Transcript Slide 1

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?
• 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.
250
Paiko catchment (200-700% overallocated)
200
150
Non-Complying
100
---------------------------------
DairyShed Wash-down
Discretionary
--------------------------------Controlled
50
0
Domestic + Stock Drinking
(14(3)(b)
Consented (irrigation, Municipal,
etc.)
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
Oct 2006
Dec 2007 – Mar 2008
Oct 2008
Jan 2009
Mar 2009 - Early 2010
Aug 2010
Sept 2010
Oct 2010
Dec 2010 - Feb 2011
Apr – June 2011
July 2011
Dec 2011
Jan 2012
Apr 2012
Developed by regional council.
Variation Notified
Hearings – Extensive evidence by AWG
Decisions Version
Parties Appeal to EC
‘Meetings’. NO mediations.
WRC evidence received
New WRC version - Major changes
All appellants evidence in (>50 documents)
EC Hearings start
Expert witness caucusing (many changes)
Closing Legal arguments from appellants
Environment Court decision released
Variation 6 has full legal effect
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 Changes
Acknowledgement 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
Appealed
version
< 15m3
=>100%
Discretionary Allowed
< 100%
Allowed
=>100%
Discretionary Allowed
< 100%
Allowed
Allowed
New Takes
Catchment
allocation
Appealed
version
Final
Version
< 15m3
=>100%
Discretionary Discretionary
< 100%
Allowed
=>100%
Discretionary Discretionary
< 100%
Allowed
> 15m3
> 15m3
Final
Version
Allowed
Allowed
Allowed
Dairy shed - Surface Takes
Existing
Takes
Catchment
allocation
Appealed
Version
Final
Version
< 15m3
=>100%
Discretionary
Permitted
< 100%
Permitted
Permitted
=>100%
NonComplying
Controlled*
< 100%
Controlled
Controlled*
> 15m3
New Takes
Catchment
allocation
Appealed
version
Final Version
< 15m3
=>100%
Discretionary
Discretionary
< 100%
Permitted
Permitted
=>100%
Non-Complying
Non-Complying
< 100%
R Disc. / Cont
R Disc./ Cont
> 15m3