84 Longstaffs Road
RD4
Christchurch 7674
New Zealand drhconsult@xtra.co.nz
0277 157064
3 October 2012
Dear Sir/Madam
SUBMISSION ON PROPOSED CANTERBURY LAND AND WATER PLAN
Over- allocation of Groundwater Zones.
I am putting my submission in the form of a letter as the Website only has pdf files, which I cannot alter other than with a pen.
My name is David Hendrikz, I work as a Water Resources Consultant, I am submitting on behalf of myself in an attempt to improve the Land and Water Plan and to help it achieve its
Objectives and make it easier to do so. My proposals may save my clients, other applicants and Environment Canterbury time and money. To this end I would have no trade advantage over anyone else within the Consultancy Industry.
I wish to be heard in support of this submission at the hearing and will consider presenting a joint case if others are making a similar submission.
This submission fundamentally relates to the management of Groundwater
Allocations, the relevant Policies or Rules etc will be identified and discussed below.
All in all I support the Objectives of this plan, my points are about being practical, fair and achieving Objectives. My points are made below in Bold
There is no definition of Site to Site Consent Transfers in Section 2.10 - Definitions,
Translations and Abbreviations. Already there have been different interpretations provided by ECan. This plan must avoid this sort of costly confusion with proper definitions, possibly with examples.
Section 4 – Policies - 4.7 (page 4-1)
“Where over-allocation of water for surface or ground water from surface water catchments and groundwater zones or nutrient discharges has been determined, a regime will be established in Sections 6-15 that provides methods and a time frame to eliminate the overallocation.
”
The NPS Freshwater Management 2011 – Policy B6 requires Regional Councils to set a defined time frame and methods in regional plans by which over-allocation must be phased out, including reviewing water permits and consents.
Page 1 of 4

Having read sections 6-15, I can find no coherent plan with timelines to eliminate over allocation in Groundwater Zones. At the very least this policy should have a table to show the date by which each over-allocated Groundwater Zone should have its plan in place.
Activity and Resource Policy - 4.73 (page 4-13)
“ In an over-allocated surface water catchment or groundwater zone, enable the transfer of water permits to take or use water where the water is moving to an irrigation scheme, and in all other instances, enable the transfer of water provided there was a surrender of a proportion of the allocated water to the water body and it is not re-allocated.
”
This policy unfairly penalises existing groundwater users and also can give the irrigation companies an unfair windfall of groundwater takes. I will be discussing transferring of water in more depth, later in this submission.
Section 5 – Region-wide rules 5.107 and 5.108 (pages 5-25 and 5-26)
In summary - Consents being temporarily or permanently transferred within an overallocated zone will have to surrender either 25% or 50% for the application to be determined as a restricted discretionary activity, if not then they are non-complying activities and will have a much greater degree of difficulty in being granted.
T
- Objective B3 – “To improve and maximise the efficient allocation and use of water.
”
T
Policy B3 – “By every Regional Council making or changing regional plans to the extent needed to ensure the plans state criteria by which applications for approval of transfers of water take permits are to be decided, including to improve and maximise the efficient allocation of water .
”
T
Policy B4 - “By every Regional Council identifying methods in regional plans to encourage the efficient use of water.
”
The NPS defines "Efficient Allocation" to include economic, technical and dynamic efficiency.
The NPS Section 32 Report for the Ministry, further explains these concepts as:
 Technical efficiency - maximising net value eg fixing a dripping tap
 Allocative efficiency - the ease with which resources can move to their most
 productive or best use - or highest value.
Dynamic efficiency - optimisation of innovation and rate of change to new activities eg regulatory processes which are consistent and easily understood give people confidence in making decisions and investment.
The Government strategy "New Start for Fresh Water" makes "Allocation of water to its maximum use" one of its priorities.
The NPS Section 32 Report also considers some alternatives to the status quo (Chapter 4), it comments that Market-Based instruments would be necessary to provide an incentive for water permit holders to trade or transfer their permits, market-based mechanisms include tradable water take permits.
Page 2 of 4

There is a growing realisation that, as in any market, consent transfers will allow water to move to holders who can make the most profitable/efficient use of that water.
By definition transfers of consented annual volumes will not take place in groundwater zones until that zone is at least fully allocated. If not there would be no need to transfer as allocation would be available. Groundwater Zones should be managed so that when they are fully allocated, a small buffer (say 10 %) is included to allow for transfers. One must be conscious here of the difference between “overallocated” and “over-abstracted”.
There are many areas of the Canterbury Plains, where farmers cannot get water for irrigation unless they transfer a groundwater consent. For these farmers surface schemes are not an option.
Environment Canterbury, cannot become a “Consent Trader”, however it can provide a regime which allows consents to be traded equitably and fairly by famers.
Environmental wins can be made by ensuring efficient irrigation, proper metering and record keeping and annual volumes established which efficiently meet irrigation demand.
Randomly penalising transfers by taxing an arbitrary 25 or 50% will not reward good irrigation practice, it will also not enable short term swaps or leases which could allow more efficient water use over a short period. Rather it will quite likely promote inefficient water use and the hoarding of “Paper Water”.
When an annual volume is allocated to a consent, it should only meet the irrigation demand of the proposed irrigation. “Paper Water” exists where more water has been allocated than is needed to meet irrigation demand. This water cannot be used efficiently if at all.
Either banning water transfers or taking some water back can, as part of a well thought out plan, be one of the tools used to rectify over-allocation of a groundwater zone. However as it is applied here, as a sort of default and blunt instrument, it will not rectify over-allocation. Section 6 is the proper place to make plans to address over-allocation of groundwater zones. Only properly configured plans will have any hope of redressing over-allocation. This proposed taxation is tinkering where proper action is required.
Environment Canterbury manages the allocation of groundwater by either calculating irrigation demand using the out of date WQN9 version 2 or consented annual volumes. There are many over/under estimates of irrigation demand and double counting (where land is irrigated by more than one consent) even in zones which have recently been reviewed. In many cases there has been no split between the stream depletion element of a consent and groundwater.
Although better use of surface water, storage and aquifer recharge are very important and will bring in more water resources, I feel there should be more emphasis in this plan on how groundwater can be better managed, especially for people who cannot or do not want to join in one of the big schemes.
Page 3 of 4

I recommend:

Plans to reduce over-allocation in groundwater zones must include a review of the zone consents and a rationalisation of the data used to calculate water allocated.

The consent reviews must ensure all groundwater consents have annual volumes and that there is no consented or allocated “Paper Water”, only proper irrigation demand must be consented and accounted for.

The reviews should also split stream depletion from groundwater and properly allocate them to surface or groundwater allocations.

As part of its review Environment Canterbury should use its powers under
Section 126 of the RMA to win back unused consents eg those consents where the land has been subdivided for housing estates.

Environment Canterbury ensures that it does not put unnecessary barriers on the free transfer of consents.

A buffer (say 10 %) over full allocation in a groundwater zone should be established for each allocation to allow transfers.

Adaptively managed allocation, must be identified and managed separately from the “base allocation”.

Free Trade Areas and Water User Groups, who can share consented groundwater over several farms should be encouraged.
 If transferred water is to be “taxed”, water which is as a result of an efficiency gain, should have a lesser tax or none at all to encourage efficient water use.

Innovative methods, including financial incentives, should be devised and used to encourage consent holders to be more efficient with water use and to give unused water back to the allocation.
Yours faithfully
David Hendrikz
Page 4 of 4