Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago
Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago
Martin Ward
Environmental consultant
Shona Russell
Landcare Research
Prepared for:
Foundation for Research, Science and Technology
PO Box 12240, Thorndon, Wellington 6144
August 2010
31 Moncks Spur Road, Redcliffs, Christchurch 8081
Landcare Research, Gerald Street, PO Box 40, Lincoln 7640, New Zealand, Ph +64 3 321 9999, Fax +64 3 321 9998, www.landcareresearch.co.nz
Reviewed by: Approved for release by:
James Lennox Michael Krausse Senior Researcher Science Team Leader Landcare Research Sustainability & Society
Landcare Research Contract Report: LC0002
© Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd 2010 No part of this work covered by copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means (graphic, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, information retrieval systems, or otherwise) without the written permission of the publisher.
Contents
Summary ...... v
1 Introduction ...... 1
2 Research Approach ...... 3
3 Background ...... 4
3.1 Legislative changes ...... 4
3.2 Changing government involvement in water sharing schemes ...... 5
3.3 Arrangements for water use and distribution...... 7
4 Drivers for water sharing ...... 9
4.1 Canterbury ...... 10
4.2 Otago ...... 11
4.3 Summary of drivers...... 12
5 Case studies ...... 13
5.1 Canterbury: Te Ngawai Water Users Group ...... 13
5.2 Canterbury: Ashburton–Lyndhurst Irrigation Company ...... 14
5.3 Canterbury: Opuha Water Partnership ...... 16
5.4 Otago: Kakanui Allocation Committee & Friends ...... 18
5.5 Otago: Maniototo Irrigation Company ...... 21
5.6 Summary ...... 23
6 Conditions for success for water sharing schemes...... 27
6.1 Community-based leadership ...... 27
6.2 Local identity ...... 28
6.3 Shared knowledge and development of trust ...... 28
6.4 Reliable and up-to-date information ...... 29
6.5 Good relationships with regulators ...... 29
Landcare Research Page iii Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago
7 Discussion ...... 30
7.1 Other institutional responses ...... 30
7.2 Insights from Social Capital ...... 34
8 Conclusions ...... 35
9 Acknowledgements ...... 36
10 References ...... 36
Page iv Landcare Research
Summary
Project and Client
This report presents findings from an examination of the development of communal irrigation schemes to understand characteristics of their formation and operation that might inform future development of such schemes. It was prepared in 2010 for the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology, and end-users of the Old Problems New Solutions Project 1 (C09X0702). Old Problems New Solutions examines how researchers and policymakers work together with water users and communities for the governance for sustainable management of water resources.
Objectives
Our research sought to find out: What drivers have shaped the development of water sharing schemes? What are the characteristics of these water sharing schemes? What are some of the conditions that have been important in the development of schemes?
Approach
The project examined the development of water sharing schemes for irrigation in Canterbury (Te Ngawai Water Users Group, Ashburton–Lyndhurst Company, and the Opuha Water Partnership) and Otago (Kakanui Water Allocation Committee and Maniototo Irrigation Company). The findings presented in this report are informed by interviews with key individuals linked to those groups and staff from regional councils to identify these conditions. The insights from interviews are supported by insights from literature about the historical development of irrigation and the primary sector in New Zealand.
Findings
Water sharing schemes have developed in response to drivers such as: Desire for more reliable supply of irrigation water Pressure from new irrigators for water allocations Challenge to regional councils of monitoring thousands of individual consents Increasing awareness of the need for more active management of water resources
1 See http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/programme.asp?Proj_Collab_ID=94
Landcare Research Page v Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago
Over-allocation of surface water resources leading to extreme low flows in some rivers Shortcomings in early planning and consenting, especially around environmental flow volumes Characteristics of the schemes differed with regards the origins of the scheme, whether storage was available, whether water sharing or rostering arrangements were in place, and the sources of water supply for each scheme. Other factors such as the development and management of relationships both internally between members of the scheme, and externally, with regulators and other stakeholders, and the use of telemetry have been important in the management of both the water sharing scheme and on-farm irrigation. We identified a set of „conditions‟ that have been important in the development of these schemes and that are likely to be so in the future: Community-based leadership Local identity Shared knowledge Reliable and up-to-date information Good relationships with regulators
Conclusions & Recommendations
The research has identified a range of development pathways for water sharing schemes from those that originated from historic mining rights to others that were formed in response to Environment Court decisions. Trust relations within schemes and with others, particularly regulators, are increasingly important especially as there is a move from regulation to collaboration for the management of New Zealand‟s water resources. Further research could examine Development pathways of water user groups in other parts of the country Impacts of changing nature of relationships between schemes and regulators, such as in relation to monitoring of water abstraction, influences the development of water sharing schemes The linkages between the development of water sharing schemes with other collaborative responses to water management and how such collaboration will be supported by government agencies, regulators and the irrigation industry.
Page vi Landcare Research
1 Introduction
Water is vital to land use activities. Reliable access to water for stock and irrigation is particularly important to agricultural activities in New Zealand. In dry or drought-prone areas, a reliable water supply enables farmers to increase and maintain stock numbers and helps ensure crops mature to harvest in profitable yields. In response to the need for reliable supply of water, water sharing schemes have developed allowing for irrigation. In 2001, irrigation schemes serving from 500 to 30,000 ha provided irrigation water to farmers over more than 165,000 ha in New Zealand (MAF 2001).
This report presents findings from an examination drivers and conditions that have been important in the development of water sharing schemes in Canterbury and Otago. The report was prepared in 2010 for the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology, and other end-users of the Old Problems New Solutions Project2 (C09X0702). The research has been conducted as part of a research programme (Old Problems New Solutions3) that examines water governance in New Zealand focusing on the emergence of innovative responses to water management challenges.
Water sharing schemes have developed as communal or community responses to water challenges, sometimes alongside individual resource consents for water and the building of on-farm storage. „Communal irrigation schemes‟ are described as „the grouping together of people to share in the collection and distribution of water into a defined community of interest‟ (MAF 2001).We use the term „water sharing schemes‟ to describe response to water challenges that incorporate water sharing arrangements for water use, most often for irrigation.
Here, we examine the drivers and conditions that have been important for the development of five schemes located in Canterbury and Otago (see Figure 1) – two regions with the largest areas of irrigable land in the country. We identify the diversity of characteristics of water sharing schemes to illustrate the range of different pathways current, and future, schemes could develop. We have positioned the developments of these schemes in the context of similar collaborative initiatives in both regions that are emerging in response to challenges with land and water management4.
2 See http://www.opns.landcareresearch.co.nz for further information 3 This research was conducted as part of the Old Problems, New Solutions project that examines decision- making for sustainable management of water resources. Other parts of the research project examine governance arrangements (Gunningham 2008, unpubl. report); participation in decision-making (Russell & Ward 2010); deliberative processes for water management (Lennox et al. forthcoming) and sustainability appraisal of water strategy options (Russell & Ward 2010; Jenkins et al. forthcoming). 4 Other examples of collaborative responses to aspects of water management include the Land and Water Forum, Canterbury Water Management Strategy, and efforts by regional councils to support water user groups e.g. the Upper Taieri Project in North Otago. See section 5.7 for further discussion of these groups.
Landcare Research Page1 Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago
Figure 1 Locations of water sharing schemes in Canterbury and Otago.
Page2 Landcare Research Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago
2 Research Approach
Research was conducted between November 2009 and February 2010. During that period, we reviewed literature and policy documents to understand the context in schemes have developed; and one of the researchers (Martin Ward) conducted interviews with key individuals connected to these schemes and water user groups.
The review of previous work involved searching for literature and policy documents on databases, websites and asking individuals to recommend documents. Previous research had examined the social impacts of irrigation schemes (McCrostie Little & Taylor 2001), water transfer (Lang et al. 2006, 2008), and the changing administration of schemes (Collins et al 2001, Le Prou 2007). While various presentations5 and papers written by a range of individuals engaged in various aspects of water management in New Zealand with regards water allocation (Jenkins 2007), water security (Heiler 2009) and community-led water management (Newman & Robertson 2010) provided useful insights into the current developments in water sharing from perspectives of regulators, irrigation industry and community groups.
We identified five schemes in Canterbury and Otago regions as examples of community- based groups coming together to share water – primarily for irrigation. We approached irrigation industry organisations and irrigation schemes via telephone to describe the project, the objectives and intended outputs; and to request interviews with particular individuals or to seek recommendations about whom to interview. We identified key informants as those individuals who were leaders with experience of the particular schemes and who had an understanding of the context and technical details of schemes. We also identified other informants from regional councils and interviewed them on the basis that some water scheme consent conditions stipulate that irrigators must engage with stakeholders while others have ongoing relationships with regional council staff in related aspects of water management.
We developed an interview schedule to identify and examine the drivers of the schemes‟ respective developments; the conditions that have been important for their development and the characteristics of these schemes. We conducted 21 face-to-face interviews between December 2009 and February 2010 with key informants from schemes and regional councils. In some cases individuals were happy to meet alone and in other cases interviews were held with two members of an irrigation group. Some interviews were repeated with key informants to clarify points. After interviews were completed we sought verification of our descriptive analysis of the scheme, clarification of details, and further comments from participants. Interviewees also discussed „big picture‟ issues including developments in corporate farming, changes in rural communities, and long-term impacts and benefits of changing farming practices that provide a context in which to understand the development of water sharing schemes.
5 Such as the Water Infrastructure Forum in December 2008, Christchurch.
Landcare Research Page 3
3 Background
Voluntary water sharing schemes for irrigation began in New Zealand in Central Otago during the late 1800s using dams, races and other facilities originally developed for gold mining (see Box 1 below). Using a method referred to as „wild flood‟, these activities were owned and operated by individual farmers or groups of farmers. Since then other schemes have developed with government and private involvement. More recently, water user groups in other regions, such as Hawkes Bay, are exploring options for water sharing schemes. Here we present an overview of some of the factors and changes that have occurred concerning legislative changes, degrees of government involvement in the schemes prior to giving an introduction to types of arrangements that are common amongst the schemes.
