Community’s last ditch plea ahead of Lake Camp meeting

Nicole Mathewson Reporter from The Press

By local democracy reporter Jonathan Leask:

Vanessa Wright is hoping the council listens to the pleas of the community to take action at Lake Camp before it’s too late.

Ashburton councillors will meet on Tuesday (August 20) to discuss the future of the shrinking Canterbury lake and whether any action will be taken.

Lake Camp’s water level has dropped considerably, sparking a community campaign to restore its historic water source – a diversion of the Balmacaan Stream, which had a resource consent up until 2020.

Wright, a hutholder at the Lake Clearwater Village, acknowledges the expert opinion of Environment Canterbury (ECan) and DOC that the Lake Camp’s lowering levels are due to the drought conditions - the same conditions affecting other local lakes.

However, unlike the other lakes, Wright said Lake Camp has a small catchment area and can’t fill back up without the Balmacaan Stream diversion.

“With spring just around the corner, something needs to happen to get the snow melt into the lake or it will just keep draining away.

“Without the water coming out of that diversion, the lake will not fill up – unless we have another flood event.”

The fear is that when there is no inflow, it will stagnate, she said.

Wright and other community members believe the district council should lead the action to restore the stream diversion – with almost 1900 people signing a petition to save Lake Camp.

Lake Camp is a recreation reserve owned by the Department of Conservation but vested in the Ashburton District Council to administer.

The council adopted a 30-year Lake Camp and Lake Clearwater plan in 2022, which discusses how it will protect the area’s environment.

The goals include avoiding further degradation and restoring the mauri (life force) of the natural environment, protecting the special character of the area, and valuing the social importance of the area.

According to the plan, the council will monitor the recreational use and “undertake action as necessary to ensure use is sustainable and values are protected”.

“The over-arching purpose of this plan is to ensure appropriate action is taken in a timely manner," the document says.

Wright said the council must take action in step with its plan.

The councillors will discuss what, if any, actions could be taken, at Tuesday's council meeting.

It comes on the back of a council workshop last week, where experts spoke about the natural fluctuations of the lake's levels over time.

The recommendation to be tabled is: “council, should it decide to pursue an application for consent to divert Balmacaan Stream into Lake Camp, call for an officer’s report to understand the costs and implications”.

If the council chose to act, Wright said the community had offered to donate time or money to help.

According to DOC and ECan reinstating a diversion will require a new resource consent, and Fish and Game advised it would most likely need to be for a new diversion at a different location on the stream.

In the workshop last week, ECan surface water science manager Elaine Moriarty said the region is dry, which was impacting the lake’s levels.

Even with a diversion in place, there wasn't sufficient water to flow down it, she said.

“It’s sad to see it but it’s not an unnatural event."

Meanwhile, Mt Somers farmer Duncan Humm continues to question the need for a resource consent to restore the diversion at Lake Camp.

Humm sat in public gallery at the Ashburton District Council’s workshop last week and feels the resource consent will to see people waste thousands of dollars.

“Imagine if everyone could just agree on a course of action and then the money could be better spent on actual conservation work.

“With the swipe of a pen and the will to be proactive, they could benefit the environment.

“It shouldn’t need a resource consent as the works required to reinstate the existing intake are minor, the water isn’t fundamentally taken – just diverted in the catchment.

“From what I could tell, there are no tangible negatives whatsoever only positive environmental benefits.”

The stream had been diverted for over 50 years, and should be allowed to be restored, quickly, without expensive and time-consuming red tape, he said.

ECan and DOC were adamant that under the RMA, reinstating a diversion would require a new resource consent.