RMLA conference, Hamilton 6 th October 2011
Kit Rutherford
NIWA, PO Box 11-115, Hamilton k.rutherford@niwa.co.nz
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/treaty/waikato-river-scoping-study/index.html

2010 Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Act
‘…ushers in a new era of co-management between the Crown and the five
Waikato River Iwi to protect the Waikato River...’
Creates o a new co-management body – the Waikato River Authority o a ‘clean up’ fund – administered by the WRA – $7m per year for 30 years

Waikato-Tainui
Maniapoto
Raukawa
Te Arawa
Waikato-Tainui has ‘settled’ with the Crown
Other 4 iwi are negotiating with the Crown
All 5 Waikato River iwi are involved in co-management
Tuwharetoa

2009-2010
Steered by the Guardians Establishment Committee (GEC)
Funded by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE)
Key contributors
• NIWA – lead
• Diffuse Sources Limited
• Tipa and Associates
• AgResearch
• Beca
• Enveco
• Nimmo-Bell & Company Limited
• Market Economics Limited

“…Identify priority actions and associated costs of those actions, necessary to rehabilitate the
… health and wellbeing … of the Waikato River and its tributaries, wetlands and lakes for future generations
… to achieve Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato …”
1.
What do we need to do?
2.
How much will it cost?
3.
How long will it take?

“…where a healthy Waikato River sustains abundant life and prosperous communities who in turn are all responsible for restoring and protecting the health and wellbeing of the Waikato
River, and all it embraces, for generations to come…”
Developed by the GEC through consultation with iwi and the wider community

• Some iwi regard the Waikato River as their tupuna (ancestor).
• The awa (river) represents the mana and mauri of the river iwi.
• ‘…If the river is degraded then the people suffer – their health and wellbeing is compromised...’
• Not just biophysical health (eg water quality, state of the fishery, landscape values etc).
“…The Waikato River is our tupuna and looks over us throughout our lives. The river feeds us, nurtures us and takes care of us, healing our hurts and protecting us from harm. The river is our lifeline from which we take our name, our identity and our mana…“
• Also people’s relationship with the river
(eg perceptions, use, guardianship)

Challenge – integrate Maatauranga Maaori and Western
Science and recommend priority actions
• Both knowledge systems are concerned with observing, understanding and predicting the effects of various behaviours on future outcomes.
• But gathering that knowledge required unique methods/techniques.
• Both knowledge systems are used to identify priority actions .

• Consulted with iwi and the wider community
• Collated input about aspirations and actions
• Aspirations aligned closely with Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa Waikato
• c. 100 suggested actions
• Investigated the benefits, co-benefits, dis-benefits, practicality & costs
• More detailed investigations of c. 65 actions
• Identified our priority actions, benefits and costs
• Provided information to help the WRA administer the CUT – 33 Technical
Appendices

Aspirations to achieve Te Ture Whaimana
Significant and historic sites … recognised, restored, protected.
Greater access … improve people’s use and enjoyment.
Water quality …improved.
Recreational value … improved.
Aesthetic and landscape value … improved.
Risk of illness minimised … recreation, food, water supply.
People have a secure supply of water … from the Waikato River.
Abundance … fish and other kai … restored and protected.
Abundance … treasured plant & animal species … restored and protected.
Ecological integrity … restored and protected.
Management … conducted in a holistic, integrated way.
People feel engaged … river … actions to restore and protect.
Spiritual values … restored and protected.
Actions consider … prosperity … local community, region & New Zealand.

1. Water quality
2. Traditional fisheries

Bathing guideline – black disc 1.6m
Severely degraded in the lower Waipa lower Waikato floodplain lakes
0.4 m BD
Good in the upper Waikato hydro lakes
Affected by erosion & phytoplankton
Cumulative effects from upstream
‘toilet end’ of the river
Lake
Taupo

N
P
1. Dairy Free Drain
2. Dairy poor drain
3. Dairy peat
4. Sheep/beef, class 3 farm
5. Sheep/beef, class 4 farm
6. Sheep/beef, class 5 farm
7. Forestry
8. Horticulture & cropping sediment
Figure 5.3: Estimates of the key sources of contaminants discharged from farms within the Waikato River catchment.

