84 Longstaffs Road
RD4
Christchurch 7674
New Zealand
[email protected]
0277 157064
3 October 2012
Dear Sir/Madam
SUBMISSION ON PROPOSED CANTERBURY LAND AND WATER PLAN
Over- allocation of Groundwater Zones.
I am putting my submission in the form of a letter as the Website only has pdf files, which I
cannot alter other than with a pen.
My name is David Hendrikz, I work as a Water Resources Consultant, I am submitting on
behalf of myself in an attempt to improve the Land and Water Plan and to help it achieve its
Objectives and make it easier to do so. My proposals may save my clients, other applicants
and Environment Canterbury time and money. To this end I would have no trade advantage
over anyone else within the Consultancy Industry.
I wish to be heard in support of this submission at the hearing and will consider presenting a
joint case if others are making a similar submission.
This submission fundamentally relates to the management of Groundwater
Allocations, the relevant Policies or Rules etc will be identified and discussed below.
All in all I support the Objectives of this plan, my points are about being practical, fair and
achieving Objectives. My points are made below in Bold
There is no definition of Site to Site Consent Transfers in Section 2.10 - Definitions,
Translations and Abbreviations. Already there have been different interpretations
provided by ECan. This plan must avoid this sort of costly confusion with proper
definitions, possibly with examples.
Section 4 – Policies - 4.7 (page 4-1)
“Where over-allocation of water for surface or ground water from surface water catchments
and groundwater zones or nutrient discharges has been determined, a regime will be
established in Sections 6-15 that provides methods and a time frame to eliminate the overallocation.”
The NPS Freshwater Management 2011 – Policy B6 requires Regional Councils to set a
defined time frame and methods in regional plans by which over-allocation must be phased
out, including reviewing water permits and consents.
Page 1 of 4
Having read sections 6-15, I can find no coherent plan with timelines to eliminate over
allocation in Groundwater Zones. At the very least this policy should have a table to
show the date by which each over-allocated Groundwater Zone should have its plan
in place.
Activity and Resource Policy - 4.73 (page 4-13)
“ In an over-allocated surface water catchment or groundwater zone, enable the transfer of
water permits to take or use water where the water is moving to an irrigation scheme, and in
all other instances, enable the transfer of water provided there was a surrender of a
proportion of the allocated water to the water body and it is not re-allocated.”
This policy unfairly penalises existing groundwater users and also can give the
irrigation companies an unfair windfall of groundwater takes. I will be discussing
transferring of water in more depth, later in this submission.
Section 5 – Region-wide rules 5.107 and 5.108 (pages 5-25 and 5-26)
In summary - Consents being temporarily or permanently transferred within an overallocated zone will have to surrender either 25% or 50% for the application to be determined
as a restricted discretionary activity, if not then they are non-complying activities and will
have a much greater degree of difficulty in being granted.
The NPS Freshwater Management - Objective B3 – “To improve and maximise the
efficient allocation and use of water.”
The NPS Freshwater Management -Policy B3 – “By every Regional Council making or
changing regional plans to the extent needed to ensure the plans state criteria by which
applications for approval of transfers of water take permits are to be decided, including to
improve and maximise the efficient allocation of water.”
The NPS Freshwater Management -Policy B4 - “By every Regional Council identifying
methods in regional plans to encourage the efficient use of water.”
The NPS defines "Efficient Allocation" to include economic, technical and dynamic efficiency.
The NPS Section 32 Report for the Ministry, further explains these concepts as:



Technical efficiency - maximising net value eg fixing a dripping tap
Allocative efficiency - the ease with which resources can move to their most
productive or best use - or highest value.
Dynamic efficiency - optimisation of innovation and rate of change to new activities
eg regulatory processes which are consistent and easily understood give people
confidence in making decisions and investment.
The Government strategy "New Start for Fresh Water" makes "Allocation of water to its
maximum use" one of its priorities.