Mining Privileges in Central Otago
The first water sharing schemes in Central Otago secured water through the Mining Act 1898 which provided for the issue of ‘mining privileges in respect of water’ for terms of up to 42 years. These privileges were issued for mining gold with little, if any, assessment of actual stream flows available (Otago Regional Council, 2007). They were divisible and transferable and were widely issued in Otago, especially in Central Otago. A system of priorities attached to the issue of these permits such that the ‘first in time means the first in right’ allowing one deemed permit holder to take all the available water leaving no downstream flow for other water users or to maintain aquatic habitat. When accumulated the rights exceed available river flows in parts of Central Otago (Heiler 2009).
3.1 Legislative changes
The Mining Act 1898 is just one piece of legislation that has been formative in the development of water sharing schemes. Table 1 below summarises some of the legislation that been influential in the development of schemes with regards the purpose or origins of the establishment of water sharing schemes as an engineering project first and foremost rather than one that enables ongoing diversification of land use by farmers as is the case with the Public Works Act 1928.
Other legislation provided for rights to use water and changed the terms and conditions of the mining privileges first granted in the late 19th century, as well as the changing how irrigation schemes were financed and who paid for different aspects of the water sharing schemes. Government funding applied only to capital works to take the water from the river source, for canals and, where used, storage dams. On-farm distribution costs were not funded by the government. The rationale for government involvement in irrigation investment rested on the schemes being too large and investment horizons too long for individuals acting alone. Furthermore, government involved in these large scale scheme developments were seen to provide employment in agricultural production (Farley & Simon 1996) and more specifically in the Depression years of the 1930s scheme development enabled gainful employment of unemployed persons in public good works programmes.
Page 4 Landcare Research Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago
Table 1 Legislation and water sharing schemes
Public Works Act Legislation treated early scheme development as an engineering project with poor 1928 provision for the wide ranging changes that had to be made by landholders. Water and Soil This was the first comprehensive water management legislation which provided for rights Conservation Act to take and use water for the use of individuals, companies and the Crown. Most early 1967, schemes outside Otago were developed under this legislation. An amendment to the Act in 1971 provided for the term of mining privileges held by the government or a local authority to continue in perpetuity. Public Works Act This Act introduced a statutory basis for calculating water charges. The legislation 1975 provided for a two-part water charge: a ‘basic charge’ levied on all irrigable land within the scheme (regardless of whether it was actually being irrigated) to recoup a portion of capital costs, a ‘water availability’ charge, payable when water was available to be taken from the schemes, and an ‘overhead ‘amount to cover operation and maintenance costs (Farley & Simon 1996). Irrigation Scheme This Act established authority ‘to dispose the irrigation projects and eliminated all Act 1990 statutory provisions for irrigation. In addition, the Act provided for the transfer of existing access rights held by the government to new owners; and provide for the transfer of existing government-held water rights to the purchasers’. The legislation addressed each scheme to be ‘sold’ to private owners, detailing the assets and essential elements of the scheme arrangements. Resource This Act legislates for the allocation of water and provided for Irrigation Company Public Management Act Works Act rights to terminate in 2001 and mining privileges to cease in 2021. It specified 1991 that all water rights issued under other earlier legislation are to expire on 1 October 2026. This legislation established new procedures and rules governing water use, with regional councils playing a leading administrative role with catchment studies and consenting water takes.
3.2 Changing government involvement in water sharing schemes
Government involvement in water sharing schemes began in 1910 with public financing of 12 irrigation projects in Central Otago before the end of 1935. The government purchased or appropriated many of the mining privileges and developed larger irrigation schemes, often involving dam-contained storage. After 1935, government-financed construction of irrigation projects was extended to other areas of the country with the eventual construction of 40 irrigation projects in the South Island and 9 in the North Island. The great majority of schemes utilised border-dyke irrigation methods for pastoral farming, mostly sheep
During periods of higher government involvement, the Ministry of Works6 designed, constructed and operated the government-owned irrigation schemes and had the responsibility for determining annual water charges. These were paid by water users to cover operation and maintenance costs plus the interest costs associated with a quarter of the capital cost associated with headworks and distribution facilities (Farley & Simon 1996). A number
6 Later to become the Ministry of Works and Development.
Landcare Research Page 5
of schemes involved some electricity generation, an activity that was managed by the government for use in the national grid.
Following a shift away from active government participation in the economy during the economic reforms of the 1980s, Fifty-two government-owned irrigation projects, ranging in size from 100 ha to >20 000 ha and involving from three to over 300 individual irrigators, were put up for sale. The projects were sold in their existing condition, which in many instances reflected significant deferred maintenance and which resulted in the government paying the irrigators to accept the assets. Water rights held by the government were transferred to the projects on existing terms and conditions except that the remaining terms were limited to 30 years from the date of sale. The new owners of the irrigation schemes established co-operatives or incorporated societies with office holders elected from amongst their numbers. Formal water supply agreements were put in place and race men employed to operate the schemes day to day and for maintenance.
The privatisation of the Ministry of Works and Development‟s operations in 1988 (the source of government hydrology and engineering expertise central to irrigation development) and the withdrawal of government from a central role in the economy was accompanied by a swift and complete withdrawal of subsidy support from almost all aspects of farming. There was a period of consolidation for voluntary water sharing schemes in the two regions with little irrigation development. More recently, individual irrigation schemes have developed comprising mainly groundwater abstraction and with increasing emphasis on spray irrigation of various types. Four large community irrigation schemes developed by farming interests are the Downlands, Opuha, Benmore and Waimakariri schemes. The Maniototo Irrigation Scheme was extended during this period as well. Two others with resource consents but that have yet to be constructed are the Central Plains and Barrhill–Chertsey schemes. All schemes had some form of underwriting of capital cost either by the local council, an electricity company or significant shareholder investor.
While schemes were built, there was slow uptake in on-farm irrigation in the first half of the twentieth century which is attributed to a „failure to provide reference to farmers‟ needs and expectations meant that irrigation development on-farm was completed very slowly and therefore there was under-utilisation of the resource for many years‟ coupled with increased annual costs both operational and maintenance for the infrastructure, and farmers‟ unwillingness to pay additional costs (MAF 2001). By the mid-1950s, there was a realisation that development of water sharing schemes required prior commitment and involvement by farmers and others with regards both the costs and involvement from the start. Farmers had to be involved and fully informed of expected financial responsibilities in the future, the possible benefits that they would gain from irrigation leading to active involvement of farmers in the promotion and implementation of schemes as well as the increased provision of advice and research on irrigation practices and farm management benefits (MAF 2001).
Increasingly, local government had an important and active role alongside their communities in the development of water sharing schemes. Local and regional government have contributed technical advice, labour and machinery as well as acting as an advocate and mediator between the community and Central Government as evidenced during the development of the Rangitata Diversion Race (see McCrostie Little & Taylor 2001 and information in section 6.2). In addition, in recent years MAF‟s Sustainable Farming Fund has supported community groups by giving information and advice on irrigation illustrating
Page 6 Landcare Research Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago the ongoing relationships between government agencies and farmers that are important in scheme development.
3.3 Arrangements for water use and distribution
Seasonal fluctuations in surface water and hydraulically connected groundwater and the need to ensure water is available in alignment with crop growth cycles and seasonal-long demand for pasture associated with land use intensification and growth in arable and dairy farming has led to the development of various arrangements for the use and distribution of water both on-farm and across water sharing schemes. The majority of water sharing schemes in Canterbury and Otago involve taking water directly from rivers and hydraulically connected groundwater. These sources of water are subject to seasonal fluctuation. Restricting water use on farms as surface water flows diminish or groundwater levels decline provides challenges and stress for on-farm management. Schemes that take water direct from rivers or ground water, and those with storage require arrangements for the distribution and use of water, particularly when managing depleted flows in summer.
The rapid increase in individual irrigation takes (since 1999) has driven another type of water sharing scheme. These arise from groups of individual irrigators seeking takes from surface or hydraulically connected groundwater from a particular stretch of a river. Sharing arrangements are increasingly being imposed by regional councils as the councils have sought innovative ways of meeting the demand for irrigation water while managing the collective impact on river flows of new and existing irrigators. The new form of communal arrangement is to help ensure an equitable distribution of the water resource between abstractors, and between them and the environmental needs of the rivers. These arrangements are generally imposed through the regulatory system with conditions on individual and groups of consents.
Rostering of water supply (or take) or restrictions on takes are the common arrangements used7 in the use and distribution of water. Decisions about when to use, and distribute, water requires reliable and timely river flow information as well as some basis for distribution. Telemetry technology provides tools to monitor river flows guide individual farming, and distribution decisions across the scheme; while collaboration between consent holders sharing the same restriction arrangements as a result of their location (on the same tributary or stretch of the river) or consent type (restricted class of consents) offers the basis for „distribution‟ of water take opportunities to meet individual as well as communal needs.
In the larger schemes, when diversion or dams are involved, water supply to individual irrigators is subject to arrangements established by the parent entity through water supply agreements (WSA). These agreements (or irrigation deeds) set out details of how and how much water is to be made available, what time of year and at what cost it is to be delivered. Water supply agreements for different schemes have developed from the common model established by the Ministry of Works but with some differences depending on the type of scheme (see Table 1).
7 Resource consents commonly have a two-step response to diminishing flows – step 1 to go to 50% reduction, step 2 to full restriction, i.e. no abstraction.
Landcare Research Page 7
Table 2 Examples of rostering arrangements
Type of scheme Factors to consider in rostering arrangements Communal irrigation Rostering is used to share water demand scheme Larger dam or diversion Roster must take into account the need to ‘push’ sufficient volume down the system race schemes to ensure irrigators towards the end of the system receive their allocation. Run of river schemes Rostering is to ensure river environmental flow levels are not breached
While the need for a roster, for normal delivery and restricted flow delivery, is identified in the WSA, the roster itself sits outside the agreements as a management tool for amendment from time to time as circumstances dictate. Well-designed rosters and close compliance with roster „rules‟ is critical to the effective and efficient operation of the schemes. Commonly individual irrigators are rostered to take a particular volume of water between specified times. Taking water outside these times denies other irrigators their allocation, while failing to take the water can result in flooding of roads and pressure on infrastructure.
In order for these WSAs to work, it is necessary to closely monitor and record water use. The ongoing monitoring, recording and reporting of water use supports the ongoing information base for decision-making about when and how to use and distribute water. In addition, this body of information is likely to be more accurate than the regulators occasional compliance monitoring, often in the form of spot-checks. The ongoing monitoring of water use by irrigators, as users of water, could lead to the reduction of costs for both the regulators and water user through the reduction in the need for additional monitoring by the regulator.
