1, provision f) as follows:“f) recognises the increasing requirement for electricity generation fromrenewable sources such as geothermal, wind and marine, including small scaleand distributed generation, to complement non-renewable sources.”17

26.0 Policy 6.13 Adopting Future Proof Land Use Pattern26.1 SubmissionPolicy 6.13 incorporates a requirement in subsection d) to predominantly locateindustrial development in strategic industrial nodes identified in Table 6-2. Fonterraopposes this requirement unless Table 6-2 is amended to reflect Table 2 in ProposedChange No 2, as sought in a specific submission later in this submission.26.2 Relief SoughtDelete Policy 6.13, subsection d) or in the alternative, amend Table 6-2 to reflectTable 2 in Proposed Change 2 to the operative Waikato RPS.27.0 Section 6A27.1 SubmissionNeither the general nor the specific rural residential development principles inSection 6A include any particular reference to reverse sensitivity issues, and yet thismatter is noted in Objective 3.11 as an example of land use conflict. Along withamendments to Policy 6.1 to specifically list reverse sensitivity as an example of apotential cumulative adverse effect, Fonterra seeks that development principles areamended to explicitly refer to reverse sensitivity effects.27.2 Relief SoughtAmend principle (l) to the general development principles in Section 6A as follows:“(l)not result in incompatible adjacent land uses, such as with respect toindustry, rural activities and existing or planned infrastructure, and theavoidance of reverse sensitivity effects;”28.0 Section 6B – Significant Transport Infrastructure Maps28.1 SubmissionFonterra supports the identification of significant transport corridors in Map 6.1A –Significant Transport Corridors (Hamilton). However, all maps in the Proposed RPSneed to accurately reflect the city boundaries. In particular, Map 6.1A requiresamendment to the Hamilton City / Waikato District boundary which is incorrect.28.2 Relief SoughtAmend Map 6.1A to update the Hamilton City / Waikato District boundary.18

29.0 Section 6C – Future Proof Maps and Tables29.1 SubmissionFonterra opposes the Future Proof indicative urban limit Map 6.-1 as it is vague andthe specific implications for Fonterra’s sites are not clear. In addition, a strategicindustrial node has not been identified on the map at Hautapu.Fonterra opposes Table 6-2 as it omits key strategic industrial nodes such asHautapu. Land allocations have been arbitrarily changed from Proposed Change No.2 for the remaining industrial nodes e.g. Te Rapa North, without consultation.29.2 Relief SoughtIdentify a strategic industrial node at Hautapu, on Map 6-1, and make consequentialamendments elsewhere in the RPS e.g. Table 6-2, to refer to Hautapu accordingly.Amend Table 6-2 to reinstate the land allocation levels for Te Rapa North that wereincluded in Table 2 of the Proposed Change No. 2.30.0 Implementation Method 8.1.6 - Information Gathering30.1 SubmissionSubsection e) directs the Waikato Regional Council to undertake research funded inpart by consent holders, to determine e.g. minimum flows, allocable flows andsustainable yields. This information is of benefit to the entire Waikato community,particularly in respect of the social and economic benefit provided by direct andindirect employment which arises as a result of the activity requiring a consent toabstract water. On that basis, consent holders already bear the cost of modelling,monitoring and assessing the effects of their individual water abstraction and thisinformation is provided to Council via the consenting process and the routinemonitoring reporting required. It would also give existing consent holders who haveyears left in the duration of their consents a cost advantage over new applicants.Furthermore, it is not clear from subsection (e) to what extent consent holders wouldbe required to financially contribute to research.30.2 Relief SoughtAmend Implementation Method 8.1.6, subsection e) as follows:“e) undertake research, funded in part by consent holders to determine e.g.minimum flows, allocable flows, sustainable yields, water flow rates and the19

