|
Ms Lambert
advised that this paper was prepared in order to clarify what processes are
in place for water management for the purposes of irrigation, specifically
relating to low flow limits and resource consent conditions as well as water
allocation.
The water
challenge for the Region is that HB has plenty of water but:
·
Significant seasonal limits in some locations
when the water is most needed and has highest value
·
Long term drying trend (climate change)
·
Very low river flows in typical summers
·
Poorer water quality in lowland areas
·
Traditional planning
The Regional Resource
Management Plan (RRMP) sets environmental bottom lines which have been
reached through community engagement and public submission processes. These
bottom lines are there to protect the values of the waterbodies for a ‘range’
of uses. Further developments nationally also impact on Council’s management
frameworks and include the requirement for Council to implement the NPS 2011
by setting limits as well as Land and Water Forum collaborative processes.
HBRC Land and
Water Strategy prioritises tailored catchment responses. The collaborative
processes such as (Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri Catchment) TANK are time
consuming but necessary to get to a community, collective approach to
catchment management as opposed to individual. The collaborative process
provides an ‘agreed’ hierarchy of the values associated with the catchment
from which the environmental bottom lines are then developed.
Approaches
being considered for individual catchment management frameworks include:
· Tukituki = storage
· Heretaunga Plains = community water use efficiency, i.e. global
consents
· Ngaruroro = water use efficiency and possible storage
· Wairoa = first in first serve + community water use efficiency
Allocation is
defined as a quantifiable amount, however science knowledge and changing
values can cause an amount that was determined 15 years ago to change in line
with those better, updated understandings, i.e. what was acceptable then may
become over allocated once reassessed.
Setting of
minimum flow includes technical, scientific assessment of flow levels which
provide an ecological bottom line. Ecological bottom line is then consulted
on with the public (through stakeholder engagement as well as formal plan
change or resource consent processes) to reach the broader environmental
bottom line which may or may not be the same.
As detailed in
the paper, the 2012-13 summer drought was the second most significant climatic
event since records began. In order to assist the growers through this event,
Council staff:
· Augmented the flow in the Raupare Stream by pumping water from a
nearby bore to maintain flow – in staff view was successful essentially
because of the way the irrigator group worked together to take advantage and
resulted in only 1 ban day.
· Transferred consents – moving water from takes not yet subject to
flow cut offs to irrigators with consents that are subject to flow cut offs.
· Allowed water to be transported from bores not subject to flow cut
offs by tanker to other for use – which had negligible benefit but was
offered up as an ‘emergency’ measure.
· Advised that permitted activity water (of 5 L/s up to
20 m3/day) could be used (for plants) during low flow cut off
periods
· Optimised data via mobile was (and is) available to the growers so
that they could better self manage the water that was available.
Staff knew
that the event was more significant than normal in November, and staff were
already engaged with irrigator groups in relation to the Raupare. Council
continued to respond to requests for help from irrigators as they arose.
In the midst
of the drought, Councillors were constantly kept up to date with the
situation. The management of the water and getting solutions and options considered
required those operational measures to be assessed and implemented by
qualified science and regulation (policy and consents) staff. Viable
solutions had to meet environmental requirements as well as being lawful.
Consents have
the effect of regulation, and are in effect law so Council cannot allow
taking water below the minimum flow level. Allowing water takes below low
flow limits would open Council to legal challenge and possible prosecution.
Water shortage orders were considered by staff but not used as they could have
had perverse outcomes and would result in restricting more takes rather than
making more water available.
Investigations
into ways to avoid similar problems in future are focused on: looking for
new water (deep wells that don’t affect surface water flows) with better
understanding of the hydrogeology; further development of the coupled
surface-groundwater model through a collaborative process involving those
most affected; concurrent gauging to determine the effects of takes on the
river flows; using the data from monitoring what happened to Raupare flows
during augmentation; and running daily flow gauging in the rivers and streams
to keep accurate, real-time data records.
The Policy team
has proposed an amended stream depletion policy through the HBRC submission
to Plan Change 6. An independent expert has reviewed the amended policy as
part of the evidence submitted for Change 6. This policy is now being
reviewed by HortNZ and HBRC is working with HortNZ in relation to this
review. It will be progressed through the Board of
Inquiry process.
In addition, in response to concerns raised, an
amendment has been recommended in evidence for
Change 6 which provides for
applications to be made to take water to prevent plant death or death of permanent
root stock when flows are below
minimum flow.
It was noted
that most of the consents in the region, subject to low flow limits, were
under ban at some point during the drought however there were no requests for
assistance from growers in other parts of the region.
The process HBRC
goes through during low flow periods is:
· River flow gaugings and rainfall stats are assessed, and if
showing that the river or stream is in a state of
low flow, initially warnings are sent to irrigators via text, email and/or
fax, as well as advertisements in local newspapers
· River flows and climate data continue to be assessed and when the
decision is made to ban takes, irrigators (and other water users) are advised
via text, email and/or fax, as well as advertisements in local newspapers.
It was
noted that in the 2012-13 drought,
through dialogue with the irrigator community, it was agreed
not to publicise the low flow warnings and bans through
the media.
In summing up,
it was reaffirmed that the most important outcome of any water management
framework is that the flow within the river is maintained for the life
supporting capacity it provides.
|