Rostering and monitoring are just some of the rules, informal and formal, that are in operation in schemes. Other rules include restrictions on types of operations (for example not „watering roads or pumping at times that are not agreed upon8), are often set down in the incorporated society rules, water supply agreements, operations or operating policy manual. Non-compliance to these rules can lead to penalties. One company reports that the rules are not set down in any prescriptive way and would be best described as „common sense best practice‟ set by the Board and notified to shareholders in newsletters9. These examples illustrate the various ways in which schemes are developing arrangements for water use and distribution in accordance with the unique characteristics of the schemes as illustrated in the next section.
8 In one scheme the penalties for early pumping or late shut off are on a 5-step scale commencing with a verbal warning, followed by a written one, then 1 week‟s loss of water, then 3 weeks‟ loss, then loss of right to take at all. 9 Pers comm. Graeme Sutton
Page 8 Landcare Research Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago
4 Drivers for water sharing
Early irrigation projects were largely an insurance against drought against a perverse climate rather than a production management tool. As dryland farming approached its upper stocking limits under farm practices, the resilience of farm economics to withstand bad years diminished. Irrigation provides the means of not only overcoming drought but creates opportunities to intensify and diversify land uses. Irrigation technologies such as spray and sprinkler systems have led to the realisation of the full potential of water application (McCrostie Little and Taylor 2001). Initially the majority of irrigation and stock water schemes were „communal‟ because they needed the collective use of the water, to justify the capital involved. It was only when well-drilling and pumping technology improved that it become practicable for an individual farm to irrigate from its own resources.
While surface water was a common source of supply, groundwater use for irrigation started in the 1960s and more recently has increased with the rapid expansion of irrigated dairy farming onto light soils previously thought suitable only for extensive dry stock farming (Weeber et al. 2001). The development of more sophisticated irrigation methods, and in particular the move to spray irrigation, introduced the need for supply certainty. This has resulted in a trend towards on-farm or scheme storage.
Water allocation in New Zealand increased by 50% between 1999 and 2006 mainly as a result of an increase in the area of irrigated land (MfE 2007, p. 262) with allocation in Canterbury and Otago accounts for almost three-quarters of the country‟s total allocation. The allocation and sharing of water are intertwined with the growth in irrigation technologies and the area of land under irrigation. As water schemes have developed there have been changes in land use and options for the sources of water supply have been created through the development of different technologies. Notably, the security of water supply remains central to the development of water sharing schemes. Many different drivers have led to individuals coming together to discuss how water can be shared and managed for collective interests in response to a range of different concerns ranging from drought protection to job creation as summarised in Table 2 below.
Table 3 Changing governance concerns for irrigation (Collins et al 2001)
Era Dominant governance concerns Locations of new schemes 1910 – Drought protection Central Otago 1934 1935 – Job creation Canterbury 1949 Drought protection Desire to put water to work 1950 – Need to review schemes Canterbury 1960 Greater cost sharing Central Otago 1961 – National economic interest South Island 1984 Farm management tool Upper North Island Post – 1984 Improve efficiency A small number in diverse locations proposed before End subsidisation 1984 Privatisation through sale to irrigators
Landcare Research Page 9
Having given an overview of the concerns of water haring schemes generally, the following sub-sections introduce aspects of water governance for Canterbury and Otago, leading to the identification of drivers for such schemes.
4.1 Canterbury
Environment Canterbury (ECan) is the regional council with responsibilities for the management of Canterbury‟s water resources through the allocation of water resources through resource consents and the setting and adjustment of river levels. In Canterbury water resources are widely believed to be over-allocated (Jenkins 2007; Heiler 2009). However, actual use is believed to be between 50% and 70% of allocations on average (Heiler 2009). The region faces challenges in the form of the number of individual consents for water takes currently standing at over 6300 (James Palmer pers. comm.) with many consents covering more than one extraction point; and river flow levels below environmental flow levels commonly occur in rivers such as the Ashley, Waipara, Waikari, Selwyn and the Irwell. The year-on-year decline of groundwater reservoir levels and lowland and foothill river flows during irrigation seasons and increased competition for water through allocation processes leave few in doubt that the water resource has reached or exceeded sustainability levels.
Establishing and operating an effective region-wide programme to measure and monitor water takes and ensuring compliance with various consent and plan limits is a huge job and while there has been good recent progress with the development of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy Strategic Framework and the establishment of the zonal and regional committees which have respective responsibilities to develop water management implementation programmes.
Alongside the development of a regional strategic framework, water allocation decisions are increasingly considering the management of environmental flows and flow variation as part of responses to maintain in-stream ecological and recreational values; and telemetry is being used to record and report on flows. Ensuring an effective network of flow recorders with telemetry for real-time reporting is not subject to the lengthy delays that RMA procedures impose on environmental flow setting. Recent trials of telemetry of water use data have reinforced the potential for consent holders to actively manage their own resource use. Such management by consent holders avoids onsite readings thus reducing compliance monitoring costs. Furthermore, water use data can also be integrated with other data such as low-flow sites, climate and soil moisture data which when integrated can be used as an effective on- farm management tool to reduce overall running costs (ECan 2005) for consent holders.
Page 10 Landcare Research Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago
4.2 Otago
Demand for water has increased and there is a clear trend of decreasing flows in the Kakanui catchment during the irrigation season over time, despite no observable changes in rainfall trends. This is presumed to be an increase in water use intensity associated with an increase in intensive farming practices such as dairy farming that have a higher demand for water.
(Otago Regional Council 2007).
In Otago, water allocation and use for irrigation has a number of particular challenges relating to its history and changing land uses as the quote above identifies. Like Canterbury and other regions to a greater or lesser degree, there are some legacy issues arising from inadequate or incomplete hydrologic information on many rivers and lack of understanding of the connectivity between groundwater and surface water. Throughout the region, water sharing schemes for irrigation are reliant on water storage dams and old mining races, as well as individual irrigators having access to local water10.
Otago Regional Council is the regional council responsible for water management and the region‟s current response builds upon the historical rights to take water associated with „mining rights‟ (see Box 1), the „permissive‟ allocation of water under the Water and Soil Conservation Act, and finally the „first come first served‟ allocation under the RMA. The changing legislation and the absence of adequate catchment planning have resulted in many Otago rivers being over-allocated11.
The origin of the majority of water permits originally issued for mining activities (sluicing, etc.) under the Mining Act 1898, over 100 years ago in Otago (see Box) is the most significant driver for innovative and community-based management of water schemes. These permits cease to exist in 2021 and the regional council needs to establish replacement arrangements not just for individual water takes but also for a variety of water sharing schemes that have emerged over time associated with the mining rights. The informal and formal arrangements are outside the regulatory framework and would require complex and individual rules to bring them into a regional water plan.
The Otago Regional Council (2008a) has provided for Water Allocation Committees (WACs) in the Otago Regional Plan: Water to address the rationing of water takes when water is approaching minimum flows or aquifer restriction levels are in place. The WACs are established under a condition of resource consents and the consent holder must comply with restrictions set by the WACs. The WACs are subcommittees of the Regional Council; created under the Local Government Act, and subject to that Act. Every 3 years, the subcommittee must be reappointed by the Council, which provides some administrative and compliance support. By devolving decision-making to schemes allows the arrangements to be renewed
10 David Hamilton „Otago Irrigation Presentation‟ at Water Infrastructure Forum 20 December 2008 http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/sustainable-resource-use/irrigation/water-infrastructure- forum/presentation-02.pdf 11 The 2009 ORC report „Water management and allocation into the future – A strategy for Otago‟, records, „Most surface water in Otago, with the exception of the Clutha River/Mata-Au, is seriously over-allocated and demand for water continues to increase.‟ (ORC, 2009).
Landcare Research Page 11
(or be changed) within broad guidelines established by mutual agreement and introduced by plan change.
Alongside the development of a regional water plan and the devolution of decision-making to water committees, the regional council has established environmental flow levels for only a small number of Otago rivers. However, this is being addressed through a plan change (Otago Regional Council 2008a, 2008b). Notably, deemed permit holders do not need to abide by minimum flow restrictions.
4.3 Summary of drivers
In summary, water sharing schemes have developed in response to drivers such as:
Desire for more reliable supply of irrigation water Pressure from new irrigators for water allocations Challenge to regional councils of monitoring thousands of individual consents Increasing awareness of the need for more active management of water resources (for example through the setting of environmental flows) Over-allocation of surface water resources leading to extreme low flows in some rivers Shortcomings in early planning and consenting, especially around environmental flow volumes
And particular to Otago:
The expiry in 2021 of deemed permits issued under the Mining Act.
The next section presents case studies of water sharing schemes and initiatives to aspects of governance and management to identify factors that have been important for the development of these schemes over time. While each scheme has faced different challenges with regards drivers and characteristics in terms of scale, location, water availability and capital availability, as illustrated below, there are some common factors that have enabled schemes to develop as discussed in section 6.
Page 12 Landcare Research Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago
5 Case studies
Our investigation examines the development of water sharing schemes in Canterbury and Otago (see Figure 2) to glean insights with regard to drivers, responses and future pathways for action in local contexts involving a range of parties, including regulators and stakeholders. Here we examine the development of the schemes with reference to how each operates within the context of how allocation decisions are made by regional councils
5.1 Canterbury: Te Ngawai Water Users Group
Te Ngawai12 is a small true-right tributary of the Opihi River in South Canterbury. In 1999, applications to take water from Te Ngawai River were submitted under the RMA following the need to renew rights for irrigation under the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967. Environment Canterbury, the regulatory authority, considered the consent applications as a group at a notified hearing in 2001. Consents were issued with conditions that restricted the five applicants to ensure the river flow did not fall below a minimum flow level measured downstream of the lowest abstractor. Once minimum flow levels were reached, restrictions would then be applied.
Subsequently, the applicants appealed to the Environment Court regarding the conditions on the consents, and they proposed to collaborate in a water sharing scheme. On the basis of an Environment Court ruling, the consents were issued in 2003 to the applicant irrigators. The consents were identical and the Tengawai [sic] Water Users Group was identified as the named holder of the consents rather than the individual applicants. The informal group was formed as part of consent conditions without incorporation or other formal organisational structure.
