To help assess the reasons for submissions a number of broad categories were created. The five categories used are defined in the table below.
| Category | Definition |
|---|---|
| Impact on environment | Includes impacts on natural and physical resources, such as ground and surface water. Includes impacts on roading. |
| Impact on residents / cultural impacts | Impacts on residents such as amenity, noise, visual, odour, water supply and property value. Cultural impacts. Wider subsidence issues also included. |
| Geothermal system | Impacts on the geothermal system. Includes any recommendations that affect the geothermal system, such as reinjection. |
| Policies / RMA and consents | Impacts on any relevant policies and plans such as local council plans and national policies. Impacts on existing consent holders. Includes references to climate change impacts. |
| National energy portfolio | Includes security of national supply. Replacing outdated technology with more advanced methods. |
Table 3 in the appendix outlines the submission categories for each submission. Note that each submitter may have more than one reason for their submission, as seen in Table 3.
Inclusion in each category means that some aspect of the submission is relevant to that category, but does not mean that the submission covers all of the issues within that category as defined above.
Summary information is provided in the table below.
| Submission topic | No. of submissions | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Impact on environment | 14 | 58.3% |
| Impact on residents / cultural impacts | 12 | 50% |
| Geothermal system | 5 | 20.8% |
| Policies / plans and consents | 7 | 29.2% |
| National energy portfolio | 5 | 20.8% |
Note as each submission can fall under more than one category the percentages represent the percentage that each category is mentioned out of the 24 submissions (ie, 58.3% of the 24 submissions included impact on the environment as a reason for making a submission).
Further information on the submissions within each of the five categories is provided in sections 4.1 to 4.5 below. In addition, Table 5 in the appendix provides additional summary information of the reason stated in each submission.
4.1 Impact on environment
Fourteen submissions were received that outlined possible impacts on the environment as a reason for making the submission.
| Submission no. | Submitter | Summary of reasons |
|---|---|---|
| 24 | Birdsall, Anthony and Koster, Linda (NS/Y) | Risk of groundwater contamination, H2S increase. |
| 9 | Department of Conservation (N/N) | Supports decreasing discharge to Waikato River. |
| 7 | Fish & Game NZ, Eastern Region (S/N) | No fisheries or game bird resources or their habitat will be adversely affected. |
| 19 | Geotherm Group Ltd (M/Y) | To ensure adverse impacts on the Geotherm Project are avoided, remedied or mitigated. Issues include combined discharges to air. |
| 18 | Houghton, Mr Ray (O/Y) | Cumulative effect of air discharge. |
| 1 | Macphal, Ms Sarah; | Impact on environment. (No clarification provided.) |
| 10 | McGrath JJ and JM and Family (M/Y) | Discharges to air will cause unacceptable pollution. |
| 15 | McLachlan, Mr Alistair, McLachlan, Ms Ava Marie; MacPower Ltd (M/Y) | Wish to ensure there are no adverse cumulative effects with other existing and consented uses including Geotherm, such as cumulative air emissions. |
| 22 | Tauhara North 3B Trust (M/Y) | Concerned about discharge of contaminants and waste water onto land and into the aquifers linked to Taupo nui a Tia and effects on surface features. |
| 17 | Taupo District Council (N/Y) | Board to give regard to environmental effects on local and wider environment, including continued discharge to the Waikato River. |
| 14 | Te Kapa o Te Rangiita ki Oruanui (N/Y) | Clarify issues in consent applications not resolved in pre-consultation process. Issues include integrity of groundwater. |
| 11 | Transit New Zealand, Hamilton Regional Office (O/Y) | The transportation assessment prepared does not offer appropriate conditions to avoid, remedy or mitigate the traffic effects at the Poihipi Rd/SH1 intersection if construction traffic uses the intersection. |
| 16 | Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board (N/Y) | Clarify issues in consent applications not resolved in pre-consultation process. Issues include integrity of groundwater. |
| 20 | Waikato Raupatu Trustee Company Ltd (Tainui) (NS/Y) | Concerns with discharges of geothermal fluids into the river. Irrigation of condensate to pasture may lead to additional nitrogen run-off to the River causing algal blooms. Algal blooms directly impact the relationship of Waikato-Tainui with the River. |
Note: Brackets show the submitters’ position – (position/heard).
