ECan’s consent application to spray Canterbury’s surface waters with agrichemicals puts cost before the environment.

Least cost river works take priority over biodiversity

Introduction

In response to a submission against Ecan’s application by the New Zealand Federation of Freshwater Anglers, Environment Canterbury notified the NZFFA in 22 July 2024 that it was granting itself consents for 15 years to discharge agrichemicals to all regional water bodies.

The agrichemicals include the use of generic products that have glyphosate, diquat and triclopyr as their active ingredients.

The Hearing Decision and Report was made by three independent Hearing Commissioners; Dr Hilke Giles, Dr Ngaire Phillips and Dr Greg Ryder (Chair).

The Canterbury Regional Council was the consenting authority, and the Rivers Section of the Canterbury Regional Council was the “Applicant”.

Three hearing commissioners hired by ECan have approved the application of non-selective, ecotoxic, hazardous, agrichemicals across all of Canterbury’s surface water and river margins on a landscape scale for the next 15 years

ECan

ECan’s application was for a twenty year consent term as well as proposing the addition of herbicide formulations “to allow CRC to keep up with any changes in national regulations around agrichemical use and ensure the CRC can adapt and deploy and new agrichemicals that may become available that have a lower health and safety or environmental risk than herbicides currently in use”.

The term of the consents was limited to 15 years while the addition of further herbicide regulations was agreed subject to conditions.

As the consenting authority of over 23,000 individual consents, ECan has many staff employed to manage and monitor resource consents.

In this application ECan had the advantage of controlling the process and the submissions made by its staff. ECan commissioned the external expert reports and employed the Independent Hearing commissioners who agreed to the application.

The Independent Hearing Commissioners

On paper, the Independent Hearing Commissioners appear well qualified to make a Decision on the Application and to determine the conditions of the consents;

• Dr Hilke Giles has qualifications in marine biology and worked for the Waikato Regional Council before setting up her consultancy business.
• Dr Ngaire Phillips has 30 years experience as an environmental scientist with specialist expertise in ecology and environmental toxicology. She is a freshwater commissioner for the Ministry for the Environment.
• Dr Greg Ryder is an independent Environmental Scientist and RMA commissioner based in Ōtepoti / Dunedin. He was a former Director and Environmental Scientist at Ryder Environmental, a consulting company he established in 1995. He worked as a consultant for over 30 years undertaking investigations and studies throughout New Zealand. Major study areas include effects of agricultural land use, mining, gravel extraction, hydro-electric schemes, irrigation, urban storm water and various industrial and municipal sewage discharges on freshwater and coastal ecosystems.

Ryder has acted as an expert witness and has presented at 39 resource consent hearings, nine Environment court hearings, and several Plan Change, Water Conservation Order, and EPA hearings.

Ryder presented evidence on behalf of Trustpower at the hearing to amend the National Water Conservation (Rakaia River) Order 1988
In February 2020 he was appointed to the Board of the EPA and in September 2020 was appointed as a Freshwater Commissioner under the Resource Management Amendment Act 2020.

At a purely legal level, the application and Hearing followed due process in accordance with the RMA 1991 and relevant planning rules.

At a scientific and technical level it is difficult to believe that a marine biologist, a specialist in ecology and environmental toxicology, and an expert in water quality would have agreed to Canterbury’s version of “Operation Ranch Hand”.

The global nature and duration of the consents sought by the applicant make it impossible for the Hearing commissioners consider the environmental effects with any degree of precision.

This uncertainty is exacerbated by mounting evidence from independent international studies that the two primary herbicides, glyphosate and triclopyr, are not benign agrichemicals as the manufacturers claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ranch_Hand

While the Commissioners Report provided evidence that all the submissions were considered, and its Conditions of Consent demonstrate an attempt to mitigate environmental harm, it is hard to believe the Decision was not influenced by political imperatives.

The pragmatic needs of the CRC to “cost effectively” protect the region’s assets from flooding and to control exotic weeds appears to be the overarching reason for granting the resource consents. Less regard appears to have been given to the uncertainty and incomplete understanding of the potentially harmful environmental consequences of global applications of toxic herbicides to Canterbury’s rivers, streams, and drains. These harmful effects extend to risks to human health.

The Consent conditions

The consent conditions attached to the Independent Commissioners agreement and report reflect the very real risks of the agrichemicals to humans and their property with a gesture to environmental mitigation.

Unfortunately there are many knowledge gaps in understanding the complexity of the various freshwater ecosystems that exist within the wider Canterbury region. There are knowledge gaps in the way the agrichemicals accumulate, disperse, or persist in soils, plants, and water bodies at a local level.

The consent conditions cover adherence to generic rules, laws, and good operating practice relating to the use of agrichemicals; notification, qualified operators, signage, spillage, backflow preventers, records, complaints, monitoring, administration, etc.

Conditions relating to mitigation of adverse environmental effects are limited and relate only to bees, bats, and birds. This is because the expert witnesses could not provide definitive evidence to the Hearing commissioners on the potential ecological effects of the application.

This situation is not unlike the irresponsible and reckless decision to allow intensive dairying on light vulnerable irrigated Central Canterbury farmland before having the understanding and means to manage the anticipated nitrate leaching that occurred.

Very High application rates

ECan applies glyphosate at very high application rates in order to defoliate river fairways invaded by woody plants. This point was omitted from ECan’s application and not picked up by the Hearing commissioners.

The concentration of the glyphosate formulations used by ECan under previous consents were at or above label recommendations. The formulations contained toxic surfactants.