The consent conditions also specify the rates at which the irrigators can pump water from the river or hydraulically connected groundwater in nearby gravels, the minimum flows during three periods of the year; and rule that irrigation restrictions will be imposed when river flows drop to, or fall below, those levels. Finally, the conditions directed the group to install approved measurement, data-logging and telemetry equipment on irrigation pumps. This water sharing scheme does not involve water storage and there is no rostering of water takes unless ECan has put water restrictions in place. This scheme would limit the combined rate of abstractions in the event that the flow reached minimum flow levels to ensure minimum flow requirements are not breached.
The group has developed an allocation and rostering system that controls who takes water during periods when full abstraction would result in non-compliance. The members meet annually and elect a chairperson whose responsibilities include liaising with the regulator and direct compliance action in response to the low-flow trigger. The established rationing procedure in the group is day-on/day-off rostering, although there is flexibility to negotiate different short-term arrangements subject to collective agreement. There are two steps down on restriction, initially to 50% then cease pumping.
12 Te Ngawai is the correct spelling of the name formerly and commonly written (and pronounced) Tengawai.
Landcare Research Page 13
Environment Canterbury installed telemetric data transfer equipment to enable compliance with consent conditions as part of a regional trial of equipment and the collection and use of information gathered. Since November 2005, the group has been able to access the information gathered from a consultant‟s website along with information on climate, soil moisture, low flows and dam levels that are available on the ECan website13. This gives consent holders continuous access to information that informs decisions about irrigation.
The telemetry trial was designed to allow these farmers to maximise the use of their allocated water either on an on-farm basis or collectively as water user. In both cases, instantaneous data were required to ensure that the farmers could manage the amounts of water taken and be able to demonstrate a degree of compliance with their resource consents. The trial highlighted a number of issues with flow meters (e.g. the meter type selected compromised the measurement of flow) and farmers in the trial had intermittent access to data due to slow Internet connections. One trial participant said he had seen no benefit from the technology as yet mainly „because Internet access in the area was abysmal‟ (ECan 2006, p. 1).
The ECan-funded telemetry trial ended at the finish of the 2008/09 irrigation season. Subsequently the Tengawai Group have not made alternative arrangements for data collection and transfer, such as investing in more equipment or monitoring services with the help of consultants. In the meantime, individual scheme members are now building on-farm storage to secure supply. While such developments could reduce, and in some cases eliminate, any incentive for further collaborative action, the high cost of water-harvesting dams in the Tengawai area has resulted in farmers looking at technology to help them optimise their opportunities for securing water when it is available.
5.2 Canterbury: Ashburton–Lyndhurst Irrigation Company
The Ashburton–Lyndhurst Irrigation Scheme straddles State Highway 77 between Methven and Ashburton in Mid-Canterbury. The scheme was established with government involvement and support and is one of three schemes14 supplied by the Rangitata Diversion Race which commenced delivering irrigation water in 1944 (see Box 2). As the second largest irrigation scheme in New Zealand, the Ashburton–Lyndhurst scheme occupies approximately 24 500 ha of land and has an allocation of 250 million cumecs [cubic metres per second] of water delivered at 13.0 cm3/s. In addition to supplying irrigators, the scheme also supplies the Ashburton District Council stock water race system and various private stock water races.
It was originally designed and operated as boarder dyke irrigation for predominantly pastoral farming. By 1986 all irrigable land within its reach was irrigated and the arrival of laser levelling for border dyke construction enabled a widespread change of water use from irrigation, from one of drought proofing to the use of irrigation as a farm management tool. In pursuit of better returns and greater reliability, agriculture in the area is now dominated by arable farming with increasing amounts of spray irrigation of one sort or another. In addition, dairy farming has steadily increased over the years. In recent years demand for water storage
13 Environment Canterbury www.ecan.govt.nz 14 The others are Mayfield–Hinds and Valetta.
Page 14 Landcare Research Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago has increased to meet the needs of centre-pivot irrigation methods, which require smaller quantities of water to be applied on a more regular basis. Some farmers have developed on- farm storage but the Ashburton-Lyndhurst Irrigation Company is in the process of purchasing a farm suitable for the location of a dam for scheme-wide storage.
Box 1: The Rangitata Diversion Race
The Rangitata Diversion Race (RDR) commenced construction in 1937 as one of the schemes developed by the Ministry of Works. It conveys approximately 34 cm3/s of water from the Rangitata River through irrigation canals across the Canterbury Plains to discharge into the Rakaia River. A second intake from the South Ashburton River can divert an additional 7 cm3/s of water when it is available. There are two electricity generation plants along the RDR that use water when it is not required for irrigation. The RDR ownership structure and operational arrangements were challenged by a number of legal changes through the 1990s including changes to the ownership of its electricity generating entity, and changes to the Local Government Act and the Companies Act. In 2002 a new constitution was formally agreed between its then shareholders, the three irrigation companies, the Ashburton District Council and Trust Power, each with a 15% share. Twenty-five percent is held as B shares by Ashburton District Council for future allocation.
The Ashburton–Lyndhurst Irrigation Company (ASIC) is a limited liability company formed in response to restrictions on raising capital for incorporated societies. The ASIC has six directors appointed by the shareholders. It is generally agreed to be the most innovative and progressive of the three schemes linked to the RDR scheme, which is a characteristic attributed to farming leaders with tertiary education and more stable farm ownership in the Ashburton–Lyndhurst scheme compared with the Valetta and Mayfield–Hinds schemes. Such stability delivers financial security and long-term relationships enabling more enterprising decisions.
Under original arrangements by the Ministry of Works, individual farms were allocated 8 cusecs (cubic feet per second) of water for 24 hours per week for every 80 ha of farm size15. Payment for supply is required whether the farmer takes the water during the irrigation season or not. Rosters are used during periods of normal water and when restrictions are in place. Rosters are prepared by the Head Race Man (increasingly known as the Operations Manager) in the evening. The preparation requires good knowledge of race flow rates in different parts of the extensive scheme. As river flows diminish, the RDR signals the likelihood of restrictions 7 days in advance. Restrictions are also imposed in the scheme as water volume reduces, to endeavour to continue to meet delivery frequency. The initial restriction is a reduction by 20%. The Head Race Man has final say over rosters, which decision can only be overruled by the Board. Roster discipline is important on this scheme. Compliance with start and finish times ensures neighbouring irrigators can use water at times allocated to them.
The water supply agreement addresses activities in and near the races, for example restricting the grazing of cattle, controlling vegetation and the planting of trees. The agreement provides for immediate cut-off in supply of water and removal of control devices for significant breaches of the agreement. In practice minor breaches of the water supply agreement result in forfeiture of one rotation of water.
15 Pers comm John Young
Landcare Research Page 15
5.3 Canterbury: Opuha Water Partnership
The Opuha Water Partnership (OWP) comprises the South Canterbury Farmers Irrigation Society and Levels Plains Limited16. The Partnership owns the Opuha Dam with an upstream reservoir and downstream subsidiary pool on the Opihi River near Fairlie in South Canterbury. The dam was developed by a group of local farmers with unreliable irrigation water supply from the Opihi River which was over-allocated and prone to periods without flow. It was completed in 1999 to optimise the water resource and includes a 7mw electricity generator. The scheme was originally financed through shares sold to landowners in the area that could be irrigated, with a $1 million government contribution for the establishment of environmental flows.
Discharge arrangements are governed by a complex set of conditions on the OWP consents. The dam operates to deliver water from the reservoir into the river to meet a hierarchy of needs and opportunities. An environmental flow level must be met at all times requiring a base flow plus augmentation to compensate for irrigation takes. Benefiting from the augmentation flows in the Opihi River are three downstream irrigation schemes, Levels Plains, the Totara Valley, and the Kakahu with a combined area of 9000 ha, plus 700 ha of land is irrigated by individual consent holders taking water from groundwater hydraulically connected to the river (Figure 3).
Figure 2 Land supplied by the Opuha scheme17.
16 These two organisations are in the process of being incorporated as Opuha Water Ltd. 17 From http://scfis.co.nz/map
Page 16 Landcare Research Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago
The dam was completed in 1999 to supply water from the reservoir into the river to meet a hierarchy of needs and opportunities (e.g. irrigation and generate electricity). Today the dam, reservoir and weir pool are under daily management of Contact Energy, under contract to SCFIS. Contact Energy discharges water in accordance with environmental flow requirements, flow augmentation emergency (flood) and other operational requirements (flush flows), and for electricity. The Opuha Water Partnership is owned by the two irrigation companies but the partnership intends to form Opuha Water Limited18 where farmers hold shares in the scheme directly rather than via the irrigation companies.
The individual irrigators hold Water Supply Agreements (WSA) with either of the two irrigation companies and these agreements entitle irrigators to quota of water based on their shareholding. The agreement states that SCFIS will use its best endeavours to deliver the quota of water at a weekly rate for the irrigation season defined as 1 September to May 3119. The volume and rate of delivery reflects the SCFIS water consent that sets an overall ceiling for both. The delivery clause is subject to an „as far as practicable‟ caveat. Supply is subject to availability and provision is made for „additional water‟ to be allocated when available through rostering.
Individual irrigators are required to record the flow rate of water take and provide this information to SCFIS. Charges for the water are set annually and operate on a partial „take or pay‟ formula with 80% of the charge required irrespective of use. There are penalties for breaches of the agreement set in two steps: first, reducing, and second, cutting off the water supply. Individual irrigators submit orders for their water requirement with a volume specified together with a start and finish time. The assembled orders guide the release of water from the dam. Irrigators taking water from hydraulically connected groundwater above and below the dam have meters and submit log records of water taken to SCFIS, a requirement of the Opihi River Regional Plan.
The scheme‟s operation together with other aspects of water use are subject to the Opihi River Regional Plan (ECan 2000)20, which has a complex set of resource consent types reflecting a history of takes and conditions from periods prior to and subsequent to the introduction of the RMA. All activities provided for in the regional plan are discretionary with the exception of the discharge of sewage, which is prohibited. The plan is due for review in 2010.
