TABLE OF CONTENTS - UPRA · table of contents contents general information ...
Contents
description
Transcript of Contents
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.
0
50
100
150
200
250
DairyShed Wash-down
Domestic + Stock Drinking (14(3)(b)
Consented (irrigation, Municipal, etc.)
Non-Complying
---------------------------------Discretionary
---------------------------------Controlled
Paiko catchment (200-700% overallocated)
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 WRC evidence 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
Outcomes Achieved Asked for Final Version ChangesAcknowledgement of primary production
Explicit statements of importance of Primary production in Issues and Objectives
Delete Order of priority Policy
Deleted
Protect existing dairy water takes
Controlled rule (15 years) to ’grandparent’ existing dairy takes esp. in overallocated catchments
Increase allocable % above Karapiro
Increase to 5% given from 3.6%. Important for irrigation. Worth $150m to $200m .
Less metering requirements
Only require metering above certain pump size
Increased priority for dairy water
Now dairy shed washdown same as drinking water and 2nd best priority.
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.
• Wairakei Thank You
Questions ?
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)
Stock Water – Surface Takes
Existing Takes
Catchment allocation
Appealedversion
Final Version
< 15m3 =>100% Discretionary
Allowed
< 100% Allowed Allowed> 15m3 =>100% Discretiona
ryAllowed
< 100% Allowed AllowedNew Takes
Catchment allocation
Appealedversion
Final Version
< 15m3 =>100% Discretionary
Discretionary
< 100% Allowed Allowed> 15m3 =>100% Discretiona
ryDiscretionary
< 100% Allowed Allowed
Dairy shed - Surface Takes
Existing Takes
Catchment allocation
AppealedVersion
Final Version
< 15m3 =>100% Discretionary Permitted< 100% Permitted Permitted
> 15m3 =>100% Non-Complying
Controlled*
< 100% Controlled Controlled*
New Takes
Catchment allocation
Appealedversion
Final Version
< 15m3 =>100% Discretionary Discretionary< 100% Permitted Permitted
> 15m3 =>100% Non-Complying
Non-Complying
< 100% R Disc. / Cont R Disc./ Cont