Curtis, the Irrigation New Zealand chief executive, welcomed the Government’s discussion paper on fresh water management, Next Steps for Fresh Water.
But there was confusion about how the introduction of standardised technical efficiency measures to improve efficient water use would be applied, especially if it meant reallocating the resource.
Farming leaders said the introduction of efficiency measures could see consent for water reallocated based on efficiency and impact on water quality.
The document said the existing system of first-in, first-served meant applications were dealt with in the order they were received.
“This approach works when available water can meet the needs of all users. However, once water becomes scarce higher value or more efficient uses can’t be prioritised.”
The paper said improvement was needed in the productive use of natural resources and the Government was working on new policies to address the range of interests wanting to access freshwater.
Curtis said picking winners was dangerous.
“At IrrigationNZ anything involving administration around what is best and highest value is very dangerous.”
If water had previously been allocated based on its most valuable use, dairying would have secured all the water for the last few years but today pipfruit and grapes were more prosperous.
“You can’t play the pick-a-winner game at a point in time.”
Other recommendations included a timeframe to remove stock from waterways, the strengthening of the requirement on councils to improve water quality, standardised water permit conditions, improved iwi involvement in council-developed water plans and conservation orders and extra funding for cleaning up lakes, rivers and wetlands.
Curtis said NZ had plenty of water and addressing infrastructure and using modern technology would ensure it was used efficiently.
INZ had spent 10 years developing efficiency measures for irrigation and Curtis said most farmers had modernised their systems.
“If you don’t make changes you won’t get water, that’s what the future looks like and that is fair. It’s about being an efficient user.”
“If you don’t make changes you won’t get water, that’s what the future looks like and that is fair. It’s about being an efficient user.”
Andrew Curtis
IrrigationNZ
Federated Farmers environment spokesman Chris Allen said there were parts of the document he supported but plenty of questions such as the process to redistribute existing water allocation and where fences must be placed to exclude livestock needed answering.
“We are cautious.
“It does need to land in a sensible place where it can be practicably implemented.”
Allen accepted there was room to improve water allocation for some irrigation schemes, especially on the shoulders of the season, but also based on an individual area’s climate, soil type and topography rather than using a blanket application.
“It is how it is applied that is of concern to Feds and the primary sector, not that there is going to be one (change).”
He was pleased the proposals included an obligation on urban councils to address their water management.
“Water quality is not just a rural issue,” he said.
Allen was equally enthused with a new $100 million fund to help improve water quality saying everyone would benefit from water projects the fund would assist such as lifting minimum flows or water storage.
Mid Canterbury farmer Ian Mackenzie said a recent visit to the United States revealed putting a value on water to drive its best value use did not work.
He visited California and said where water was the most expensive and therefore in short supply, there was less-economic use of land with large areas left fallow and little investment in agriculture.
Where it was cheapest and most readily available, water was used and investment made in high value agriculture, in that case, nut crops.
“Having a market for some things is fine but you have got to balance the pros and cons.”
