New Zealand’s ‘wild and scenic rivers’
– geographical aspects of 30 years of
water conservation orders
Ken FD Hughey, Hamish G Rennie, Nick Williams
Department of Environmental Management (and
Waterways Centre for Freshwater Management)
Lincoln University, New Zealand
Presented to NZ Geographical Society Conference, Napier, 2012
Background and Purpose
• ‘Wild and Scenic Rivers’ a part of NZ’s freshwater management since 1981
• But, since 1981 only 15 water bodies have been gazetted in a country renowned for its outstanding rivers and lakes
• Only in 2012 has a dedicated website been launched around WCOs in NZ: http://www.outstandingrivers.org.nz/
• There is ongoing political controversy around the benefits and costs of having the legislation and the status – is it necessary, is it limiting ‘development’?
• Purpose of this presentation:
– Review the historical and contemporary geography of WCOs in NZ
– Describe the outcomes achieved
– Identify the extent to which WCOs are conflicting or not with development
The ‘lead up’ to WCOs in NZ
• 1941 Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act – first Act to require planning ‐ no environmental components
• 1967 Water and Soil Conservation Act – introduced catchment plans but limited environmental input and no cultural component
• 1960s & 70s – environmental awakening in NZ, culminating in Save Manapouri Campaign – petition signed by 264,907 NZers
• 1970s ‐ Environmental demands increased – NZ Salmon Anglers applied for a water right for salmon: denied
• Pressure led to a ‘Wild and Scenic Rivers’ campaign – culminated in the Water and Soil Conservation Amendment Act 1981 – the so‐
called ‘Wild and Scenic Rivers’ legislation.
Key aspects of WCOs in NZ
• Aims to recognise the outstanding amenity or intrinsic values
that water provides, in either a natural or modified state.
• Orders may be applied over rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands, or
aquifers, and can cover freshwater or geothermal water.
• If granted, can restrict or prohibit water ‘takes’, discharges and
other uses of the water.
• Can be used to preserve natural state or protect
characteristics such as:
– the water body's value as a habitat or fishery
– its wild and scenic nature
– its value for recreational, historic, spiritual, cultural or scenic purposes.
• A water body may also hold particular significance for Māori.
WCOs in
New
Zealand
North Island WCO rivers and lake
Motu River
Mohaka
River
Rangitikei
River
Blue duck Manganuiotea
o
Lake
Wairarapa
Buller
Grey
SI WCO
rivers and
lake
Rangitata
Rakaia
Ahuriri
Te Waihora – Lake Ellesmere: NZ’s
5th largest lake by area; over half of
all NZ native bird spp recorded there
Mataura River
Oreti River
Kawarau
Classifying outstanding features of WCOs
Multiple terms to describe nationally outstanding features –
we combined terms where they apply to the same feature, e.g.,
• ‘wild and scenic’ seldom used - sometimes scenic alone is
recorded
• native birds referred to mostly as wildlife, but also as
particular species, i.e., blue duck and black-billed gill
• recreational (salmonid) fisheries referred to as back country
fisheries, spawning grounds, salmon, brown trout, rainbow
trout, etc – grouped as recreational fisheries. No whitebait
fisheries
• all references to native fisheries tagged to specific species,
e.g., koaro or long-finned eel – all considered native fisheries.
a b Tikanga Māori Spiritual/ cultural ‐ European Historical Kayaking Rafting Jet boating Recreational and other boating Boating Native flora Native birds Scientific Hydro geological Natural character Gazettal year 1984 1988 1989 1989 1990 (2010) 1990 1991 Wild & scenic Water body Motu Rakaia Lake Wairarapa Manganuioteao Te Waihora/ Lake Ellesmere Ahuriri Grey Native fisheries Native flora and fauna Natural features Recreational fisheries Nationally Outstanding features in WCOs
c N 1 4 1 3 4 2 2 The WCOs above were all first gazetted prior to the Resource Management Act 1991 Rangitikei Kawarau Mataura Buller Motueka Mohaka Rangitata Oreti 1993 1997 1997 2001 (2008) 2004 2004 2006 2008 N 9 4 1 4 11 3 1 11 2 3 6 6 2 1 4 5 11 1 7 5 5 11 4 Observations about values protected
• Prior to 1991 average of 2.4 (Range = 1-4) outstanding
features; post RMA average 5.8 (Range = 1-11)
• Most rivers recognised for native bird features also
recognised for their recreational fisheries
• Only one non salmonid angling recreational feature
recognised <1991 - jet boating on Rakaia; since 1991 this
activity & kayaking (in particular) recognised in several
Orders
• Also, >1991, more orders recognising Tikanga Māori values
• Neither swimming nor whitebaiting have been recognised in
any of the orders.
