Download
1 / 21
210 likes | 325 Views
Variation 6 - Water Allocation What were we up against and what was achieved? - Irrigation perspective Dr Paul Le Mière Regional Policy Manager. Contents. Background What we were up against Inter primary sector tensions Achievements Lessons Emerging issues. What is Variation 6?.
E N D
Variation 6 - Water Allocation What were we up against and what was achieved?- Irrigation perspective Dr Paul Le MièreRegional Policy Manager
Contents • Background • What we were up against • Inter primary sector tensions • Achievements • Lessons • Emerging issues
What is Variation 6? • WRC attempt at a set of rules on Water allocation for Waikato • Brought about due to large upper Waikato irrigators applying for large volumes of water and growth of municipal demand. • WRC allowed catchments to go over allocated for last twenty years. • Used % of Q5 (one in 5 year low flow) as measure of allocation (up to 30% of Q5)
What were we up against- Variation 6- • Rules prioritised consents at common expiry dates. • existing municipal user, then • new municipal users, • then existing industrial users (inc. farmers, irrigators) • then new industrial users. • Even if existing, at 100% allocation farm takes were Non Complying. • All takes, even minor, had to be metered and reported on • Hydro-electricity generation was prioritised above Karapiro. (RE NPS). Philosophical stance to give 96.4% of Q5 to hydro (>99% of flow) • Water harvesting not enabled. MRP advocated a no spill hydro system! • Fresh Water NPS not in force until EC hearing stage. • Council very intransigent and refused to Mediate. • Many large players protecting their interests: - Municipal, MRP, Agriculture & Horticulture, CHH, etc
Tensions within PP sector • Council allowed many catchments to go over allocated over last couple of decades. • Majority of Dairy farmers (95%) unwittingly did not have the dairy shed washdown consents they technically should of. • Thus tension between legitimising existing dairy activities and protecting consented activities such as irrigation and Milk factories takes. • Compounded by lack of information of water efficiencies and economic importance of takes.
What would it have meant? • All Dairy farmers in over-allocated catchments would have had to apply for very expensive and onerous consents (non- complying) and most of these would not have been granted. • Other catchments still a discretionary consent for existing takes. • Most of the rest facing cost increases for water. • No Dairy increase in upper Waikato and issues for those converted since 2006. • Consented Irrigators (Ag/Hort) up for renewal became non complying
Timelines • 2004-6 Developed by regional council. • Oct 2006 Variation Notified • Dec 2007 – Mar 2008 Hearings – Extensive evidence by AWG • Oct 2008 Decisions Version • Jan 2009 Parties Appeal to EC • Mar 2009 - Early 2010 ‘Meetings’. NO mediations. • Aug 2010 WRCevidence received • Sept 2010 New WRC version - Major changes • Oct 2010 All appellants evidence in (>50 documents) • Dec 2010 - Feb 2011 EC Hearings start • Apr – June 2011 Expert witness caucusing (many changes) • July 2011 Closing Legal arguments from appellants • Dec 2011 Environment Court decision released • Jan 2012 Variation 6 has full legal effect • Apr 2012 WRC formally adopts Variation 6 Millions of dollars spent especially at EC. Now in implementation stage, >4000 consents by end 2014
Lessons Learned • All Primary production sectors needed to work together sooner and better. • Information was lacking on Ag primary sector water use and economics. • Information on water use efficiency lacking • Early effort into mediation needed and collaboration paramount. WRC now trying collaborative governance model ! • Need rules before you are over allocated.
Emerging issues • WRC needing major help and resources for primary industry to help obtain >4000 consents by end of 2014 • Watercare consent for Auckland for up to 200,000m3 a day lodged (2% of Q5 at take). • Any potential clawback from Watercare over allocating whole of river very unclear.
Thank You Questions ? • Wairakei
Above Karapiro evidence • WRC set above Karapiro at 3.6% of Q5 • Based on Oct 2006 useage – rest for MRP • <1% of river flow • Scenario A – Increase to 4% Q5 • Need for existing growth since Oct 2006 • Max 120,000 Ha converted to Dairy (Drinking + dairy shed) • Value farm gate $177,561,800 @ 09/10 payout • Scenario B – Increase to 5.8% of Q5 • Scenario A plus • 10 years future irrigation Demand (4,000 Ha) • Scenario C – Increase to 7.5% of Q5 • Scenario A plus • 20 years future irrigation Demand (8,000 Ha)
Cost of MRP • Complicated as modeled per dam per week. Lost Generation Cost to MRP : • Scenario A - $160,000 p.a. • Scenario B - $840,000 p.a. • Scenario C - $1,500,000 p.a. • Overall Very minor under A and B • No material impact on wider NZ electricity industry • Easily replaced by renewable coming online • And industry own savings • Scenario A – replaced by 5-6 turbines !
Conditions around grandparenting takes To secure existing Dairy shed takes under controlled activity: • Need to lodge application by 1 Jan 2015 • Net Amount needs to be same or less than 15 Oct 2008 (prev 2006) • Stock need to be fenced 3m from river water is taken from (Completed 3 years from consent given) • Riparian planting to take place along water body from which take occurs. • 3m wide • If no planting exist then 2500 stems Ha / 80% native. • To take place progressively over term of consent (normally 15 years)
Conditions around grandparenting takes To secure existing Dairy shed takes under controlled activity: • Need to lodge application by 1 Jan 2015 • Net Amount needs to be same or less than 15 Oct 2008 (prev 2006) • Stock need to be fenced 3m from river water is taken from (Completed 3 years from consent given) • Riparian planting to take place along water body from which take occurs. • 3m wide • If no planting exist then 2500 stems Ha / 80% native. • To take place progressively over term of consent (normally 15 years)
