HOROWHENUA LAKE BOAT BAN INJUNCTION

THROWN OUT OF MLC, LEVIN Nov 2013

It was an action packed MLC sitting in the Queen St Chapel 11am 19th Nov, 2013 where Philip Taueki filed an injjunction to stop boats using the Lake but not all boats. It ended up he threatening to take the law into his own hands and lost his bid to block boats from using Lake Horowhenua.

Mr Taueki walked out of a Maori Land Court hearing in Levin as Judge Michael Doogan deliberated his interim injunction against boats that were not kept permanently at the lake and said there was no case. He also sought the removal of the Horowhenua Rowing Club from its building at the lake as basically they have no lease but as the injkunction was only for the boat ban the Judge passed.

"I'll stop every boat that goes on the lake and I'll kick those people out of that building," Mr Taueki said.

Mr Taueki has had altercations with lake users over the years and claims to have the right to use reasonable force to evict people who are not obeying bylaws.

That argument has been tested in front of the Supreme Court, with a ruling yet to be made.

Earlier in yesterday's 90-minute hearing, Mr Taueki argued such a ban was necessary because the lake was "at risk of irreversible damage" if any of three species of invasive aquatic weed reached it. In fact the [ Chisolm report ] sats that the Lake will FLIP which means it will reach the point of no return.

Mr Taueki said boats kept at the lake could still be used, provided they weren't used in any other waterways. A wash-down facility was needed. This had been recommended in a report two years ago by Niwa scientist Max Gibbs but no action had been taken. The call was repeated in a report by environmental consultant Bill Chisholm this month, sparking Mr Taueki's latest legal bid.

It was a privilege for members of the public to use the privately owned lake but if they did not have access to a wash-down facility, then they placed the lake at risk.

In response Roger Downey the lawyer acting for the Domain Board said this same case was presented by Judge Harvey back in 2010 and no solution was given but was repititious See A20090001234. Of course Doogan the presiding Judge had no knowledge on this. Downey wanted the case dismissed cause of the repetition; balance of convenience, and that the only new evidence was from Chisolm. The rowing club lawyer Ross Kerr said the rowing club always washed down boats after they were used in other waterways, before they were returned to Lake Horowhenua and in fact at all times rowers boats are OK as the main culprits would be boats coming in from other area on trailers.

Department of Conservation lawyer James Hardy said boating on the lake was a lawful activity and granting the injunction would result in ramifications to the community that would be disproportionate to the risks alleged by Mr Taueki. Not one lawyer spoke of the present situation of the Lake that it could FLIP any time and reach the point of no return. Mathew Sword spoke for the Lake Trust and Accord saying progress had been made and they are going for funding but the Judge never asked what are they doing specifically?

Only one public meeting has been held and apart from 1/. Royguard --for Horizons being paid to count the fish? & 2/. A David Brown working on monitoring the height of the Lake in the middle???

Judge Doogan ruled he did not have enough evidence, particularly scientific evidence, to grant the injunction. He said he would consider written evidence from the parties before deciding if a further hearing was required. So now the Lake just gets worse as the boats can all use the Lake and noone cares a hoot.

Some parts from the Manawatu Standard © Fairfax NZ News 20/11/13

IN SUMMARY:

The applicant was asked to produce further scientific evidence regarding this Lake issue which he could not present. Simple question? However if he had been more diplomatic and not berated the Judge he could have asked for more time. In essence packing a tantrum proves and motivates noone and this was a case that if one does not get his way, then to hell with it all and everyone concerned. Unfortunately this was the case seen here. This is a wrong attitude to take and the supposed $1000 filing fee down the tube all because of the behaviour? A Judge is not going to be swayed by someone who throws tantrims and consistantly out of order as he must deliver his judgement based on the facts asked for and produced to the Court. So in this case if the applicant had of used diplomacy then things may have been a little different but it was not to be as was shown in the manner of the applicant this day.

Then LAKE ACCORD IS A JOKE. THE IWI MEMBERS ARE OUT FOR MONEY & JOBS FOR THEMSELVES AS THEY LOOK FOR FUNDING EVERYTHING BUT CLEANING OUT THE SEDIMENT OF THIS LAKE. MOST OF THEM HAVE NO IDEA. MOST OF THEM ARE FOR THEMSELVES

But first of all to start any cleanup the contamination must be stopped entering the Lake and those taken to task like this Council who polluted the Lake & still do nothing.