Original source – steep, mudstone
Including sheep/beef pasture
Sediment stores from historic erosion river banks, floodplain re-worked by floods
Drainage – peat soils – colour
Lake
Taupo

Actions on dry stock farms Cost
($M)
Dry stock farms
Fence (single e-wire) and plant poplars on 1 st and 2 nd order streams***
Fence (8-wire post and batten) and plant 10 m native buffer on 3 rd order and larger streams **
Retire and afforest 68,000 hectares of steep hill country pasture
Earthflow remediation
93
66
91*
15
* In the first 20 years before harvesting. Once harvesting starts there is a net return
** Co-benefits for pathogens, temperature, ecology, landscape
*** Co-benefits for pathogens

Fencing hill-country streams is expensive
Sheep/beef farming on steep, erodible land has low profitability
Conversion to forestry has long-term financial benefits
Short-term cash-flow problems – planting costs & low initial income
Carbon credits have the potential to add to financial benefits
Conversion to native forest has low financial benefits but other cobenefits
Re-planting alone may not protect river banks in flood-prone rivers
- both reforestation and river bank protection required

Lake
Taupo
Nitrogen
Eutrophic – 300 mgN/m3
Moderate phytoplankton in the hydro lakes. Occasional blooms
High chlorophyll in floodplain lakes.
Frequent blooms
BGA toxicity
Contributes to degradation of colour & clarity
Mostly from diffuse sources
Pathway – drainage, sub-surface flow
Hard to intercept (eg in riparian buffers)

Phosphorus
Eutrophic – 30 mgP/m3
Some significant point sources
Mostly from diffuse sources
Pathway – erosion, surface flow
Easier to intercept
Naturally high on the volcanic plateau
Binds to & releases from sediment
Debate whether to control N or P
Consensus in New Zealand – control both

N
P
1. Dairy Free Drain
2. Dairy poor drain
3. Dairy peat
4. Sheep/beef, class 3 farm
5. Sheep/beef, class 4 farm
6. Sheep/beef, class 5 farm
7. Forestry
8. Horticulture & cropping sediment
Figure 5.3: Estimates of the key sources of contaminants discharged from farms within the Waikato River catchment.

Model farms
3 dairy (free-draining, poor-draining, peat soils),
3 sheep-beef (Class 3, 4 and 5)
1 forestry
1 horticulture-cropping
Losses to water nitrogen (N) – OVERSEER phosphorus (P) – OVERSEER sediment – USLE faecal microorganisms – CLUES
Farm profitability – FARMAX

-100
Cumulative abatement, tonnes N
-50
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 50
Expenditure, $M
Cumulative abatement, (no organic dairy): T
N/catchment
Cumulative abatement (organic dairy option)
100 150

Waikato Catchment Model
Predict the effects of the hydro dams
& landuse on:
• Nutrients
• Phytoplankton chlorophyll
• Clarity
• Colour
Red – current
Green – priority actions

Dairying makes a major contribution to regional and national income.
Nitrogen loss from dairy pasture is hard to reduce.
Significant increases in nitrogen concentration in streams, lakes
Dairy expansion is occurring in the upper catchment. more nitrogen in the hydro-lakes, more phytoplankton, bigger & more frequent algal blooms?

Actions on dairy farms
Dairy farms
Improved nutrient management
Improved effluent management
Run-off diversion
Creation of wetlands over one percent of catchment
E-fence and plant 5 metre buffers on all streams
Use of nitrification inhibitors
Improved management of cropping land
Herd shelters (keeping cattle inside in winter)
* Cost savings from erosion control
** Some cost savings from better use of P fertiliser
§ Not a priority action
Cost
($M)
11**
36
5
45 §
263
138
-20*
1,090 §

Drystock farming
• Finance retirement/reforestation on a large scale. Unlikely.
• Promote retirement of unproductive hill-country farms. Rules? Incentives?
• Lobby for carbon credits?
Dairy farming
• Consolidate onto ‘best’ dairying land
• Control expansion into upper catchment – hydro lakes
• Control expansion onto steeper farmland – greater risk of runoff
Fencing of cattle out of streams – no brainer, patchy. Enforcement?
Replanting of stream banks.
• Dissemination of information on methods, benefits, costs etc
• Co-ordination & funding of Landcare & Streamcare Groups.
Incentives? Rules? Enforcement?

Actions to improve water quality
Point source discharges
Land disposal of treated human sewage
Colour removal from Kinleith pulp and paper mill
Retrofitting urban stormwater controls
* Costs subject to engineering feasibility
Cost
($M)
365*
195
1,000 §

1931-1950
1980s
2000
46 tonnes
10 tonnes
3 tonnes
Spawning habitat – estuary
Fencing, re-planting,
Protection
Adult habitat – wetlands, lakes
Culverts
Fencing, re-planting
Administration
DoC, WRC
Quota, monitoring
Traditional fishing sites

Action to restore the whitebait fishery
Restore and protect iinanga spawning habitat
Restore kookopu habitat in hill country streams
Replace or retrofit road culverts that are barriers to migration
Modify farm culverts that are barriers to migration
Install 'fish-friendly’ tide gates to restore iinanga habitat
Restore iinanga habitat in streams and drains
Remove flood control structures in the Aka Aka/Otaua region
Re-introduce giant kookopu into restored urban streams
Create a single whitebait management agency
§ not a priority action
Cost
($M)
5.9
9.9
4.7
30.3
6.9
44.3
220.2
§
0.2
7.5

1980s current
400 tonnes
100 tonnes
Quota system in place customary allowance
Puhi a traditional kai
Longfin eel becoming rare
Migration – hydro dams elver transfer adult spawners – problem
Migration – pumping stations
Overfishing