effects of reduced flows/levels, especially in relation to areas of highuse/demand.”31.0 Implementation Method 8.3.1 – Point Source Discharges31.1 SubmissionClause (e) of Method 8.3.1 needs to clarify what is mean by the reference to“allocation potential”.31.2 Relief SoughtAmend clause (e) of Method 8.3.1 to read:“e) does not reduce the allocation potential of the water body for watertakes.”32.0 Implementation Method 8.3.3 – Non-point Source Discharges32.1 SubmissionSubsection c) of Implementation Method 8.3.3 Non-point Discharge Sources is“introducing controls on intensification of primary production”, however this matter isalready covered under subsection b) “investigating options for controlling the adverseeffects of increases in intensity of activities that may involve the discharge ofcontaminants (including nutrients) to water”.The Proposed RPS should not be prescriptive about managing particular activities,but instead should focus on managing effects.Subsection d) is to “introducing controls on contaminant discharges”, but it is moreappropriate to focus on the effects of contaminant discharges.Further, within paragraph 5 of the Explanation it is stated that in the case of lakes,the discharge of nutrients warrants further investigation AND control. If furtherinvestigation is required, how can such a definitive decision be made to requirecontrol at this point in time? Conversely, if the case is clear for control why is there aneed for further investigation?32.2 Relief SoughtDelete subsection c) of Section 8.3.3.Amend subsection d) of Section 8.3.3 as follows:20

d) “introducing controls on the adverse effects of contaminant discharges”.Amend paragraph 5 of the Explanation as follows:“…this type of discharge warrants further investigation and, if then found to beappropriate, control (Method 8.3.6).”33.0 Implementation Method 8.3.7 Natural Functioning and Ecological Healthof Water Bodies33.1 SubmissionSubsection e) seeks to avoid the modification of water bodies including the piping orstraightening of the water body where practicable. This provision does not provide forthe situation where there may be good environmental reasons to modify the waterbodies, and should be amended to provide more flexibility in those situations.33.2 Relief SoughtAmend Implementation Method 8.3.7 subsection e) as follows:“e) avoiding the modification of water bodies including the piping orstraightening of the water body where practicable, unless where doing so willresult in a net environmental benefit.”34.0 Implementation Method 8.4.2 – Process for Identifying CatchmentManagement Approach34.1 SubmissionSubsection j) is overly prescriptive and does not recognise that it is the manner inwhich land use occurs, rather than the intensity of the land use, that often plays a keyrole in determining both the extent of any adverse effects on the environment. TheProposed RPS should be focussing on controlling adverse effects, not land use orthe intensity of such land use per se.34.2 Relief SoughtAmend Implementation Method 8.4.2, subsection j) as follows:“j) directing regional and district plans to control the adverse effects of land useincluding changes or intensification of land use.”21

35.0 Implementation Method 8.4.3 – Nutrient-sensitive water bodies35.1 SubmissionSubsection b) is overly prescriptive. The Proposed RPS should be focussing oncontrolling adverse effects, not land use per se.35.2 Relief SoughtAmend Implementation Method 8.4.3, subsection b) as follows:“b) consider mechanisms for the control of the adverse effects of land useincluding through…..”.36.0 Implementation Method 8.5.1 – Waikato River Authority36.1 SubmissionFonterra supports Implementation Method 8.5.1 in principle, but considers that itneeds to qualify that the intended integrated, holistic and co-ordinated approach bebased on best practice.36.2 Relief SoughtAmend Implementation Method 8.5.1 as follows:“Waikato Regional Council and territorial authorities will, in conjunction with theWaikato River Authority, promote an integrated, holistic and co-ordinatedapproach, having regard to best practice, to implementing the Vision andStrategy for the Waikato River and managing the Waikato River and itscatchments.”37.0 Policy 8.6 – Allocating Fresh Water37.1 SubmissionPolicy 8.6 seeks that the allocation of fresh water be managed in a manner thatensures sufficient water is available to meet reasonably foreseeable needs, includingby prioritising applications for the take and use of water.The philosophy of prioritisation was formerly part of Variation 6 to the ProposedRegional Plan and, as Fonterra understands, was incorporated at the time of thedrafting of the RPS to ensure alignment with the proposed Variation. Prioritisation, inthe manner described, has subsequently been removed from Variation 6 (as nowproposed by the Waikato Regional Council). Accordingly, the Proposed RPS shouldbe amended to maintain alignment with what is now proposed within Variation 6.22