3rd November 2013-11-03

Re:  Lake Horowhenua Visit 1st November

Thanks very much for showing me around parts of Lake Horowhenua, and explaining some of the issues affecting this lake.  I found it a very interesting visit to a beautiful area. For the record, I am an independent consultant ecologist specialising in freshwater ecology, resource management and biosecurity.  I have a Masters degree in Zoology and I am a Certified Environmental Practitioner with the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand.

I’ve read the reports by Kate Arthur (dated November 2012), and Max Gibbs (dated January 2012), but I have not researched the Council, legal or political issues sufficiently to be able to comment on them much.

As discussed, in my opinion the lake faces two critical risks to its natural state, amenity values and fishery values; and hence its utility as a customary, commercial and recreational resource.

Risk 1:  Threat of invasive aquatic plants

There are three species of invasive aquatic weed which could find their way into Lake Horowhenua: 

• Lagarosiphon major (known as “Lagarosiphon”)
• Ceratophyllum demersum (known as “Hornwort”)
• Egeria densa (known as “Egeria”)

I am unsure where the nearest infected waterways are which contain any or all of these three species, but I am aware that Hornwort has been recently recorded in nearby Horowhenua waterways.  As a general “rule of thumb”, if an infected waterway is within 120 kilometers, then the potential for any of these three invasive species to spread to an uninfected lake is high.  This is because, over this distance, most weed fragments attached to boat trailers or outboard propellers will dehydrate and die before they reach the new lake.

All three of the above species are highly invasive, with only a small fragment being needed to infect an area which will then spread rapidly throughout the entire lake, and downstream waterways.  Once infected, it is extremely difficult and prohibitively expensive to eradicate these aquatic weed species from the lake, even if the infection is localised to a small area.

The ramifications of having any (or all) of these three aquatic weed species in the lake are very serious.  These weeds can double their biomass every three months, forming continuous surface-reaching growths and “rafts” of matted weed on the surface of the lake, making boating on the lake virtually impossible.  Periodic decomposition of these weed mats can cause catastrophic de-oxygenation of the lake, causing fish deaths and overall reduced fisheries in the lake.   In short, if any (or all) of these three aquatic weeds infected Lake Horowhenua, then any recreational or utility value of the lake would essentially be destroyed.

I disagree with Max Gibb’s report that a weed harvester could be used in the lake, not the least because of the expense, but also because weed harvesters are known to be a major agent of aquatic weed spread.  These three aquatic weed species can double their biomass every three months, so weed harvesting would be a short-term exercise in weed suppression only.  In addition, the main aquatic plant present (Potamogeton crispus) is highly sensitive to nitrate levels, so improvements to lake water quality will be likely to naturally reduce the presence of this aquatic plant, making weed harvesting unnecessary.

I believe that the mere presence of the sign near the boat club, warning boaties and other recreational users of the lake about the dangers of lakeweed spread, is insufficient to manage the present threat of aquatic weed invasion.   I understand that the lake is not used by motor boats.  This is probably the main reason why these three lakeweeds are not yet present, because these weeds can easily hitch a ride on motor boat trailers and outboard propellers.  However, the threat from non-motorised boats and their trailers remains.  I would recommend a complete ban on allowing trailer-mounted boats of any type from entering the lake, unless they were confined to Lake Horowhenua itself.  While this may seem draconian, boaties should be reminded that if these aquatic weeds enter the lake, then there will probably be no boating at all in the future because the weed mats will make boating physically impossible.

I would also recommend a similar ban (i.e. not allowed to be used outside the area) on fyke nets, eel pots or hinaki used by eel fishermen; and mechanical diggers or other heavy machinery used between waterways.  A similar reminder of the serious consequences of lakeweed on the eel fishery could also be made.

Risk 2.  Water Quality

Healthy growths of the lakeweed Potamogeton crispus in the lake indicate that it has (at least) high levels of nitrates.  The reports by Max Gibbs and Kate Arthur both refer to declining water quality as a significant threat to the lake’s aquatic values.  The lake is currently hypertrophic (i.e. highly polluted), which significantly increases the risk of the plant communities in the lake changing from macrophyte-dominated to algal-dominated.  This would destroy the aquatic plants in the lake, severely reduce water clarity, and change the colour of the lake to a grey-green.  This phenomenon is commonly known as lake “flipping”.  An example of a lake that has “flipped” is Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere just south of Christchurch. 

Once “flipped” it is very difficult and expensive to get a lake to change back and regain its weed beds, water clarity and colour.  For example, Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere “flipped” in 1968 and remains in its degraded state to this day.  $10.5 million is being spent by Christchurch iwi, Councils and central government to try and rectify this, but it unlikely to succeed for many years.  In short, the best (and cheapest) remedy is to prevent the lake from “flipping” before it actually happens. 