The Opihi River Regional Plan established an Opuha Environmental Flow Release Advisory Group (OEFLRG) comprising one representative each for the dam, for stakeholders of in- stream values (appointed jointly by Department of Conservation and Central South Island Fish & Game Council), takatä whenua, irrigators (appointed by South Canterbury Federated Farmers), and Timaru and Mackenzie district councils. The functions of the OEFLRG are to consider and agree variations of the specified environmental flows for the purpose of creating an artificial fresh (short-term flood level flows) and drawing down the dam in anticipation of flood flows. The Advisory Group has absolute authority to act subject to its decision being
18 Peter Scott, pers. comm. 19 Another company identifies the irrigation season as the full 12 months giving itself flexibility to use available water if necessary. 20 The Opihi River Regional Plan is a „main stem‟ plan and does not embrace the tributaries, something that would normally be the case for a catchment plan.
Landcare Research Page 17
unanimous but must notify the regulator. Following low inflows to the catchment in the summer of 2007/08, the advisory group gained approval from ECan in 2008 for a Water Storage Direction under Section 329 of the RMA to give temporary relief from consent conditions governing abstractions and river flows. This is now being accepted as a template of future permanent change to the Opihi River Regional Plan. As time has gone by and the nature of the environmental flow releases has become more routine and regular, the group has begun to act more informally as a result of trust on both sides in terms of making decisions about flows21.
The collaboration over a long period of the farmers and supporters who developed and built the dam has established strong relations between individuals and groups in the community. These relationships underpin the effective operation of the various organisations and committees that contribute to the management of the Opihi catchment and the irrigation assets that serve the community. The collaboration with community stakeholders, such as Fish and Game, dates back to the early planning for the dam and the functioning of the Opihi Augmentation Society22. This organisation established the respectful relationships and trust that have underpinned the smooth consenting of the dam project and challenges that followed.
In response to requests by SCFIS and based on a history of good relations with ECan, the regulator has allowed the data relating to consent conditions to be collected by contractors engaged by Opua Water Partnership and under individual contacts with irrigation companies and individuals (Heiler 2009). This reduced duplication of effort in reporting and produced a single integrated record for ECan. The effective operation of the Opuha Environmental Flow Release Advisory Group and the opportunity to reduce compliance costs has fuelled the Opua Water Partnership‟s interest in an „audited self management‟ approach to management of the catchment (see below).
Peter Scott, an individual heavily involved in the Opua Water Partnership, gave a presentation to the Water Infrastructure Forum in Christchurch in December 2008. He summarised lessons learnt during the development of the scheme as: community support/trust are important; someone needs to take responsibility; champions of the projects require support; water reliability needs to be high and affordable; and that management continues.
5.4 Otago: Kakanui Allocation Committee & Friends
The Kakanui River in North Otago drains a catchment of approximately 900 square kilometres from the eastern slopes of the coastal Kakanui Mountains. The river is highly valued for its conservation and recreational values and is an important source of irrigation water particularly in its lower reaches. The Kakanui Allocation Committee was established by the Otago Regional Water Board under the provisions of the Water and Soil Conservation Act around 1980. As one of two such committees in Otago, the Kakanui Allocation Committee was given the function of rationing the exercise of water permits within the
21 Peter Scott pers. comm. 22 The organisation formed to garner support for the development of the proposal and building of the dam.
Page 18 Landcare Research Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago community to prevent the taking of water to an extent that would result in the minimum flow levels that had been set for the river being breached.
The scheme does not involve water storage and, unless water abstraction restrictions have been put in place by the Otago Regional Council, there is no rostering of water takes – the irrigators simply pump from the river or hydraulically connected groundwater in nearby gravels at rates stipulated by their water consent.
Prior to the adoption of the Otago Regional Plan: Water in January 2004, it was difficult to know if flow rates were being complied with23. A key difficulty with compliance was that in the absence of metering or monitoring it was often not known who was taking water when the river fell below the minimum flow. The minimum flow in the Kakanui River was a matter addressed at length in the development of the regional water plan and an issue that was subject to appeal to the Environment Court. Evidence produced at the hearings on appeals to the regional water plan in February 1998 made it clear that at times of low flow there was not enough water in the river to meet the environmental and irrigation expectations for the river.
Through the court process the water abstractors, the Kakanui Allocation Committee, argued that the status quo minimum flow of 250 L/s should remain. Two other appellants, Riverwatch, a Kakanui-based NGO with a regional interest, and Otago Fish and Game Council, argued for a minimum flow of 400 L/s. In October 2001 the Environment Court set a minimum flow at 250 L/s for the period October to April inclusive and 400 L/s for May to September inclusive measured at two points of the river, and included a „bounce back‟ clause. That is, if the minimum flow during October to April is breached the river must be left to recover to a flow of 400 L/s before water taking can recommence. The bounce-back clause was established as an incentive to prevent minimum-flow breaches and put the onus on the water-take consent holders to manage the stream as a group.
In addition, the Environment Court directed the development of a water allocation committee, involving the existing Kakanui Allocation Committee and stakeholder partners. Now, the Kakanui Allocation Committee24 meets twice a year (before and after the „irrigation season‟) with Otago Fish and Game and the Kakanui Ratepayers and Improvement Society (KRAIS), a group nominated by Riverwatch as a suitable local partner.
The five-member Kakanui Allocation Committee (KAC) is elected by water-take consent holders on the river and they in turn elect from their group a chairman who deals with the Otago Regional Council and committee on day-to-day issues. The committee members are selected to lead sub-groups of irrigators in the catchment and take responsibility for ensuring roster decisions for their sub-group‟s part of the system. The five sub-groups represent different parts of the Kakanui system from which water is pumped: three sub-groups comprise abstracters from different stretches of the river pumping directly from the river, one sub-group comprises abstracters pumping from the alluvial gravels directly connected to the river (10–100 m from the river‟s edge), and one is of abstracters from a small tributary, the Kauru.
23 Susie McKeague, pers. comm. 24 Strictly speaking the committee is the Kakanui Allocation Subcommittee of the Otago Regional Council Regulatory Committee
Landcare Research Page 19
In practical operation the Kakanui Allocation Committee Chairman carries the majority of the load in terms of identifying and implementing measures to manage the response to diminishing flow levels towards the low-flow threshold. He receives automatically text alerts of water gauge levels at critical levels sent automatically and has access to web-based river flow information collected and transmitted by a network of recording stations established by Otago Regional Council. Information is also gathered from telemetry equipment at particular sites. As flows decrease, the allocation committee chairman confers with members and implements a roster of water takes to ensure the river flows do not fall below the 250 L/s level. Immediate responses include requesting the shutdown of selected, strategic pumps and longer-term measures include rostering of when and how long pumps may be used.
The system relies on the committee (in fact generally the Chairman) having a very good understanding of the river flow behaviour and up-to-date information on members‟ water use, as well as accurate and timely river flow information. He also needs the means to communicate his management decisions. In practice, the committee do understand the river well and information is generally but not always timely. Communication relies on cellphone coverage, which is patchy. Complete coverage by telemetry of all meters would make the job easier and reduce the not inconsiderable stress on the chairman of the time on whose shoulders the responsibility for keeping the river above minimum flow falls. Managing the system is not helped by different consents providing for different forms of take. All have an instantaneous rate of take limit, and some but not all have cumulative/volumetric volume limits; some of which are set as daily limits, other monthly and others seasonal25.
Rosters have traditionally been straightforward with groups of irrigators taking water over alternative periods, initially 12 hourly, then every 24 hours and so on at increasingly long intervals as water availability dictates. This is a self-policing system with irrigators contacting the chairman if an irrigator appears to not be following the roster for whatever reason.
The twice-yearly meetings between the committee, regional council, Kakanui Ratepayers and Improvement Society and Otago Fish & Game are acknowledged by all parties as becoming increasingly positive over the years. These meetings now tend to cover issues for the wider community rather than just water takes, and at the suggestion of the Kakanui Allocation Committee and with the agreement of the other parties they have been reduced to two. Over time, Otago Fish & Game and the Kakanui Ratepayers and Improvement Society have felt comfortable giving apologies and not attending meetings as their content is now so routine and relationships able to be managed between meetings with ease.
25 The start of the month is an important time for irrigators. Those who reached their monthly limit prior to that date come back onto the scheme at the start of the next month.
Page 20 Landcare Research Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago
5.5 Otago: Maniototo Irrigation Company
The Maniototo Irrigation Company manages dam storage at the Loganburn Dam on Loganburn Creek, an upper tributary of the Taieri River in the Paerau Valley at the southern end of the Maniototo Plain, Central Otago. The dam was constructed in the early 1980s and the stored water is used to provide supplementary flows in the Taieri River to maintain minimum flows measured immediately below the diversion point near Paerau. Irrigation shareholders take water at intervals along the river subject to rosters. Releases from the Loganburn Dam benefit holders of deemed permits and some RMA water take consents with takes between the dam and the Paerau diversion. These takes are not subject to supply agreements with the Maniototo Irrigation Company26.
The Maniototo Irrigation Company was the last of the government schemes and was taken over by the landowners in a partially complete state in 1984. Construction began in 1973 with an estimated cost of $6.2m; by the time it was commissioned in 1984 the cost was $32m.The early history of the Maniototo Irrigation Scheme was troubled. It was the last of the large government schemes, designed and built by the Ministry of Works. When commissioned in 1984 the infrastructure was in place for only about 40% of the area originally intended to be irrigated.
The scheme was purchased by the landowners in 1987 and in the course of the next decade the irrigation works and ownership and operational structure was completed. By 1990 it comprised three more-or-less independent limited-liability irrigation companies, East Side, West Side and Waipiata, which own the Maniototo Irrigation Company, which in turn owns and operates the dam and headworks. The three irrigation companies, with separate articles of association, own infrastructure related to the operation of their schemes. They receive an allocation of water in relation to their shareholder numbers.
In hearings on the draft Regional Plan Water in 2001addressing minimum flows, objections came from Otago Fish & Game, Federated Farmers, the Otago Water Resource Users Group and the irrigation company. Commissioners conducting the hearings directed representatives of the applicant and Fish & Game to meet the irrigation company representatives and resolve any issues, a dialogue which was the beginning of what both parties now describe as a good relationship.