37.2 Relief SoughtDelete subsection a) from Policy 8.6.38.0 Implementation Method 8.6.1 – Manage allocation of water38.1 SubmissionThe allocation of water should be undertaken in a manner that does not adverselyaffect any existing users of water, not just those associated with electricity generationfrom renewable energy sources.The subject matter of this method is currently the subject of Variation 6 to theWaikato Regional Plan. It is appropriate for the RPS and the outcome of Variation 6to be aligned and consistent.38.2 Relief SoughtAmend subsection f) to read as follows:“f) not adversely affecting existing users of water, including existing electricitygeneration from renewable energy sources.”Amend Implementation Method 8.6.1 to ensure that it is aligned with the outcome ofVariation 6 (the expectation being that the decision on Variation 6 will be releasedprior to the determination of submissions on the Proposed RPS). If necessary,promote a variation to the Proposed RPS to achieve this outcome.39.0 Implementation Method 8.6.2 – Manage Increasing Water Demand39.1 SubmissionImplementation Method 8.6.2 is that regional plans shall prioritise consent applicantsfor water take and use according to the prescribed order of priority.The philosophy of prioritisation was formerly part of Variation 6 to the ProposedRegional Plan and, Fonterra understands, was incorporated at the time of thedrafting of the RPS to ensure alignment with the proposed Variation. Prioritisation, inthe manner described, has subsequently been removed from Variation 6 as nowproposed by the Waikato Regional Council. Accordingly, the Proposed RPS shouldbe amended to maintain alignment with what is now proposed within the Variation.23

39.2 Relief SoughtDelete Implementation Method 8.6.2.40.0 Implementation Method 14.3.1 – Control discharges to land40.1 SubmissionConsideration is given to both setting maximum annual discharge limits and adoptingrisk based guidelines. Through the councils active participation in the developmentof a national cadmium strategy it will understand that where a risk based approach isin place there is no need to set maximum annual discharge limits and that to do somay in fact compromise the ability of such an approach to operate effectively.It is recognised that such strategies and risk based guidelines do not exist for allcontaminants.Fonterra notes that the explanation states that “Contaminants causing concerninclude cadmium”. In the media release made by MAF, the lead agency in thedevelopment of the national cadmium strategy (in which the Waikato RegionalCouncil was an active participant), MAF states that “The Cadmium ManagementStrategy is a best practice approach to ensure that cadmium in rural soils remains aminimal risk to health, trade, land use flexibility and the environment over the next100 years” and that “While cadmium levels in soils present no risk to NewZealanders, the Cadmium Management Strategy will ensure ….the situation staysthat way”.Given this position from MAF, as a result of a process that the Waikato RegionalCouncil was an active participant in, Fonterra believes the level of concern regardingcadmium is overstated and misleading. While a similar case could be made inrelation to fluorine and zinc no national process has yet been carried out to quantifythe extent, if any, of any risk associated with these elements. Therefore Fonterraaccepts that by the nature of that risk not being quantified there may be some level ofconcern as a result.40.2 Relief SoughtAmend Implementation Method 14.3.1 as follows:a) Setting maximum annual discharge limits; or andb) adopting risk-based guidelines….”24

Amend the third paragraph of the Explanation as follows:“Contaminants currently causing concern include cadmium, fluorine and zinc…”41.0 Section 14 – Soils, Implementation Method 14.4.1(b)41.1 SubmissionImplementation Method 14.4.1 supports Policy 14.4 which seeks to identify andmanage contaminated land, through requiring district plans to require a soilassessment prior to any land use change, development or subdivision, on certainland, such as land known to be associated with a current or historic industry oractivity listed on the Hazardous Activities and Industries List (subsection (b)).Fonterra considers that it is appropriate to require a soil assessment if the land usechanges to a more sensitive land use e.g. a school or residential developmentHowever, such an assessment will not be warranted for all circumstances ofdevelopment. For example, Fonterra’s Te Rapa site is zoned for heavy industry.Any development on the site will be an expansion of the existing heavy industrial use,and does not justify the preparation of a soil assessment particularly if the newdevelopment results in additional hardstand.The Proposed RPS should focus on the nature of the change and its effects.Further, it should be clarified that the need to carry out a soil assessment onlyapplies to that area of land which will undergo land use change. This would alignwith the approach currently captured within the proposed National EnvironmentalStandard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soils.41.2 Relief SoughtAmend Method 14.4.1 to read:“District plans shall require a soil assessment prior to land use change,development or subdivision of any land where the proposed new land use ismore sensitive to the actual or potential effects of contaminated land than thecurrent use and the land that: …”Add new text at the end of Method 14.4.1 that reads:“Such soil assessments will relate to the specific area of land for which landuse change is being considered and not those areas of land which willmaintain a similar land use, or move to a less sensitive land use.25