Max Gibbs reports a Trophic Lake Index (TLI) of 6.7 for Lake Horowhenua, and he also reports on incidents of algal blooms dominating the lake on occasions.  A TLI of 6.7 indicates a very high level of pollution, and it somewhat surprises me that the lake hasn’t “flipped” yet.  It would appear to me that “flipping” could occur at any time if the water quality is not markedly improved as soon as possible.  This, however, is a lengthy and very expensive process ($10.5 million for Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere), and requires 100% cooperation between local landowners, iwi, District/Regional Councils and central government.

The reports by Max Gibbs and Kate Arthur provide a range of operations which could be employed to restore good water quality to the lake.  I agree with all of them, with the exception of lakeweed harvesting.  I believe that these two reports provide a good list of recommendations for lake cleanup.  I would, however, need to look more closely at the water quality data of surface versus groundwaters, and some of the earlier reports on the lake, before recommending a priority order for these cleanup operations.

Summary

In summary, I believe that Lake Horowhenua is currently at serious risk of losing most of its fishery, recreational and amenity values from two major threats, and I recommend that immediate action is taken to reduce these two threats as soon as possible.  It is disheartening to see that nearly two years have passed since Max Gibb’s report was produced  This report comprehensively outlined the problems and providing costed solutions, yet no apparent action has been taken to implement its recommendations.  If anybody is of the belief that the lake can withstand business as usual, they are very mistaken.

Yours faithfully
Bill Chisholm

CHISHOLM ASSOCIATES

Lake Horowhenua Trust: The elected representatives of lake's owners although many owners and we say at least 1200 owners are not even informed or know about this. But as at June 2013 the Lake Trustees seem not to be sure what theyre doing as they are in Court over the 2 buildings at the Lake where the then Chairman lost his seat afterwards. The lake, along with a 20 metre strip around its edge, is owned by the owners, the majority of which are of the Mauapoko iwi. The Lake Trust do not abide by the Trust order & rarely call a meeting of owners.

Horizons Regional Council:

The environmental regulatory grants consents for stormwater and wastewater disposal. Horizons also carries out water quality monitoring and weed spraying at the lake. HOWEVER they are not monitoring the inlets to the Lake the most important first task. This should have been done years ago.

Horowhenua District Council: local authority is responsible for bylaws that govern the lake,and suposedly keep clean yet they have done little in fact nothing to relieve the problems of the Lake and should not lead any Accord due to their neglect over 62 years. The local Horowhenua District Council Annual Draft Plan for 2013-2014 expenditure. In fact nothing is being spent by the Council-- why?? could it be funding money they are after now? In the meantime they want to continue releasing sewerage waste into our waterways in Shannon.

Department of Conservation: DOC is responsible for the flora and fauna at the lake but as we have seen thats all thats been done on the Lake. They have re-established native species with Iwi reps on the payroll in and around the lake and the control of pest species.

Lake Horowhenua Domain Board: With representatives of Horowhenua District Council, DOC and the lake trustees, this board manages the lake waters only and the use of the buildings? yet tend to talk about solving issues but has never implemented the clean up process.

MLC: HOROWHENUA LAKE 11 BLOCK- APPLICATION FOR URGENT INJUNCTION: SECTION 19/93

On May 14th 2013 interested parties received a copy of an Accord Draft Plan made up by one Kevin Hill? we were told. No Accord Plan has been seen before and this Draft was given by the Maori Land Court not by the Lake Trust? Those who received this in the mail were directed to comment to the Court by 24th May 2013. REMEMBER no owners have ever seen nor read this Accord Draft nor commented on yet the Council have wanted to sign an Accord for the last 3 months as do the Lake Trust??? again we repeat not one affected owner has been given this copy apart from the Lake Trust and MLC until now & no meeting of owners by this Trust has been forthcoming?. The Maori Land Court who also just received a copy sent it out to us for comment to the Court.

Click here to download the Accord Draft Plan [OPEN pdf: ] as at 14th May 2013 & read where they have allocated expenditure & plan A-Z on the removal of the sludge-------if you can find it??