Rosters are drawn up and published for all those who use gravity turnouts (330 L/s) approximately every 20–25 days during the irrigation season (15 September to 30 April). This is the length of the irrigation cycle for flood irrigation systems, although this can vary depending on soil types and time of year. These rosters are supplied to groups within the scheme where they have a common requirement (cycle length and location). Each group
26 The anomaly of deemed permit holders outside the scheme receiving augmentation water is explained as administrative oversight at the time the scheme was first set up and landowners within the scheme area were required to surrender their deemed permits (G. Cruchley, pers. comm.). Others are outside the scheme. Another Central Otago irrigation scheme, the Falls Dam Irrigation Company, manages the Falls Dam to provide supplementary flows in the Manuherikia River to maintain minimum flows. Irrigators take water at intervals along the river subject to rules of the Company and agreements with some deemed permit holders who also take water for irrigation. In contrast to the Maniototo scheme the deemed permit holders have been brought into the overall Falls scheme.
Landcare Research Page 21
shares what is referred to a „multiple‟ of water and the various multiples are intended to „fit‟ within the total volume contained in the race. The objective is to smooth demand and avoid doubling up of multiples, which requires use of stored water. It is a complex exercise and inevitably some spikes in demand still occur. Each irrigator receives a copy of the roster, showing the date and time that they may take water, how much water has been taken to date and how much is available for the remainder of the season.
Intensified land use accompanied irrigation development, and dairying is increasing season by season. The original scheme design provided for subsidised on-farm development of a specified area of land. It was expected that the amount of water required to supply that land would be between 5600 m³ and 7500 m³ per annum. When the scheme was completed using private capital in the late 1980s there was no subsidy for on-farm development and the limit on area was abandoned in favour of an allocation of water by volume, i.e. one share no longer equated to one hectare, but 7500 m³ of water per annum.
Under the original scenario it was common for an irrigator to use as little as 6000 m³ per annum, but now it is usual for the full allocation to be used but over a greater area. This has increased demand and strained storage resources, hence the move to raise the dam level. Nonetheless raising the dam does not solve the problem because it rarely fills to the spill crest – but it has a small beneficial effect.
There are two power stations within the irrigation, scheme owned and operated by Trust Power. The power stations use the run of the river through the winter, with the Paerau station passing all irrigation flows through the summer, during which time the Pateoroa station is normally shut down, i.e. during the irrigation season water for generation is limited to that taken for irrigation. During the winter the power scheme operates using its own consent to divert water through the headworks.
There is an uncomfortable misalignment of objectives between Trust Power and the Irrigation Company, which causes some difficulty for the Maniototo Irrigation Company (MIC) as co- owner/operators of the headworks. This is partly due to the different respective objectives of Trust Power, – to maximise revenue through generation from hydro schemes; and MIC – to support multiple/wider objectives in sustainable land use and maintenance of viable local communities. Furthermore each of the parties have different approaches to payment. MIC is obliged to pay one-third of the operation and maintenance of shared works. Trust Power applies a „cost plus‟ approach while MIC applies „user pays‟, where the payment is a charge on users. This uneasy partnership was brought about by the forced sale of the hydro facility by the co-operative Otago Power Board to Trust Power as a result of the electricity reforms. MIC Chairman Geoff Crutchley describes the involvement of Trust Power as „the Achilles heel of the system‟, being the only part over which the irrigation company does not have control.
Page 22 Landcare Research Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago
The Maniototo Irrigation Company continues to develop. As part of a Water Infrastructure Forum in Christchurch in 2008, Geoff Crutchley (Chair of MIC) gave a presentation which included a summary of the challenges the company had faced and the lessons learnt along the way with regards aspects of the water infrastructure for the scheme itself, the allocation and supply of water, engagement between scheme members and with other groups and land use27.
5.6 Summary
The water sharing schemes and the water management groups described above are distinctly different. In this section we mapped the landscape of water sharing schemes that have developed in Canterbury and Otago. These characteristics are summarised in Table 4 illustrating the diversity in the origins of the schemes but that there are similarities in the types of rostering and sources of water supply.
27 From presentation to Water Infrastructure Forum in December 2008 http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural- nz/sustainable-resource-use/irrigation/water-infrastructure-forum/presentation-07.pdf
Landcare Research Page 23
Table 4 Characteristics of Water Schemes
Scheme Origins Type of entity Storage? Water sharing Water supply Use of technologies arrangements Te Ngawai with arrangements for the Informal group No water storage Operates on total take River or hydraulically Telemetry trial to relay water consent holders meets annually with allowing rostering connected information to ECan arising from an elected chair to liaise arrangements amongst groundwater in Environment Court with regulator the group. No rostering of nearby gravels as per decision. 5 irrigators issued water takes, unless water consent with consents by ECAN with abstraction restrictions are restrictions to limit take as in place by regional river flows reduced council Ashburton– Developed by Ministry of Limited liability Some on-farm Water take from the rivers Receives water from Lyndhurst Works & Development in company with water storage is rostered both for the Rangitata 1944 permanent staff and exploration normal water delivery and Diversion Race. Good Largest of RDR scheme of options for a when restrictions are in supply in average Designed for border dyke dam for water place years. irrigation storage MWD water supply Large scheme supplied agreement from the Rangitata Diversion Race. Long history involving government capital. Laying pipes to reduce losses & extend scheme coverage
Page24 Page 25
Scheme Origins Type of entity Storage? Water sharing Water supply Use of technologies arrangements Opuha Farmer led scheme with Partnership of 2 Dam-impounded Irrigators have agreed Water released from cornerstone investor & irrigation entities (a storage of water water supply dam allowing for more $1million government limited liability for release into arrangements at times of reliable extraction for contribution. company & the rivers to normal flows & when irrigation & Developed in response to incorporated augment natural restrictions are in place. maintenance of overallocation of water and society). flows. Irrigators required to environmental flows unreliable water supply for Opuha report flow rates irrigation Environmental Flow Allocations agreed Release Advisory through WSA that require Group can agree & flow rates to be reported act to vary dam release Kakanui KAC established by Otago Comprises 5 No water storage No rostering of water River or hydraulically Online river flow Regional Water Board to members elected by takes, unless water connected information guides manage group of takes to water-take consent abstraction restrictions are groundwater in restriction decisions by maintain minimum flows holders, elected in place by regional nearby gravels as per committee chair. an early Environment Court chairperson council consent Information availability driven arrangement KAC subcommittee of hampered by incomplete involving water consent ORC regulatory meter telemetry & poor holders & community. committee with cell phone coverage,. requirement to meet LGA operational standard. Twice yearly meetings between scheme and stakeholders
Page 26
Scheme Origins Type of entity Storage? Water sharing Water supply Use of technologies arrangements Maniototo Last of the government 3 independent Dam-impounded Irrigators have agreed Water released from schemes taken over by the limited liability storage of water water supply dam allowing for more landowners in a partially irrigation companies for release into arrangements at times of reliable extraction for complete state in 1984. own the operating the rivers to normal flows & when irrigation & company augment natural restrictions are in place. maintenance of flows. environmental flows
Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago
6 Conditions for success for water sharing schemes
There are many drivers of irrigation development involving water sharing schemes and these are specific to local contexts as illustrated in the case studies. Modern farming is complex with increasing reliance on water, combined with growing competition for water resources. This has resulted in efforts for innovative, more collaborative management approaches that traditional formal and regulatory approaches find hard to deliver. The pressures associated with the expiration of mining permits in Otago and the issuing and monitoring of compliance of resource consents in Canterbury have created opportunities for irrigators to collaborate with each other and with stakeholders with benefits in terms of developing new water management regimes, reducing compliance costs, and creating positive relationships with regulators and other stakeholders. Our analysis of interviews with irrigation scheme members and individuals from various organisations involved in administrative or stakeholder relationships with them have identified factors that are necessary for the effective operation of these water sharing schemes and other collaborative water management initiatives, namely:
Community-based leadership Local identity Shared knowledge Reliable and up-to-date information Good relationships with regulators
6.1 Community-based leadership
The importance of good leadership for effective governance is self-evident and its source is important. These people are not elected representatives but more informal leaders who sit on school boards of trustees, sports clubs, and other community bodies. In all cases studied one individual or a small group of people have „put their hand up‟ to take a decision or to guide or lead a group to a decision that has been important for the development or smooth operation of the irrigation scheme. This may have been at a formative stage (Te Ngawai, Maniototo, and Opuha) and/or at some later stage where circumstances offered or required some leadership (Kakanui, Ashburton–Lyndhurst).
Effective leaders tend to be most effect when they originate from the community and have support from some regulatory authority (e.g. central or local government). Any group‟s operation many be assisted or hampered by alternative roles of support and encouragement or lack of it from the regulator. The leader adds credibility to the group and this helps with the engagement with community and regulator. When leadership is not exercised there is a risk that collective activity falls away, as appears to be the case recently in Te Ngawai group as they pursue individual storage arrangements.
Page 27 Landcare Research Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago
6.2 Local identity
Water sharing schemes have unique local identities. Where landowners/irrigators have a strong sense of place and identify with an area, its history and its land and rivers, governance arrangements and management decisions relating to that place and those resources are more likely to reflect the long-term needs of the community. This sense of community born out of multi-generational connection with the land is a strong basis for producing community leadership and confidence to embark on new relationships with „outsiders‟ with respect for land and water management (e.g. Opuha and Maniototo). Such sense of place and identification with the area can be experienced by others, such as recreational users of the rivers, and this shared sense of place creates a foundation for partnership amongst various interest groups to pursue common goals.
The changing composition of actors involved in irrigation schemes with regards different purposes for water schemes (such as irrigation and power generation) or the changing ownership of farms create some tensions in water sharing schemes. Different actors have varying motivations to participate in schemes creating tension that needs to be addressed. For example, the involvement of power companies, especially when irrigation-related power assets change hands, has led to tension in the operation of water schemes (e.g. Maniototo) due to a perceived lack of knowledge of the local community and focus on profit targets from power generation. Multi-generational ownership of farms can be a source of caution when seeking to innovate (e.g. Ashburton–Lyndhurst). The arrival of new owners without local history and with different farming experience can threaten or destabilise both internal and external relationships at least in the short term (Te Ngawai and Maniototo).
6.3 Shared knowledge and development of trust
Fundamental to effective governance of the schemes is the need for all stakeholders to have a good understanding of issues and concerns, i.e. shared knowledge of the different aspects that bear upon the scheme, such as climate and weather, land use (and misuse), hydrology and water quality, ecology and recreational use of the river and its surrounds. This aspect is the most visible and common to the case studies and the regional ad hoc arrangements and includes recognition of the values of the local iwi. Together with shared experiences, sharing knowledge contributes to the building of trust over time. It has been reported that it takes at least eighteen months as the span for meetings, information sharing and discussion to deliver marked benefits in compromise and concession28 across three of the schemes featured above, such as the Upper Taieri Water Resource Management Group who understand the benefit of collective experience and shared knowledge and are using a process that ensures this to achieve consensus for the future of their catchment.
