We’re taking Environment Canterbury to court over water pollution from nitrates (again)
A judicial review announced today by the Environmental Law Initiative alleges Environment Canterbury failed to account for the impact of nitrogen discharges on drinking water supplies when granting a discharge consent to MHV Water Ltd.
“Environment Canterbury should be guaranteeing communities have access to clean drinking water and protecting freshwater ecosystems.
“Yet the Council has permitted industrial-scale pollution to drinking water and freshwater habitat in the area between Hakatere/Ashburton River and the Rangitata River. Unchallenged, this will continue for years to come.
“We believe there are firm grounds for the Council’s consent to be overturned,” says ELI’s Senior Legal Researcher, Lottie Boardman.
The consent issued by Environment Canterbury applies to nitrogen discharged from more than 58,000 ha of land managed by MHV farmer-shareholders in the area.
According to the figures from MHV’s 2023 consent compliance report, in that year MHV farms were collectively consented to discharge up to an estimated 4,467,000 kilograms of waste nitrogen into groundwater.
High levels of nitrogen in waterways can cause excessive algae growth and oxygen depletion. This process, known as eutrophication, harms aquatic ecosystems by creating "dead zones" where fish, insects and other wildlife struggle to survive.
Additionally, elevated nitrate levels in drinking water sources can pose serious health risks, particularly to infants.
Communities in the areas surrounding MHV farms rely on ground water for their drinking water.
Neither community drinking water operators nor owners of private drinking water wells were notified by Environment Canterbury about the consent.
“This omission meant that Environment Canterbury did not receive key information that it needed to fully understand the effects of the proposed activity, in particular increasing nitrate pollution, on drinking water supplies, and the potential costs to drinking water suppliers of mitigating those effects,” says Ms Boardman.
The court case builds on ELI’s successful challenge to Environment Canterbury’s decision to grant a consent to Ashburton Lyndhurst Irrigation Limited (ALIL), which neighbours the MHV irrigation area. In that case, the High Court found that Environment Canterbury’s decision to grant the discharge consent was based on a material error of law, and the consent issued to ALIL was set aside.
In addition to challenging Environment Canterbury’s decision to grant the consent, ELI is also challenging the council’s failure to take steps to revoke MHV’s consent when it became clear (based on the ALIL case) that it had been granted unlawfully.
“This consent was granted in an area where groundwater and lowland waterways were already degraded because of pollution from agricultural activities in the catchment.
“We need Environment Canterbury to show it is making decisions that will protect the health of our waterways for generations to come,” says Ms Boardman.
The case is expected to be heard in the middle of the year.