The NPS Section 32 Report also considers some alternatives to the status quo (Chapter 4),
it comments that Market-Based instruments would be necessary to provide an incentive for
water permit holders to trade or transfer their permits, market-based mechanisms include
tradable water take permits.
Page 2 of 4
There is a growing realisation that, as in any market, consent transfers will allow
water to move to holders who can make the most profitable/efficient use of that water.
By definition transfers of consented annual volumes will not take place in
groundwater zones until that zone is at least fully allocated. If not there would be no
need to transfer as allocation would be available. Groundwater Zones should be
managed so that when they are fully allocated, a small buffer (say 10 %) is included to
allow for transfers. One must be conscious here of the difference between “overallocated” and “over-abstracted”.
There are many areas of the Canterbury Plains, where farmers cannot get water for
irrigation unless they transfer a groundwater consent. For these farmers surface
schemes are not an option.
Environment Canterbury, cannot become a “Consent Trader”, however it can provide
a regime which allows consents to be traded equitably and fairly by famers.
Environmental wins can be made by ensuring efficient irrigation, proper metering and
record keeping and annual volumes established which efficiently meet irrigation
demand.
Randomly penalising transfers by taxing an arbitrary 25 or 50% will not reward good
irrigation practice, it will also not enable short term swaps or leases which could
allow more efficient water use over a short period. Rather it will quite likely promote
inefficient water use and the hoarding of “Paper Water”.
When an annual volume is allocated to a consent, it should only meet the irrigation
demand of the proposed irrigation. “Paper Water” exists where more water has been
allocated than is needed to meet irrigation demand. This water cannot be used
efficiently if at all.
Either banning water transfers or taking some water back can, as part of a well
thought out plan, be one of the tools used to rectify over-allocation of a groundwater
zone. However as it is applied here, as a sort of default and blunt instrument, it will
not rectify over-allocation. Section 6 is the proper place to make plans to address
over-allocation of groundwater zones. Only properly configured plans will have any
hope of redressing over-allocation. This proposed taxation is tinkering where proper
action is required.
Environment Canterbury manages the allocation of groundwater by either calculating
irrigation demand using the out of date WQN9 version 2 or consented annual
volumes. There are many over/under estimates of irrigation demand and double
counting (where land is irrigated by more than one consent) even in zones which
have recently been reviewed. In many cases there has been no split between the
stream depletion element of a consent and groundwater.
Although better use of surface water, storage and aquifer recharge are very important
and will bring in more water resources, I feel there should be more emphasis in this
plan on how groundwater can be better managed, especially for people who cannot or
do not want to join in one of the big schemes.
Page 3 of 4
I recommend:










Plans to reduce over-allocation in groundwater zones must include a review of
the zone consents and a rationalisation of the data used to calculate water
allocated.
The consent reviews must ensure all groundwater consents have annual
volumes and that there is no consented or allocated “Paper Water”, only
proper irrigation demand must be consented and accounted for.
The reviews should also split stream depletion from groundwater and properly
allocate them to surface or groundwater allocations.
As part of its review Environment Canterbury should use its powers under
Section 126 of the RMA to win back unused consents eg those consents where
the land has been subdivided for housing estates.
Environment Canterbury ensures that it does not put unnecessary barriers on
the free transfer of consents.
A buffer (say 10 %) over full allocation in a groundwater zone should be
established for each allocation to allow transfers.
Adaptively managed allocation, must be identified and managed separately
from the “base allocation”.
Free Trade Areas and Water User Groups, who can share consented
groundwater over several farms should be encouraged.
If transferred water is to be “taxed”, water which is as a result of an efficiency
gain, should have a lesser tax or none at all to encourage efficient water use.
Innovative methods, including financial incentives, should be devised and
used to encourage consent holders to be more efficient with water use and to
give unused water back to the allocation.
Yours faithfully
David Hendrikz
Page 4 of 4