In an examination of drivers and barriers to water transfer in the Opuha Irrigation Scheme, Lange et al. (2008) identify good access to information and central administration as being aspects of the scheme that give openness and transparency. They believe this is effective for water rights transfers, the subject of their study, and our interviews indicate that it is equally so for the overall smooth management and good governance of the schemes. Their work also
28 McGuigan, Crossman, Ulrich, pers. comm.
Page 28 Landcare Research Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago records trust in the administrator of the scheme and consideration of fairness and equity issues in resource allocation as important, noting it is not easy.
The thoughtful folk behind the Upper Taieri Water Resource Management Group understand the benefit of collective experience and shared knowledge and are using a process that ensures this to achieve consensus for the future of their catchment.
6.4 Reliable and up-to-date information
The increased sophistication of farming systems and the need to meet contracted crop or milk production has heightened the need for a reliable supply of water. Reliable water supply and efficient water use for irrigation requires precise, timely and trend-informed information. But the same high standards need to be demanded of regional councils if irrigators and stakeholders are to have confidence in the ecological information that underpins sustainable environmental flow decisions.
Metered water use is fundamental for the former as is telemetry to collect the information. Telemetry of water data makes onsite readings unnecessary and therefore reduces ongoing compliance monitoring costs. Water use data can also be integrated with other data such as from low-flow sites, climate, and soil moisture and temperature data. Integration of such data can be used as an effective on-farm management tool to reduce overall running costs.
6.5 Good relationships with regulators
Positive relationships with the regulators are characteristic of well-operating irrigation schemes. Trust is an issue too. In some ways it is hard to imagine two more disparate groups of people than farmers and regulators. There is a significant challenge of establishing and maintaining empathy and trust between the individualistic and self-reliant farmers and the rule and regulation focused regional council. However, when field officers are involved (such as those from the Resource Care team at ECan and the Land Resources team at Otago Regional Council) relationships are strengthening. Once built, relationships are easily damaged by the irresponsible action of a single irrigator or the thoughtless actions of an overzealous compliance officer. Across each of the schemes and sub-regional water management groups we find evidence of the changing nature of relationships between regulators and farmers which are supported by the use of forums, ongoing communication and activities that support collaborative responses to water management challenges.
Landcare Research Page 29 Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago
7 Discussion
Demand for water for irrigation continues and the development of water sharing schemes are under investigation in many regions responding to drivers such as the need for more reliable water supply and changing land use. While the characteristics of each of the schemes are different in terms of the origins of the schemes and how they operate, this research has identified a range of conditions that are integral to the ongoing development of schemes and strengthening of internal relationships between irrigators in the scheme, and external relationships with regulators and possibly others (such as those in the irrigation and agriculture industries, stakeholders and central government agencies. These relationships, or their absence, are most critical when water sharing schemes and arrangements are being developed.
Relationships are vital for schemes and extend beyond individuals in water sharing schemes and regulators to customers (domestic and international), financiers and others. The degree of direct involvement by certain actors is likely to change over time and with regard to various issues, but a common point is the emphasis on collaboration and partnership leading to a strengthening of trust and understanding which will be beneficial for future development of schemes, including those that have yet to be built. That the leaders are trusted individuals is well evident in the governance of the Kakanui and Opuha operations where individual irrigators, and in some cases other stakeholders, are comfortable with decisions being taken on their behalf. The common experiences and shared information build trust in the Kakanui situation and have allowed stakeholder groups to agree to reducing meeting frequency and putting in apologies for some meetings. At the early stages of the Opuha scheme and the extension of the Maniototo development, trusted relationships with stakeholders enabled effective arrangements to be made for the operation of schemes with little trouble or concern.
The case studies presented here indicate that there is a range of ways water sharing schemes can develop with regards to the particular organisational form (e.g. limited company or informal group) in relation to their origins and characteristics and how the schemes engage with regulators and other stakeholders in the region. It would be useful to complement this initial scoping study with a comprehensive study of the developments of other water user groups, such as those in Hawks Bay, that are exploring ways to deliver irrigation. Such a study could examine the impacts on governance and operation of the water sharing schemes arising from the changing relationships with the regulator stemming from changes in monitoring and on the management of external relationships in the context of drivers such as increased demand for water.
7.1 Other institutional responses
The importance of relationships and trust in water management are being reiterated in other institutional responses in both regions. As introduced in section 4, regional councils in Canterbury and Otago are establishing a statutory and administrative basis for community responses to water management through strategy programmes: the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and the Otago Regional Plan: Water.
Page 30 Landcare Research Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago
The Canterbury Water Management Strategy29 has adopted a frame of „nested‟ levels30 of decision making where systems aim to align the management of the biophysical system with the socio-economic system (Canterbury Mayoral Forum 2009), so that the management of water take and use involves ensuring that the biophysical area includes the source of water and the area of water use in the one decision-making zone and that all of the stakeholder interests with respect to the take and use of water are involved in the decision making. Those involved in decision making need to include both the users of water and users of the river. Following the principle of subsidiarity, decisions made at the lowest level possible and that include the relevant biophysical area and the relevant stakeholders.
In Otago, where a statutory water plan has been in place since 2004, the regional council has focused its activities through an effective consultative process leading to the introduction of arrangements through amendments to the plan (Proposed Plan Change 1C (Water Allocation and Use). In contrast to water allocation committees, which are to allocate water, the proposed water management groups would be formed voluntarily by consent holders within a catchment. A water management group may undertake a range of functions, not just rationing, and would need to be approved by the Otago Regional Council for it to have any effect in terms of the Water Plan. They are envisioned to operate at catchment or sub- catchment level with the water management groups holding consent subject to rules (arrangements) for the use of water to meet environmental flows and other consent conditions. The Otago Regional Council scheme provides for situations where a catchment may have holders of mining privileges due to terminate in 2021 and RMA consent holders with expiry dates beyond that time.
Alongside resource management plans, regional councils have supported the establishment of groups that address inter-sectoral management issues around water use and are of a voluntary and collaborative nature. These informal and ad hoc groups have some characteristics of voluntary water management schemes but encompass land use and ecological and recreational interests as well. Table 5 describes two examples of sub-regional water management groups as further illustrations of ways that groups are working together in response to water management challenges31. These responses led by regional councils sit alongside responses that are located on-farm or in water sharing schemes such as „audited self-management‟ which involves water sharing organisations developing collective monitoring arrangements to be verified by a third party rather than direct monitoring of all individual consents by the regional council.
29 The Canterbury Water Management Strategy is the region‟s response to the water management and planning that has been in development for almost a decade and was . The strategy was published in November 2009 after nearly a decade development. 30 This approach builds on the concept of „nested systems‟ of decision making based on the work of Gunderson and Holling (2002) and collaborative governance or self-managed community concepts for managing common resources of Ostrom (1990). 31 The development of community water management has been discussed in a recent workshop hosted by the Upper Taieri Water Resource Management Project and the Sustainable Farming Fund and the findings are in a summary report (see Newman & Robertson (2010) „Community-led Water Resource Management: what have we learnt and where are we at?‟ http://www.landcare.org.nz/user-content/2272-community-water-workshop- summary-report.pdf)
Landcare Research Page 31 Page 32
Table 3 Examples of sub-regional water management groupsz
Name Origins Operation & Characteristics Objective Parties Practices South Informal, established by An independent, voluntary, To speed the process towards Fish & Game At the first meeting Canterbury ECan in 2002. The group multidisciplinary group the recovery of water quality in Opuha Dam Company approximately 50 Water was called together by facilitated by ECan South Canterbury, and to people agreed to Recreationalists Enhancement open invitation following The group has been non- provide a forum to discuss all form a committee. Local territorial authorities Group32 some years of complaints threatening in its attitude and aspects of water. Committee meets to the regional council and even-handed in its evaluation of Farmers/Irrigators three or four times a letters to the press about the science sought from, and An atmosphere of co-operation Rarowhenua Rūnanga year. water use and river flows. provided by ECan. exists around the committee Department of Public meetings on This science, combined with table and members have Conservation water matters common sense provides the relished the opportunity to Water Management arising from central guiding principles for issue inspect sites and question Consultants or regional resolution by the group. expert speakers. The real value government Farm consultants of the group is the willingness of activities are held. participants to speak openly and Federated Farmers The strength of the group is in frankly about concerns. Forest & Bird the ability to bring together widely differing opinion in order Trust Power to reach a consensus on enhancement of water Previously chaired by the resources for economic and ECan Councillor recreational purposes, and representing the area until ecological values. the council was replaced by Commissioners earlier in 2010.
32 Details from Pers Comm J. Crossman (Staff member of Environment Canterbury)
Name Origins Operation & Characteristics Objective Parties Practices Upper Taieri Formed in the Upper The Upper Taieri Group’s The project’s aim was to redesign the Irrigators’ ORC has encouraged and Water Taieri in 2007 using a website notes ‘the defining catchment’s diverse and fragmented representatives supported the group and Resource Sustainable Farming difference between the project water management system. It Department of involved it in its work Management Fund grant from the and previous projects is the operated in two stages, initially to Conservation developing methods for Group Ministry for concept of “community’ derive and gain multi-stakeholder managing water allocation Otago Fish & Game Agriculture and extends beyond irrigation support for a ‘future-focused’ water when the current rules Fisheries to fund a interests’ and further that it allocation and management regime Otago Regional change. Council project to improve the ‘was established to encourage and then working with community Promoting community- health of the Taieri dialogue between diverse stakeholders and environmental Central Otago District based water management River’s waterways. community interests33’. bottom lines to determine fair, Council. the group through sustainable allocation regimes. discussion forums, Chaired by Maniototo conducting several public The project is led by the (UTWRMG) farmer and irrigator field days and events in the that was formed to encourage Geoff Crutchley and catchment to enable dialogue between diverse community co-ordinated by a discussion on current water interests and ‘plan how to best staff member of the use, distribution, values manage water using more efficient, NZ Landcare Trust. and management. flexible and co-ordinated long-term approaches’.
