Summary of Stakeholder (CWMOS) Content February 2009
ENVIRONMENTAL FLOWS/LEVELS
Overview:
1) Stakeholders maintained a persistent focus on ecosystems, and the holistic,
interconnected nature of biodiversity and non-biotic habitat, water quality, flows,
levels, natural non-biotic processes etc.
2) Stakeholders have generally perceived environmental flows as interconnected with
the physical nature and form of water bodies. This reflects the fact that flows and
levels are fundamental to the natural physical form/character of water bodies as well
as to their respective natural functions and ecosystems.
Stakeholder Sub-themes:
1) flow/level magnitude in types of water bodies:
a) braids and islands and fluctuating course for alpine rivers
b) smaller rivers
c) glaciers
d) lowland streams
e) lake beds, shores, beaches
f) coastal estuaries, lagoons, wetlands
g) groundwater systems
h) associated aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems
i) artificial water bodies (man made, eg. hydro-lakes/canals, storage
ponds/infrastructure etc)
j) specifically identified water bodies (quite rare after Stage 3)
2) flow/level variability in types of water bodies:
a) braids and islands and fluctuating course for alpine rivers
b) smaller rivers
c) glaciers
d) lowland streams
e) lake beds, shores, beaches
f) coastal estuaries, lagoons, wetlands
g) groundwater systems
h) associated aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems
i) artificial water bodies (man made, eg. hydro-lakes/canals, storage
ponds/infrastructure etc)
j) specifically identified water bodies (quite rare after Stage 3)
3) role of flows/levels in the natural functions of types of water bodies:
a) shaping the land (including beyond present water courses etc)
b) providing habitat for species, often very specific (islands, side streams,
beaches, pools) and often variable for adults, juveniles, spawning, migrations
etc
c) regulating salinity/salt water levels and encroachment
d) sediment supply and transport
e) coastal erosion and drift currents
f) flooding/flushing functions
g) dilution of contaminants
h) groundwater ecosystem regulation and recharge
i) surface water ecosystem regulation and recharge
j) implications for climate change?
Page 1 of 5
4) aesthetic/landscape values:
a) creating reflections and other lighting effects
b) moving water – waves, water falls, tides, flowing rivers
c) sensory impacts (not just visual – sounds, smells, feel, taste etc)
d) natural ecosystems and environments
e) contoured landscapes/built
f) variety of landscapes – dry-land, wetland, aquatic, terrestrial, natural, rural,
urban etc
5) interference with flows/levels:
a) storage infrastructure
b) diversion infrastructure
c) surface water abstractions
d) ground water abstractions
6) protective/restorative/management measures:
a) prohibition/limitations on infrastructure
b) prohibition/limitations on abstractions, including transference to net-worked
schemes
c) moratoriums on further abstraction/existing abstractions
d) moratoriums in times of drought
e) management of releases from storage/diversion infrastructure
f) community/catchment management groups
g) volunteer community groups (schools, businesses, charities etc)
h) property owners/managers (self-audit, compliance)
i) monitoring/policing obstructions/storage management
j) monitoring/policing abstractions/diversions
k) flow regulation/monitoring at multiple points along/across water sources
l) forestry and other plantings
m) obtaining political/regulatory/legal protection – Water Conservation Orders,
Protected Natural Areas, World Heritage Areas
7) habitat/ecosystem management:
a) environmental flows/levels – magnitude and variability
b) water temperatures
c) water quality, especially sediment and nutrient levels; also removal of weeds,
algae
d) non-biotic regulating processes, eg. flushing flows, rainfall, soil moisture recharge
e) natural ecosystems associated with water bodies/systems on public land
f) natural ecosystems associated with water bodies/systems on private land
8) educational measures and initiatives:
a) enviroschools and other secondary and tertiary initiatives
b) education of the wider community, including the adult community (rural and
urban)
c) education of abstractive/instream ‘developers’
d) research into related areas
e) distribution of information on related areas
9) on-farm stream/riparian management initiatives:
a) self audit, compliance with prohibitions/limitations on surface/groundwater
abstractions (generic, consent-specific, time-specific)
b) catchment monitoring of others
c) planting of trees
10) recreational/social/tourism enjoyment:
a) landscape, aesthetic and sensory stimulation
Page 2 of 5
b)
c)
d)
e)
natural ecosystems and environments
realisation of the 100% pure promise
sense of identity, locality, pride
nurturing of all species for contribution to aesthetic surrounds, ambience etc
11) cultural sanctity/natural character:
a) preservation/restoration of mauri of water through absence of obstructions,
diversions, mixing and contamination of waters
b) preservation/restoration of indigenous species and ecosystems
c) continuation of role of cultural guardianship/kaitiakitanga
d) preservation of associated pakeha/maori heritage and history
e) cultural and social identity
f) spiritual and mental health and wellbeing
12) infrastructure and governance:
a) creation/adoption of national and regional policy
b) water conservation orders
c) natural heritage orders and status
Recurring Stakeholder Perspectives:
1) many stakeholders’ primary concern was with the current over-allocation of
Canterbury water to abstractive uses, at cost to environmental flows/levels and other
‘instream’ uses, and at the cost of reliability to all abstractive users. On the contrary to
being interested in how to provide more water for abstraction, a very significant
number of stakeholders are most interested in how to decrease abstractive water
allocations in order to supplement existing environmental flows/levels.