Key: Position is: S – Support; O – Oppose; N – Neutral; M – Mixed; NS – Not stated
Heard is: Y – Yes or N – No.
4.2 Impact on residents / cultural impact
Twelve submissions were received that outlined impacts on neighbouring residents or cultural impacts as reasons for making the submission.
| Submission no. | Submitter | Summary of reasons |
|---|---|---|
| 24 | Birdsall, Mr Anthony, and Koster, Mrs Linda (NS/Y) | Devaluation of property, visual impact and noise. |
| 8 | Dutton Price, Miss Lynley; Dutton Price, Miss Alison (O/N) | Devaluation of property, visual impact, noise, smell and possible seepage into their groundwater supply. |
| 13 | Ellery, Mr Grant and Mrs Francis (O/Y) | Loss of value. Construction noise and dust. Proximity of station to neighbours. Possible spring water contamination. Lack of consultation. |
| 5 | Hansen, Mr Graham and Mrs Isobel (O/N) | Construction and operation noise effects disrupt rural quiet. Loss of property value. Work already started. |
| 18 | Houghton, Mr Ray (O/Y) | Steam discharge affects rural landscape. Adverse traffic effects and safety concerns. Cumulative odour. Reverse sensitivity for future development. |
| 1 | Macphal, Ms Sarah; Campbell, Mr Ian (O/N) | Loss of value to property. |
| 22 | Tauhara North 3B Trust (M/Y) | Rights of Nga hapu o Ngati Tuwharetoa. Key feature of the Treaty of Waitangi claims concerned dispossession and loss of rangatiratanga over the geothermal resource, degradation of geothermal taonga and exclusion from use and development of the resource. Waitangi Tribunals report He Maunga Rongo: Report on Central North Island Claims important findings. |
| 17 | Taupo District Council (N/Y) | Board to give regard to local and wider environmental effects, including traffic, earthworks, visual, noise, hazardous substances, natural hazards, cultural and cumulative effects. Infield injection is required to stop current and prevent future subsidence. |
| 14 | Te Kapa o Te Rangiita ki Oruanui (N/Y) | Clarify issues in consent applications that were not resolved in pre-consultation process. Issues include staged reinjection, impacts on taonga, impacts on sites of significance in the cultural impact assessment and ability to exercise their relationship with their taonga. |
| 16 | Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board (N/Y) | Clarify issues in consent applications that were not resolved in pre-consultation process. Issues include staged reinjection impacts on taonga, impacts on sites of significance in the cultural impact assessment and ability to exercise their relationship with their taonga. |
| 2 | Vanner, Mr Brett and Mrs Heather (N/N) | Construction of structures and potential for visible structures (such as pipes) to devalue property. |
| 20 | Waikato Raupatu Trustee Company Ltd (Tainui) (NS/Y) | Ensure consents if granted and other associated and varied consents are consistent with the Waikato River Settlement and re-aligned with its outcomes and objectives. |
Note: Brackets show the submitters’ position – (position/heard).
Key: Position is: S – Support; O – Oppose; N – Neutral; M – Mixed; NS – Not stated
Heard is: Y – Yes or N – No.
