The Whangamata Bar is one of New Zealand’s premier surfbreaks. The “Bar” is a world class sand bar surfbreak.. The “Bar” was the first surfbreak to enter New Zealand’s environmental management systems. What we know from this example is that no surfbreak in New Zealand is safe due to this precedent in New Zealand's environmental law.
The sandbar is at the entrance (tidal ebb delta) to the
Whangamata harbour, one of the shallowest of many North Island east
coast estuaries. About 1 kilometre inside the Whangamata estuary, a
river, the Moana anu anu, joins what is known as the Whangamata
estuarine system. At the convergence of the waters of the
Whangamata and Moana anu anu, is a shellfish bed of significance to
the local Maori tribe, the Hauraki Iwi.
Close to the entrance of the Moana anu anu, in the lea of a road
causeway, developers are carving out a marina on intertidal flats.
These intertidal flats are completely dry at low tide. The marina
basin is a totally artificial hole.
Next the developers need to carve out a 1.5 kilometre canal in
sand flats to get access to the channel that will allow boats to
reach the open sea. This canal will require constant dredging to
maintain this access. The marina and canal construction will take
out 157,000 cu metres. The developers have consents to take out
6,000 cu m per year for 35 years, or 210,000cu metres. All up this
allows, 367,000 cu meters to be removed, only 1 kilometre from a
premier world class sandbar surfbreak.
Surfers maintain that the area where the marina canal is to be
constantly dredged is a sand reservoir for the Whangamata Bar.
From the beginning surfers had said the marina idea is not worth
the risk to the outstanding wave quality of the Bar. The risk is
that it will become a sectioning or a close-out wave instead of the
long peeling wave it is currently famous for.
Surfers went into the whole legal argument over the marina
unorganised. The surfers that entered the legal process have lost
nearly every battle, and come out organised. If the New Zealand
legal system would not protect the Whangamata Bar, then is any
surfbreak in New Zealand really safe? A decision of the Environment
Court in 2002 has become a precedent in New Zealand Case Law. This
means that any Court case where a surfbreak is at risk lawyers for
the developers can cite the 2002 decision. The Thames Coromandel
District Council and the Waikato Regional Council use this decision
to ignore Surfbreak Protection's concerns.
Here is a brief history of the "Bar" (and surfbreaks) within the
New Zealand environmental management system.
1997 - Resource Consents hearings are heard by Waikato Regional
Council. The Whangamata Board Riders put in a submission opposing
consents to marina developers. Consents granted.
1998 - Resource Consents hearings are heard by Thames Coromandel
District Council. A longtime Bar surfer and a Whangamata surfboard
maker, Paul Shanks, makes a personal submission against the
consents, "as it will affect the Bar" - .The Council rejects the
Surfer's argument on the spot. A month later consents are
given.
1999 - The Department of Conservation (DoC) appeal both consents.
The marina developers approach the then Minister of Conservation
who directs the Department to reach a "settlement" with the
developers. DoC pulls out of the Case.
1999 - The Hauraki Iwi appeal both Councils consents to the New
Zealand Environment Court (NZEC) on the grounds that the Consents
will affect the shellfish bed and the Whangamata salt marsh (a
freshwater wetland which floods periodically with saltwater on
every tidal / moon cycle). This wetland is important to surfers
because it acts as a filter for much of the stormwater from the
Whangamata township. The marina developers want to fill in the
wetland to make it into a carpark.
2000 - The Hauraki Iwi bring an "expert surfer witness" to the
NZEC. Paul Shanks introduces surfing and the Whangamata Bar to the
NZ legal system. The Environment Court Judge rules that the
Regional Council must make retrospective Plans to allow the marina
consents to proceed. About surfing, the Judge rules that the
argument that removal of 367,000 cu meters of sediment will affect
wave quality on the Bar are exaggerated. This ruling now becomes
the precedent of NZ case law, on sand sediment cycles, surfing and
what is exaggeration.
2004 - The Waikato Regional Council take 3 years and about $NZ3
million to change the Councils Plans for the marina developers. The
Court resumes. The Hauraki Iwi try to bring back the Surfers
argument but the Council and marina developers argue that under
case law this is an exaggeration.
The Judge rules that the Thames Coromandel District Council must
obtain retrospective Roading Consents.
2005 - The District Council issues the retrospective roading
consents for the developers and the Court resumes. Again the
surfing argument is raised but ignored due to case law. The Court
gives the consents. Large coastal consents under NZEMS are
recommendations to the Minister of Conservation by the Court. The
Minister can turn down the recommendations.
2006 - Surfers now are starting to get organised and begin a
campaign to lobby the Minster to reject the recommendations of the
New Zealand Environment Court. The campaign goes global and the
biggest traffic of emails from all over the world goes into the NZ
Parliament. The Minister turns down the marina developers
application.
2006 - The marina developers and the Thames Coromandel District
Council appeal the Ministers Decision to the New Zealand High
Court. Part of their case is that the surfing argument is an
exaggeration. The High Court rules the Minister of Conservation
should not have turned the marina down. The Minster of the
Environment is then handed the final Decision. This Minister
mindful of the Surfer campaign writes to the Environment Court and
asks for an opinion on the Surfing argument. The Environment Court
replies that surfers and their concerns are exaggerated. The
Minister makes a compromise and allows the marina to go ahead but
it must undertake monitoring of the Bar.
However the required monitoring has no mechanism that if the Bar
quality does deteriorate the marina has to shut down
dredging.
2008 - Both Councils secretly grant another 9 consents to the
marina developers.
A protest camp is set up on site for 20 days in July by Hauraki
Iwi and Surfbreak Protection Society asking that the consents are
Publicly notified. The Councils and Department of Conservation who
own all the land (the marina developers own no land or foreshore)
bring in rules to stop access to the Public over an 8-hectare
coastal area. This allows the marina to start by putting up a
security fence and placing trespass notices on the Whangamata
members of the Surfbeak Protection Society Committee. On 1st
September the developers bring in the heavy machinery and start
carving out the initial 157,000 cu meters of sand and dump it on
the wetland.
February 2009. The wetland has been filled in and the marina
basin has been partly completed. This wetland historically purified
the natural stormwater of much of the Whangamata township and
contributed to the excellent water quality at the Bar.
The Marina Society compensatory wetland that the Environment Court
asked to be built has failed. The rushes they planted have all
died.
It has since been found that the area destroyed contained one of
the largest mainland colonies of Oligosoma Moko Skink in New
Zealand. The species is considered sparse. They are known to Maori
as Mokomoko, and are considered sacred. 10 have been killed and 250
reptiles have been removed (if you are to believe the marina
developers). The Whangamata colony was one of only three thriving
colonies left on the whole of mainland New Zealand.
The Councils and the Department of Conservation and the
Environment Court refuse to investigate how such an important part
of New Zealand's reptilian history has been wiped out without the
Councils, DoC and the Environment Court even knowing they were
there.
The destruction of a viable Moko Skink habitat and the dying off
of the planted wetland gives no confidence that the Marina Society
and the Councils are in control of the marina development's
outcomes.