2) this is partly because it is widely acknowledged that all water bodies/systems serve a
natural, regulatory function of some kind and that these functions are often dependent
on adequate environmental flows/levels
3) the multiple functions served by water bodies and water systems, often dependent on
adequate environmental flows/levels, are also widely noted as essential to the
maintenance of all ecosystems and species
4) it is further accepted that the physical nature of certain species’ habitat, often
dependent on adequate environmental flows/levels, is fundamental to their survival;
for example isolated the braids/islands in braided river beds, the presence of viable
nesting sites on lake shores, or the safety and seclusion of side-streams and pools in
larger river systems
5) the greatest debate around flows/levels relates to whether these are minimum
flows/levels, environmental flows/levels or ideal/aspirational flows/levels
6) there are dual aspects to flow/levels – magnitude and variability
7) consistent flow magnitude and variability are widely acknowledged as being
inadequate to simulate the extreme natural variations which regulate ecosystems. It is
therefore noted as imperative that regular flood or flushing flows be allowed/not be
obstructed or diverted as these are important for shaping water courses, cleansing
away weeds and algae, moving sediment, diluting/transporting contaminants etc.
8) most stakeholders feel that natural water bodies/systems will provide the best flow
regulation – a minority of stakeholders feel that this could be best achieved through
the creation of storage infrastructure and through artificial flow management
Page 3 of 5
9) most stakeholders acknowledge that flows are not purely ‘environmental’, but should
also be set with reference to social, cultural and recreational requirements (as these
may vary from minimum environmental requirements). However, a minority of
stakeholders feel strongly that flows should be defined as minimum ‘environmental’
flows and that all water above that bottom limit could/should be allocated to
abstractive use
10) a small minority of stakeholders also consider that any water above minimum flows
going out to sea is ‘surplus water’, and is ‘being wasted’ by not being ‘harvested’; a
strong majority oppose this view for environmental, social and cultural reasons
11) similarly, a small but vocal minority of stakeholders argue that ‘there is sufficient
water for everyone (including all development/abstractive interests), it is just in the
wrong place at the wrong time”. In contrast, a strong majority argue that the water left
in water bodies/systems already is in the right place at the right time, because they
prioritise ecosystem self-regulation through the maintenance of natural (not minimum)
flows and levels and do not perceive the ‘need’ for further abstraction (as being the
‘right’ use - only the ‘demand’)
12) it is almost universally accepted that the current regime for calculating environmental
flows ought to be revised to accommodate magnitude, variability and flood
requirements (though stakeholders vary as to what they believe the appropriate
balance ought to be)
13) it is very widely argued that the current regime for monitoring environmental flows is
inadequate and does not facilitate the attribution of over-abstraction where this is
occurring. It is felt that more rigorous monitoring at more regular/tactical locations
could improve this situation and could influence better compliance with abstraction
limits. A few stakeholders argue that abstractors do and will comply as a matter of
good faith, but this argument is very strongly rejected by most others.
14) as with biodiversity, there is a very strong and widespread sentiment that full
preservation of the status quo is a minimum threshold, and that no further reduction in
flows/levels should be permissible in light of the losses which have already occurred
and the sacrifices already made in favour of human
developments/obstructions/diversions/abstractions etc
15) there is a very strong stakeholder emphasis on the restoration, reinstatement and
enhancement of existing ‘remnants’ and of currently degraded or depleted water
bodies and/or systems.
16) there is a strong awareness of climate and climate change and possible associated
risks, and a corresponding desire to take a precautionary approach (precautionary
principle)
17) there is a strong awareness of droughts and of the possible associated risks, and a
corresponding desire to take a precautionary approach (precautionary principle) to
setting flows and levels
18) the presence of thriving natural ecosystems, supported by adequate environmental
flows/levels, is essential to the preservation of the cultural integrity of the Canterbury
environment
19) the presence of thriving natural ecosystems, supported by adequate environmental
flows/levels, is essential to human enjoyment of natural areas and experiences
(social, cultural)
Page 4 of 5
20) the aesthetic/landscape/sensory elements of water bodies’ natural character,
supported by adequate environmental flows/levels, are essential to certain forms of
human social or recreational enjoyment
21) the aesthetic/landscape/sensory elements of water bodies’ natural character,
supported by adequate environmental flows/levels, are essential to the effective
marketing of Canterbury/NZ as desirable tourism destinations
Page 5 of 5