No assessment will be required where an industrial activity proposes toexpand on a site that is zoned for industrial purposes.”42.0 Implementation Method 14.5.1 – Manage Peat Subsidence42.1 SubmissionThe method indicates that controls shall be placed on activities on peat soils howeverthe explanation says that research is required to better understand the effects of landmanagement on the rate of subsidence. Requiring controls without being clear asneither to the extent of the issue nor the ability of land managers to practicallyaddress subsidence through management of activities is an inappropriate approach.42.2 Relief SoughtAmend Implementation Method 14.5.1 as follows:“Regional plans shall control activities on peat soils, if necessary, to:”43.0 Section 15 – Monitoring and Evaluation43.1 SubmissionEnvironmental Result Anticipated 15.4.1 Integrated Management (a) is that land useactivities are appropriately located to avoid future adverse effects, including theeffects of climate change. Fonterra seeks that the adverse effect of reversesensitivity is explicitly mentioned in this provision to support the high level directiongiven in the Objective 3.11.Similarly, the anticipated environmental results concerning the built environment in15.4.3 do not currently include avoiding effects of reverse sensitivity.43.2 Relief SoughtAmend 15.4.1 (a) as follows:“that land use activities are appropriately located to avoid future adverse effects,including the effects of climate change and the effects of reverse sensitivity...”Add a new subsection to 15.4.3 as follows:“Development does not result in reverse sensitivity effects on existing andplanned activities.”26

44.0 Glossary44.1 SubmissionThe definition of “Infrastructure” is too narrow and needs to be broadened beyondnetwork utility operators to include significant industry which provides for social andeconomic wellbeing, and in which significant investment has been made.In addition, large scale industrial activities such as Dairy Manufacturing Sites shouldbe included in the definition of “Regionally Significant Infrastructure.”A definition for “Reverse Sensitivity” is required, and should refer not only to theoperation of an existing activity that may be constrained, but also its possible futuregrowth.A new definition of “Water Body” is required to exclude farm drains, which should bedefined separately.44.2 Relief SoughtAmend the definition of “Infrastructure” as follows:“Infrastructure means networks, links and parts of facility systems such as intransport infrastructure (roads, rail, parking, etc) or water systeminfrastructure (the pipes, pumps and treatment works, etc), or significantindustry which provides for social and economic wellbeing and in whichsignificant investment has been made.”Amend the definition of “Regionally Significant Infrastructure” as follows:“Regionally Significant Infrastructure includes…(k) Dairy Manufacturing Sites.”Add a new definition of Reverse Sensitivity as follows:“Reverse Sensitivity means the vulnerability of an existing lawfullyestablished activity to complaints from new activities which are sensitive tothe environmental effects being generated by the existing activity, therebycreating the potential for the operation and/or expansion of the existingactivity to be constrained.”27

“Water Body means fresh water or geothermal water in a river, lake, stream,pond wetland or aquifer, or any part thereof, that is not located within thecoastal marine area and excludes farm drains.”“Farm Drain means a constructed channel that provides drainage fromfarmland”45.0 General ReliefIn addition to the relief sought for the each of the specific submissions above,Fonterra also seeks general relief to make all the necessary amendments to achievethe relief sought and to deal with the concerns raised in this submission or tootherwise achieve sustainable management.Representatives of Fonterra are happy to meet with Waikato Regional Council staffprior to completion of the staff reports (or at any stage of the process) to clarify anddiscuss the issues raised in this submission.________________________Adrian PyneEnvironmental Manager NorthFonterra Co-operative Group Ltd________________________Sean NewlandManager, Sustainable Dairying PolicyFonterra Co-operative Group LtdDate: 28 February 201128