THE PROBLEM: PLAN CLEANUP

The problem is the toxic sediment on the bottom of the Lake that must be removed and the following is how this can be achieved according to the budget provided. Over the decades, heavy metals and toxic organic chemicals--both municipal and industrial wastes and herbicides and pesticides from farm runoff--have mixed with the particles of rock, soil, and decomposing items in the Lake. Little attention has been paid to the toxics hiding in the mud on the bottom by the Council polluters & Lake Trust agree--well no all the Trustees. The obvious first priority was stopping the discharge of new contaminants then dredge the Lake.

It has been 62 years that Horowhenua Lake has had sediment, sewerage and contaminants from dairy & horticulture in this Lake ? The Lake is choked with weed, sediment and manures from horticulture and dairy farm run offs account for 50% of the water runoff and this Lake is No 107 of a total 114 most contaminated Lakes in NZ by the Ministry of the Environment. Once rich in food sources from mussels to kakahi it has now been reduced to a contaminated mess.

Horizons have studied the fish species in the Lake but this is not the problem. The problem is the Lake is a giant toilet that someone forgot to flush & Horizons Royguard does nothing about it???as he is more intent on counting how many fish are in the Lake .

Consultant ecologist Bill Chisholm recommending a complete ban on allowing trailer-mounted boats of any type from entering the lake, unless they were confined to Lake Horowhenua itself. “While this may seem draconian, boaties need to be reminded that if these aquatic weeds enter the lake, then there will probably be no boating at all in the future because the weed mats will make boating physically impossible.”

“I understand  that the lake is not used by motor boats”, he says: “This is probably the main reason why these three lakeweeds are not yet present, because these weeds can easily hitch a ride on motor boat trailers and outboard propellers.”

The three invasive weed species he identified that could find their way into Lake Horowhenua are egreria, hornwort and lagarosiphon.

The Council do not care as they can spend all sorts on removing the weed etc which will do nothing. The real problem is to remove the sludge which is easy but even Max Gibbs the NIWA analyst could not even mention as the number 1 & 2 priority after Monitoring of the inlets to prevent any more toxic sediment turpidity entering. To us its a rush job of who can get the work and blow it out to 25 years??? and then maybe never.

Meanwhile, Lake Horowhenua is infested with purple loosestrife, which is classified as amongst the worst semi-aquatic weeds in the world. Horizons manager Craig Mitchell has claimed he is unsure how the plant got into Lake Horowhenua. Horizons was a no-show at the Maori Land Court hearing last month. The Bio-Security Act 1993 expects regional councils to provide leadership in promoting public support for preventing, reducing or eliminating adverse effects from harmful organisms in their region.

A lake ready to FLIP????? : [ Read Bill Chisolms report ]

Note the noxious weed on the Horizons trailer in Dec 2013. Will this lake FLIP & die ????????????

Figure 2-18:Weed can be transported between lakes on boat trailers. Homwort and filamentous
algae festoon a boat trailer at Lake Rotoehu. Even a small piece of Homwort will grow if left on the
trailer when it launches the boat in the next lake.

The "danger" to the lake from the introduction of exotic weeds such as Egeria dense and/or
hornwort is that they have "aggressive" growth habits which would irreversibly change the
water quality and character of Lake Horowhenua. Egeria dense has a boom and bust growth
cycle, such that it spreads across the lake as a surface-to-sediment biomass, dramatically
reducing the open water available for contact recreation. The biomass in the lake becomes
dominated by weed. At this time (boom phase) the open water will be relatively clear as the
Egeria has assimilated all of the nutrient inputs from the catchment and sediment release,
and suppressed sediment suspension by wave action. The bust phase sees the weed beds
collapse and release the stored nutrients as they decompose driving a massive algal bloom.
The decomposing weed causes oxygen depletion which, in turn causes sediment release of
nutrients, especially phosphorus, which favours the growth of toxic cyanobacteria blooms.
The shading caused by the algae inhibit the growth of weed and the lake becomes algal
(phytoplankton) dominated, such that the water column always has a high algal content and
there is no weed to reduce sediment suspension by wave induced currents. If fragments of
the Egeria survive, the cycle will repeat. The classic example of the effect of this weed is
Lake Omapere.

The blame is on all Maori not thinking and getting their act together. Too much bickering and nothing being achieved. Disgraceful.

All are too blame

[ Council want to repollute the Lake Sept 2013 ] [ Lake Accord June 2013 continued [ Larry Mitchell & the Council ] [ ROLD submission ] [ Horowhenua Lake History ] [ 1 2 More Horowhenua Lake Court ] [ Fairfax Report:22/3/2013 Lake ] [ Lake Domain Board ][ Lake Lobby Group ] WASTEWATER DISPOSAL A CONCERN [ Shannon wastewater ]