An earlier LGOIMA request revealed a glyphosate formulation used by ECan was not approved by the EPA for use over waterways.

The Rakaia River National Water Conservation Order 1988

Under the expired consents ECan has defoliated wide swaths of Rakaia River fairways with defoliating concentrations of glyphosate formulations, up to 17L/ha, combined with toxic adjuvants.

It is debatable whether such widespread habitat destruction is permitted under the Rakaia River NWCO;

9 Resource consents:

(2) Resource consents under the Act shall not be so granted for any discharge into the Rakaia River downstream of its confluence with the Wilberforce River or any part of the bodies of water specified in clause 4, if the effect of the discharge would be to breach the following provisions and standards:

(iv) there shall be no destruction of natural aquatic life by reason of a concentration of toxic substances:

(4) Resource consents under the Act may be granted and general authorisations may be made in respect of any part of the waters specified in this clause for all or any of the following purposes:

(b) the maintenance or protection of roads, bridges, pylons, and other necessary public utilities:

(c) soil conservation and related matters undertaken pursuant to the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941 or the Act:

Concerned anglers have observed increased sediment deposition in the lower braids as established islands were washed away following defoliation.

The massive increase in fine sediment deposition appears to be a primary cause of the collapse in the Stokell’s smelt numbers. Whether in lakes or rivers, smelt populations decline when sediment levels are elevated.

Juvenile salmon smolt rely primarily on terrestrial insects as their food source as they migrate to the sea. Up to 40% of the soil ecology is destroyed following glyphosate applications.

The NZFFA can only express frustration at evidence in the form of “expert opinion” stating that the decline in smelt numbers is more likely caused by reduced flows from irrigation abstraction.

It is the loss of higher flows and reduced variability of flows in Canterbury’s plundered braided rivers that has led to widespread invasion of woody plants and gravel build up in braided river fairways. This increases the risk to ECan’s assets and adjacent farm land when major flood events occur. This is the reason why the agrichemicals have become so widely used by Ecan’s Rivers Section.

It is counter intuitive to claim the use of agrichemicals, which cause a loss of biodiversity, is required to restore biodiversity losses caused by massive irrigation abstraction throughout the Canterbury region.

North Rakaia River fairway following aerial glyphosate application. There is no evidence of “set backs” from the flowing water

Roots and woody debris provide shelter for juvenile salmon. This cover and the deep slow flowing backwater pools where juvenile salmon reside and grow as they migrate to the coast are lost once the braids are defoliated with herbicides.

Glyphosate is not a benign herbicide

Current science is becoming much more concerned about the global use of herbicides such as glyphosate and glyphosate based herbicides as evidenced in the EU review below.

The EU which relies on independent science to a greater extent than countries like the US and NZ which are held captive by agribusiness, is very concerned about probable environmental damage due to glyphosate.

The New Zealand EPA by contrast is both under funded and captured by government appointed managers and scientists. The NZ EPA relies on safety data provided by the manufacturer.

Environmental Sciences Europe

Terrestrial ecotoxicity of glyphosate, its formulations, and co-formulants: evidence from 2010–2023

Szandra Klatyik1, Gergely Simon2, Marianna Olah1, Robin Mesnage3, Michael N. Antoniou3, Johann G. Zaller4* and Andras Szekacs1*:

“There are many knowledge gaps of the effects of GLY/GBH on terrestrial non target organisms and ecosystems that we have identified in this literature review:

• Multispecies and trophic interactions within agricultural

fields and landscapes.

• Detailed studies on the contribution of all ingredients

of a GBH, including AIs, co-formulants, or other

contaminants such as arsenic or lead.

• Effects on soil microbiota composition and function

stemming from the inhibition of the shikimate pathway

and its impact on plant health.

• Since GBHs have been in use for decades, there is

a great need for long-term effects of high and low

chronic exposure in species with short and long generation

times.

• Sequences and interactions of GBHs with other pesticides

applied during the cropping year.

• Carry-over effects of GBH applications to the following

year and influences on GLY-tolerant crops and

resistant weeds, or effects on the disease susceptibility

of crop plants.

• Interactions with other environmental pollutants

such as agrochemicals, antibiotics, other chemicals,

microplastics, parasites and global change factors.

In the absence of information on the above issues, which are vital for accurate ERA assessment of GLY/GBHs, we recommend invoking the precautionary principle enshrined in EU law and removal of this class of herbicides from the market. It is particularly important to do so since GLY/GBHs are applied on a massive scale and that impacts of toxicity can take many years to manifest.”

 

 

Conclusion

The NZFFA accepts that ECan’s application for consents to apply three classes of herbicide globally to the region’s surface water to control exotic weeds followed New Zealand law.

The NZFFA does not accept environmental harm will be limited to the control of exotic weeds.

The NZFFA does not accept the Independent Commissioners agreement was based on adequate science and understanding of Canterbury’s many freshwater ecosystems including Canterbury’s braided rivers.

Anglers have already witnessed the collapse of braided river recreational fisheries following widespread applications of herbicide over several years across the lower river fairways.

Damning international scientific reports warning about public health risks stemming from widespread use of agrichemicals cannot be ignored.

Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is widely recognised by New Zealand health workers as an occupational hazard for users of glyphosate. (Farmers and farm workers).

The NZFFA is disappointed that the Independent Commissioners chose to agree to ECan’s consent application.

Dr Peter Trolove

Executive member

NZFFA

The Lower Hinds River trout fishery has been wiped out from over allocation of water for irrigation and loss of biodiversity through herbicide applications. This photograph shows tracks from ground based herbicide application along the length of the lower Hinds River bed.