Environment Canterbury is again under fire for its handling of Greenstreet Creek.

ECan revealed it would do nothing this summer if the creek went dry, with its plan only to communicate the water conditions to the landowners and organise fish salvaging if necessary.

The plan was criticised by the Ashburton Water Zone Committee members on Tuesday.

Mayor Neil Brown was scathing in his review of the situation.

“The environment is not winning out of this. I don’t know who is.”

“The locals are going to be disadvantaged by people [in] Christchurch making the decisions on our streams and creeks, and our environment.”

The local landowners weren’t engaged or consulted and ECan has “got the whole process wrong” he said.

Community frustration with the response to Greenstreet Creek drying up in March had ECan chief executive Stefanie Rixecker use emergency powers to allow water to be diverted from O’Shea’s Creek into Greenstreet Creek – which had not been allowed under the minimum flow restrictions on the Ashburton/Hakatere River under the Canterbury Land and Water Plan (CLWP)

After reviewing its strategy on the situation, catchment implementation general manager Judith Earl-Goulet said ECan will not be providing emergency provisions for diverting water from O’Shea’s Creek again.

“We didn’t want to unduly raise community expectations that diverted water would be made available on a regular basis.”

The decision had an impact on O’Shea Creek as it experienced a substantial reduction in flow she said.

Ruling out the use of emergency powers “didn’t sit right” with Mayor Brown as it was discounting the potential need to use them before an emergency.

The zone committee wanted clarification from ECan on what impact the emergency powers to divert the water had on the environment that resulted in it being ruled out of being used again.

Earl-Goulet said there was a substantial reduction in flow in O’Shea Creek.

“While an ecological assessment was not carried out, reduced flows in a river typically impacts the fish habitat and in-stream fauna.”

There will also be no regulatory review until work begins as scheduled on an integrated plan in 2027 and ECan won’t change consent conditions – but it will ensure consent compliance.

To accusations ECan was hiding behind the CLWP plan, Earl-Goulet said the plan sets out clear expectations and priorities for environmental decision-making.

ECan’s actions include a communication plan to alert the affected landowners of when the creek is “dewatering” and to put a fish salvage protocol in place.

The plan also states it “will support consent holders and community if they want to explore different options”.

District councillor Richard Wilson said the plan was “when the creek goes dry, ECan will do nothing” and asked for direction on what options, if any, remained to be explored, but Earl-Goulet didn’t have an answer for the question.

In the announcement in March, Rixecker had said ECan “must work better with our communities and landowners” but committee member Chris Allan said that hadn’t happened.

The whole response plan has been done in isolation without the community he said.

“You missed the first step, to actually engage with the community.”

Earl-Goulet said the plan was prepared by “taking what we had heard in the community, and you are right, we didn’t come and ask”.

“We have started to communicate with individuals, groups and the wider community on what to expect during low flows and support people with advice and guidance for any proactive fish salvage that may be required.”

“We recognise there’s also longer-term issues to discuss with the community.”

By Jonathan Leask