Actions to restore the tuna fishery
Develop and implement a management plan
Upstream elver transfer
15
Cost
($M)
6.7
Aquaculture of elvers to sub-adults, then release
Create farm ponds and wetlands in the Lower Waikato
17.3
177
Install and maintain fish-friendly flood control pumps 96.5
Install and maintain intake screens and bypasses at the hydro dams 600 §
§ not a priority action

Lake restoration
Floodplain lakes – Whangape
Hydro lakes – Whirinaki Arm of Ohakuri
Invasive species
Aquatic weeds
Pest fish – koi
Toxicity
Algal blooms
Geothermal arsenic, mercury
Adaptive management
Monitoring
Report cards
….

S1 current initiatives
S2 + proven technology
S3 + unproven

Summary of the improvement in health and wellbeing of the Waikato River with increasing net cost. Bars represent the range in aspiration scores for each scenario.

Scenario 1
Scenario 2
CAPEX
OPEX
Total
Benefit
Net cost
Scenario 3
CAPEX
OPEX
Total
Benefit
Net cost
Total
630
2,050
2,680
1,030
1,660
3,170
6,420
9,590
5,570
4,020
Notes:
1 *Discount rate eight percent.
2 Figures may not add due to rounding.
Present value*
520
710
1,230
330
900
2,480
1,980
4,460
1,280
3,180

Table 6.8: Cumulative and average net economic impacts, 2011 – 2040
Scenario 2
Cumulative net economic impacts
Value added
$
2007 million
3
Jobs
MEC1 Years
Waikato Region 1,260
Rest of New Zealand -1,009
(0.005% GDP)
13,900
-15,850
(0.003% employment)
Total
Scenario 3
251
Waikato Region 600
Rest of New Zealand -4,730
(0.082% GDP)
Total -4,130
-1,950
11,600
-68,300
(0.085% employment)
-56,700
Average net economic impacts per year
Value added
$
2007 million
3
Jobs
MEC1 Years
42
-34
460
-530
8
20
-158
-65
390
-2,280
-138 -1,890

Notes:
1 Modified Employment Count (MEC). This includes both employment counts and working proprietors.
2 Figures may not add due to rounding.
$
2007 million – The IO modelling is based on an IO table for the year ending March 2007 developed by Market
Economics Limited. This is the latest year for which all economic data required to produce an updated IO table are available. A regional table was also produced from the 2006/2007 national table.

We can estimate the costs of restoration, and some monetary benefits
Some benefits currently cannot be ascribed a monetary value (e.g., recreation, wellbeing)
Estimates suggest non-market values are comparable with the costs of restoration
Further work (e.g., on willingness to pay) is required
There are significant costs associated with continued degradation
‘…to do nothing is not an option…’

Holism
Engagement
Significant sites
Access
Spiritual values
Recreation
Aesthetics
Human health
Water quality
Fisheries and kai
Taonga species
Ecological integrity
Water supply
Predicted progress for each aspiration, compared with the current state, assuming full implementation of the recommended priority actions.

100
90
50
40
30
20
80
70
60
10
0
0 annual expenditure
10 20
Years
30 cumulative benefits
40
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
50
0%

1. The priority actions will restore the Waikato River so it almost meets the objectives of Te Ture Whaimana.
2. Assessment supported by the international case studies and restoration projects elsewhere in New Zealand.
3. Estimated net expenditure required is $2,240 million (PV $1,400 million).
4. The CUT cannot/should not fund all priority actions.
5. Expenditure on restoration is estimated to
• stimulate the local economy but redistribute capital & employment
• transfer capital & employment from the rest of New Zealand
• the percentage changes are small

1. Some benefits cannot be ascribed a monetary value but NMV are estimated to be comparable with the costs of restoration
2. There are information needs including
• site selection & engineering design
• making ‘how to’ guides available to stakeholders, and
• research on fish and non-market values.
3. The project combines
• maatauranga Maaori
• social and biophysical science
• economics to identify the actions required to meet the aspirations of
• Maaori
• wider community for improving the ‘…health and wellbeing…’ of the Waikato River.

‘…A key to the success of restoration will be to change people’s attitudes and behaviour. This requires a significant effort to engage with the community, industry and local government. If people understand and support the objectives of restoration then it is more likely to be successful…’
‘…communities …are responsible for restoring and protecting…’ (Te Ture
Whaimana)
Understanding and support comes through
‘hands on’ involvement in restoration and protection and making greater use of the river, river banks, lakes, wetlands…

• Waikato-Tainui
• Raukawa
• Tuwharetoa
• Maniapoto
• Te Arawa River Iwi
• The wider Waikato community through consultation
• Guardians Establishment Committee
• Ministry for the Environment
“Tooku awa koiora me oona pikonga he kura tangihia o te maataamuri.
The river of life, each curve more beautiful than the last.”