4.3 Geothermal system
Five submissions were received that included impacts on the geothermal systems as reasons for making the submission.
| Submission no. | Submitter | Summary of reasons |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | Environment Waikato (N/Y) | Promote consistency with Council’s geothermal policies and existing consents to ensure sustainable and efficient use of the geothermal resource. |
| 19 | Geotherm Group Ltd (M/Y) | Opposes any aspect of the project that adversely impacts on the Geotherm Project. Mentions reinjection sites and surrounding significant geothermal features. |
| 10 | McGrath, JJ and JM and Family (M/Y) | Reinjection should be to well or bores into the subterranean formations of same system as geothermal waters taken from. Refers to definition of geothermal systems by Judge Whiting. |
| 15 | McLachlan, Mr Alistair; McLachlan, Ms Ava Marie; MacPower Ltd (M/Y) | Wish to ensure Geotherm Group can exercise its consents and to ensure there are no adverse cumulative effects with other existing and consented uses, such as potential for reinjection to cause constraints on consented reinjection. |
| 22 | Tauhara North 3B Trust (M/Y) | Rights of Nga hapu o Ngati Tuwharetoa. Key feature of the Treaty of Waitangi claims concerned dispossession and loss of rangatiratanga over the geothermal resource, degradation of geothermal taonga and exclusion from use and development of the resource. |
Note: Brackets show the submitters’ position – (position/heard).
Key: Position is: S – Support; O – Oppose; N – Neutral; M – Mixed; NS – Not stated
Heard is: Y – Yes or N – No.
4.4 Policies / plans and consents
Seven submissions were received that mentioned impacts on policies, plans or consent issues as reasons for making the submission.
| Submission no. | Submitter | Summary of reasons |
|---|---|---|
| 12 | Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (S/Y) | Proposal is consistent with sustainable energy policies and strategies. |
| 4 | Environment Waikato (N/Y) | Promote consistency with Council’s geothermal policies and existing consents. Have policy to manage system as an integrated whole. |
| 19 | Geotherm Group Ltd (M/Y) | Opposes any aspect of the project that adversely impacts on the Geotherm Project including existing Geotherm consents, and export to national grid. |
| 21 | Major Electricity Users’ Group (N/N) | Call-in was unwarranted. Kyoto Protocol obligations, 90% renewable target and size are not sufficient reasons to call it in. |
| 15 | McLachlan, Mr Alistair; McLachlan, Ms Ava Marie; MacPower Ltd (M/Y) | Wish to protect Geotherm Group consents and to ensure consistency and no adverse impacts on exercising of existing consents. |
| 6 | Ministry of Economic Development (S/Y) | Contribution project will make to achieve the Government’s energy policies and objectives. |
| 17 | Taupo District Council (N/Y) | Ensure that assessment of the application considers objectives and policies of the District Plan. |
Note: Brackets show the submitters’ position – (position/heard).
Key: Position is: S – Support; O – Oppose; N – Neutral; M – Mixed; NS – Not stated
Heard is: Y – Yes or N – No.
4.5 National energy portfolio
Five submissions were received that included impacts on the national energy portfolio as reasons for making the submission.
| Submission no. | Submitter | Summary of reasons |
|---|---|---|
| 9 | Department of Conservation (N/N) | Supports use of more advanced technologies (deep reinjection) over existing Wairakei Station. |
| 12 | Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (S/Y) | Result in nationally significant benefits due to contribution to 90% renewable energy target, security of supply, and positive effect on climate change. |
| 7 | Fish & Game NZ, Eastern Region (S/N) | Alternatives to hydro generation should be promoted. |
| 6 | Ministry of Economic Development (S/Y) | Offers national benefits by making use of viable and renewable energy source, security of supply and avoiding greenhouse gas emissions. |
| 3 | Wind Farm Developments (Australia) Ltd (N/Y) | Not clear that any adverse effects on the Hawke’s Bay wind farm project are satisfactorily avoided, remedied or mitigated. Contribution to national benefits will be reduced or not applicable if constrains output from the Hawke’s Bay wind farm project. |
Note: Brackets show the submitters’ position – (position/heard).
Key: Position is: S – Support; O – Oppose; N – Neutral; M – Mixed; NS – Not stated
Heard is: Y – Yes or N – No.
See more on...
4. Reasons for Submissions
April 2008
© Ministry for the Environment