Sections
of NI
rivers
covered
by WCOs
Source:
Parliamentary
Commissioner for the
Environment (2012)
Sections
of SI
rivers
covered
by WCOs
Source:
Parliamentary
Commissioner for the
Environment (2012)
Types of orders gazetted
• Preservation
– protecting river or lake and outstanding features in their natural
state
• Multiple use
– almost all forms of development can occur subject to meeting
strict requirements for protection of the outstanding features
– includes water quality, fish passage and minimum flow regimes
• Limited multiple use
– only some forms of development, e.g., water abstraction and
some discharges to water can occur, but must meet strict
requirements for protection of outstanding features;
– almost always there would be a no damming part of this criterion.
Protection regime imposed on WCOs
Water body Natural features Native flora and fauna Outstanding features Rec. fisheries Rec. and other boating Historical/ socio cultural ‐ European Tikanga Māori Natural state Protection regime imposed Limited multiple Multiple use use Motu Upper
Mid
Rakaia Upper
Main stem
Lake Wairarapa Manganuioteao Te Waihora/ Lake Ellesmere Ahuriri Grey Rangitikei Kawarau Mid to lower
Lake margins
Upper
Main stem Upper Grey; Ahaura Ahaura
Mid‐Upper
Upper tribs
Lake
Main stem
Mataura Buller Main stem Mid to lower Upper tribs & lakes Main stem
Motueka Mohaka Rangitata Oreti Upper
Main stem
Upper
Mid
Upper Mid Lake margins & levels Mid to lower Upper Mid
Whole
Mid to lower
Mid to lower Discussion
General observations, from N=15 orders:
• Recent orders recognise and protect a wider range of outstanding
features, esp. non-angling recreation, historic, socio-cultural
European interests, and Tikanga Māori values, e.g., Te
Waihora/Lake Ellesmere:
– When first gazetted in 1990 recognised only for outstanding wildlife habitat,
– But in 2010 upon review, diversity of outstanding values increased to also
include wetland vegetation habitat, native fisheries and Tikanga Māori.
• Most common values recognised are native bird and/or
recreational fisheries. Thus, 11 out of 15 gazetted orders, due to
their recognition of native birdlife, contributing directly to the
conservation of New Zealand’s indigenous biodiversity.
Are WCOs preventing development? Generally, ‘no’
•
•
•
Higher parts of catchments (e.g., tributaries of Lake Wakatipu, itself a
tributary of the Kawarau, and tributaries of the Buller), subject to provisions
around preserving in their natural state.
Middle reaches - frequently a ‘mixed multiple use’ regime - restrict
damming but provide for other forms of development so long as these do not
compromise outstanding features. Dams disastrous most outstanding river
features and thus limits included in most, if not all, river WCOs.
Lakes and the lowland sections of rivers embed a multiple use water
resource management regime into their regulatory framework.
– involves inclusion of minimum flow regimes, fish passage requirements,
and defined water quality conditions – WCO designed to meet
requirements of outstanding features being protected, but at the same
time provide for existing irrigation (e.g., Rangitata) and potential major
future irrigation (e.g., Rakaia).
Conclusions
• Since 1981 15 orders have been gazetted, seven in the period
1981 until the passage of the RMA in 1991; and eight since.
• Only two Orders successfully applied for since 1991 passage of
RMA, i.e., Oreti and Rangitata.
• Above finding raises important questions, e.g., have WCOs
already been gazetted for many of NZ’s most important ‘wild
and scenic’ rivers or, is the WCO process too expensive and
litigious for applicants or, are other planning mechanisms under
the RMA achieving similar or better results?
• Existing orders, mostly, do not appear to significantly
compromise ‘wise’ water resource development, except some
from a hydro perspective – so, from a development context
what is the govt’s concern about promoting them further?
Is there a future for WCOs in NZ?
• Current government appears anti WCOs and sees
them as a development threat – but, as shown in this
paper there is little evidence of such being the case
• The public has little or no understanding of WCOs and
does not see them as the NPs of rivers
• Until 2012 there wasn’t even an up to date inventory of
NZ’s WCOs, or even a WCO website – there is now
• So, given the above, and the costs associated with
WCO applications and other issues there seems little
likelihood of any further WCO applications in the near
term – ‘why fix it if it ain’t broken’?