33 See Sustainable Farming Fund & Landcare Trust „The Upper Taieri Project: Redefining Upper Taieri Water Allocation & Management for Whole of Community Good‟ Available at http://www.landcare.org.nz/user-content/1659-upper-tairei-project-aims.pdf (Accessed 30 July 201)
Page 33 Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago
7.2 Insights from Social Capital
While the water sharing schemes, water allocation committees, water zone committees and the sub-regional water management groups identified in earlier sections are different, all appear to indicate the emergence and establishment of collaborative and voluntary forms of action whether at a scheme, catchment or sub-regional scale. This has led us to consider what theoretical perspectives could over some insights into further examination of how relationships related to the development and operation to schemes can be forged and strengthened.
The theory of social capital is relevant and helpful in understanding these conditions for success. Social capital understood to be „networks, together with shared norms, values and understandings which facilitate cooperation within or among groups‟ (OECD 2001) appears to offer a useful lens in which to examine how collective groups can work collaboratively in response to water management challenges34. In a useful synthesis of different definitions, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2002) records that there is general agreement on the importance of networks, trust, reciprocity and other social norms to social capital.
Shared social norms such as reciprocity together with trust enable those in a community to more easily communicate, cooperate and to make sense of common experiences. Trust has an important role in reducing social and business ‘transaction’ costs. Tolerance of different beliefs and cultures also stem from shared norms that imply tolerance, acceptance and respect. Reciprocity encourages the individual to balance their own self interest with the good of the community.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2002)
Pretty and Ward (2001) demonstrate how social capital embedded in participating groups within rural communities has been central to equitable and sustainable solutions to local development problems. They observe that local institutions of this type are effective because they allow normal activity with a minimum of repetition and „costly negotiation‟ to facilitate co-operation and gain confidence to invest in collective activities (p. 212). Furthermore, the authors suggest that social capital amongst communities means that individuals are less likely to engage in „unfettered private actions that result in negative impacts, such as resource degradation.‟ (p. 211). The authors identified four central aspects of social capital in relation to the management of natural resources as follows:
Relations of trust Reciprocity and exchange Common rules, norms and sanctions, and Connectedness, networks and groups
34 See for example Pretty and Ward (2001) and McCallum et al. (2007).
Landcare Research Page 34 Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago
The leaders of schemes are trusted individuals as demonstrated in the governance of the Kakanui and Opuha schemes. In both these examples, individual irrigators and in some cases other stakeholders are comfortable with decisions being taken on their behalf. The common experiences and shared information build trust in the Kakanui situation allowing stakeholder groups to agree to reducing meeting frequency and putting in apologies for some meetings. At the early stages of the Opuha scheme and the extension of the Maniototo development, trusted relationships with stakeholders enabled effective arrangements to be made for the operation of schemes with little trouble or concern. Trust relations are central to the effective operation of water sharing schemes. This issue arose in many of the interviews and was a central theme in relationships both within the schemes with regards relations between irrigation schemes members and their leaders, and with external stakeholders, such as regulators or the wider community.
Drawing our initial insights from ideas of social capital and reflecting on the case studies above, we find that trust relations are central to the effective operation of water sharing schemes. This issue arose in many of the interviews and was a central theme in relationships between members, between members and their leaders, and between the scheme and external stakeholders. Trust relations are also important in the development phases to lay the platform for compromise and consensus building towards the consenting process.
The consideration of trust relations sits alongside the other aspects of social capital, and further analysis of the development of water sharing schemes featured in this report, plus possibly insights from similar developments in other parts of New Zealand would be beneficial to consider the relevance of social capital literature to ongoing action for water sharing and possibly with regards broader aspects of water management.
8 Conclusions
The research has identified a range of development pathways for water sharing schemes from those that originated from historic mining rights to others that were formed in response to Environment Court decisions. Trust relations within schemes and with others, particularly regulators, are increasingly important especially as there is a move from regulation to collaboration for the management of New Zealand‟s water resources.
Further research could examine
Development pathways of water user groups in other parts of the country Impacts of changing nature of relationships between schemes and regulators, such as in relation to monitoring of water abstraction, influences the development of water sharing schemes Linkages between the development of water sharing schemes with other collaborative responses to water management and how such collaboration will be supported by government agencies, regulators and the irrigation industry.
Landcare Research Page 35 Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago
9 Acknowledgements
We thank the many individuals in New Zealand who have been so generous in providing information and insights: Lucy Blakmore (Timaru), Craig Briggs (Hamilton), George Brown (Ashburton), Julia Crossman (Timaru), Geoff Crutchley (Maniototo), Kim Drummond (Christchurch), Janine Dunlop (Hawke‟s Bay), Jay Graybill (Temuka), Terry Heiler (West Melton), Bryan Jenkins (Christchurch), John Laing (Kakanui), Wayne McGuigan (Christchurch), Susie McKeague (Dunedin), Ray McNally (Kakanui), Dale Meredith (Dunedin), Mike O‟Connor (Kakanui), Nic Newman (Christchurch), Phil Reid (Rangiora), Peter Scott (Kerrytown), Graeme Sutton (Richmond), Herstell Ulrich (Cave), John van Palonan (Whitcombe), John Young (Ashburton).
Thanks also to the organisations: Irrigation New Zealand, Environment Canterbury and Otago Regional Council.
Financial support is acknowledged from the New Zealand Foundation for Research, Science and Technology under the „Old problems, new solutions‟ project (C09X0702).
Any errors of fact or interpretation are ours alone.
10 References
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2002. Social Capital and Social Wellbeing: A discussion paper. Commonwealth of Australia, August 2002.
Canterbury Mayoral Forum 2009. Canterbury Water Management Strategy: Strategic Framework. November 2009.
Environment Canterbury 2000. Opihi River Regional Plan. Christchurch, Canterbury Regional Council.
Environment Canterbury 2005. 2004/2005 Water use telemetry trial. Christchurch, Environment Canterbury Report.
Environment Canterbury. 2006. Te Ngawai Water Use Telemetry Project. Christchurch, Environment Canterbury Report No U06/65.
Farley PJ, Simon BM 1996. Privatising Government irrigation projects in New Zealand. Water Resources Bulletin 32: 585–593.
Gunderson LH, Holling CS eds 2002. Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, DC, Island Press. 507 p.
Gunningham N 2008. Innovative governance and regulatory design: Managing water resources. Landcare Research Contract Report LC0708/137 for the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology. Available at http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/programme_pubs.asp?Proj_Collab_ID=94
Helier TD 2009. Securing water resources future for New Zealand. Journal of Primary Industry Research 13(1): 22–26.
Page 36 Landcare Research Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago
Irrigation New Zealand 2008. Investigation of audited self management. Contract Report C08118/1 for the Ministry for the Environment. Available online at http://www.irrigationnz.co.nz/assets/Uploads/INZauditedselfmanagement.pdf (Accessed 30 July 2010)
Jenkins BJ 2007. Water allocation in Canterbury. Presentation to New Zealand Institute of Planning Conference, Palmerston North, 27–30 March 2007.
Lange M, Winstanley A, Wood D 2008. Drives and barriers to water transfer in a New Zealand irrigation scheme. Environment Planning and Management 51: 381–397.
Le Prou 2007. The Administration of New Zealand Irrigation: History and Analysis. Available at http://www.iscr.org.nz/f301,8161/8161_20070212_RL_Irrigation.pdf Accessed 30 April 2010
McCrostie Little H, Taylor J 2001. Social and economic impacts associated with irrigated land use change. Blenheim, NZ Association for Agriculture and Resource Economic Conference.
McCallum W, Hughey KFH, Rixexker SS 2007. Community management in New Zealand: Exploring the realities in the metaphor. Society and Natural Resources 20: 323–336.
Ministry for the Environment 2007. State of the Environment Report. Wellington, MfE.
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2001. Irrigation scheme development. Issues to consider when promoting a water resources scheme – lessons from the last 125 years. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Technical Paper 2001/8.
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2008. Water Infrastructure Forum. Available online at http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/sustainable-resource-use/irrigation/water- infrastructure-forum/index.htm (Accessed 30 July 2010).
Newman N, Robertson G 2010. Community-led water resource management: what have we learnt and where are we at? Report on National Workshop, March 2010. Available online at http://www.landcare.org.nz/user-content/2272-community-water-workshop- summary-report.pdf (Accessed 30 July 2010).
NZ Landcare Trust 2010. Upper Taieri Water Resource Management: effective community water resource management. Online project page introduction retrieved 30 July2010 from http://www.landcare.org.nz/regional-focus/lower-south-island/upper-taieri/.
OECD 2001. The wellbeing of nations: the role of human and social capital, education and skills. Paris, OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.
Ostrom E 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.
Otago Regional Council 2007. State of the Environment Report – Surface water resource of Otago. Dunedin, Otago Regional Council.
Landcare Research Page 37 Water sharing schemes: insights from Canterbury and Otago
Otago Regional Council 2008a. Proposed Plan Change IC (Water Allocation and Use), Regional Plan: Water for Otago. Dunedin, Otago Regional Council.
Otago Regional Council 2008b. Proposed Plan Change IC (Water Quality), Regional Plan: Water for Otago. Dunedin, Otago Regional Council.
Otago Regional Council 2009. Water management and allocation in the future: a strategy for Otago. Dunedin, Otago Regional Council.
Pretty J, Ward H 2001. Social capital and the environment. World Development 29: 209–227.
Rangitata Diversion Race Management Ltd n.d. Putting water to work for Mid-Canterbury. Brochure available online at http://www.rdrml.co.nz (Accessed 30 July 2010).
Russell S, Ward M 2010. Sustainability appraisal: Application to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. Landcare Research Contract Report LC0910/052. Available online at http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/publications/researchpubs/Russell_Ward_25April20 10.pdf (Accessed 30 July 2010).
Sustainable Farming Fund (MAF) & NZ Landcare Trust [2009?]. The Upper Taieri Project: Redefining Upper Taieri water allocation & management for the whole of community good. Available online at http://www.landcare.org.nz/user-content/1659-upper-tairei- project-aims.pdf (Accessed 30 July 2010).
Weeber, JM; White,PA; Russell, WJ and Thorpe, HR, 2001. A history of groundwater developments in New Zealand. In “Groundwaters of New Zealand”. MR Rossen and PA White, (eds). New Zealand Hydrological Society Inc., Wellington, p5-44.
Page 38 Landcare Research