The three companies proposing intensive dairy farms in the Omarama and Ohau area attempted to have the effluent consent applications directly referred to the Environment Court.
The request was made last month in a memorandum lodged on behalf of Southdown Holdings Ltd, Williamson Holdings Ltd and Five Rivers Ltd by counsel Christian Whata.
However, in a letter sent to Environment Minister Nick Smith last month, Environment Canterbury (ECan) chief executive Dr Bryan Jenkins said it was not an available option, as the consents were received prior to 2009 amendments becoming law.
In the memorandum, Mr Whata said the anticipated scale of the council hearing proceedings meant it was more appropriate and efficient to allow the applications to be determined by the Environment Court.
More than 4300 submissions had been received on the applications and five weeks had been scheduled for the hearing.
The substantial costs associated with a council hearing of that scale would be "unreasonable and unrealistic" for the applicants to absorb, especially when there was no guarantee that the water consents would be granted.
Given the public significance of the applications, including recent media attention, it was appropriate for the Environment Court to determine the applications, Mr Whata said.
He also recorded his concerns, and the applicants' concerns, with the conduct of ECan, in relation to advice given to the public on its website.
It stated if people had concerns about the applications from an animal welfare point of view, there were "a number of things" they could do apart from writing a submission.
"They could write a letter to the editor of their local paper, write to their local MP or regional or city/district councillor or write to the Minister of Agriculture.
"There were also two links to Biosecurity New Zealand's website. Mr Whata submitted that was "entirely inappropriate conduct".
As an independent public body, ECan should not be encouraging, in any way, that type of public involvement.
Further, some of the submitters on the effluent applications were using the media as a vehicle for promoting their views and therefore it was more appropriate for the applications to be determined by the Environment Court.
