Questions and Answers - 2 November 2009

Irrigation and Environment

1. Isn’t this more of a Farmers Irrigation Strategy than a Water Management Strategy?

This strategy represents a blending of agricultural and environmental priorities. Neither dominates and both are seen within a context of sustainability. The strategy is built on the vital concept of “parallel development” where objectives for environmental, agricultural and other uses are pursued and achieved simultaneously. Much more is achievable in this way than either party acting alone.

2. Why are irrigation and energy generation second order priorities in the Fundamental Principles and environment is a first order priority? Isn’t this unbalanced?

The problem of cumulative adverse effects on the environment needs to be addressed and the loss of environmental values stabilised and in some situations repaired. It is part of our living environment just like drinking water that is also a first order priority.

The key concept embodied in the principles is sustainable development, as it is in the RMA. Community and economic wellbeing must be achieved while safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of ecosystems on which they depend in the long term.

3. Will there ever be more significant irrigation in Canterbury, or will environmental concerns and interests always trump any proposals for major schemes?

If the Strategy has proven one thing, it is that neither party will get what they want without the other party. Unilateral action by irrigators to develop new schemes without full recognition of the environmental issues is likely to fail. Similarly, arresting cumulative effects and undertaking repair and enhancement to the environment cannot be funded without the contribution from water levies (or equivalent). By working together much more can be achieved than by working alone.

Water Use

1. Should consumptive and non-consumptive users of water be treated differently?

Non-consumptive uses such as energy generation are different from, say, irrigation. There are many other non-consumptive users such as recreationalists and tourism. Non-consumptive uses are not without impact on the use of water. The Strategy has taken the view that rather than establish rigid principles on this matter that the zone committees are asked to take this into account in the preparation of their implementation programmes.

2. Will existing consent holders end-up subsidising infrastructure investment in other parts of the region that will benefit other users and not themselves?

Equity consideration around who pays are significant and are presently being considered by the Steering Group. They are not limited to consent holders but also tax and rate payers. These matters will be dealt with in more detail in the progress papers currently being developed and due for release either later this year or early in 2010.

3. What should the options be for consent holders who do not use their full allocation of water?

As in the question above, this is a matter which is still under consideration although the issues are raised in the strategy document (which proposes the use of incentive mechanisms to mainly drive change). Gaining efficiencies in water use are fundamental to the strategy as are remedying problems with over allocation. These are detailed policy matters which require further consideration.

4. How will the principle of non-derogation of grant be recognised?

The Steering Group has made it clear that they envisage, where possible, a voluntary and incentivised system of encouraging consent holders to align with changes that may be sought regarding consents and the availability of water. These are issues that would be considered by the zone committees and the approach may differ from zone to zone. Increased water reliability is seen as a major potential incentive.

If some form of gradual but compulsory transition is contemplated this would be presented for public discussion and consultation before any action was taken. Even then, changing existing consents requires RMA involvement and, given the timeframes of RMA processes, the reality is that negotiating or incentivising changes will be far easier to implement.

5. Will existing water conservation orders remain in place?

The Steering Group recognises the vital role such orders play in the protection of the environment. It also recognises that some orders have been in place for a long time and circumstances change. Where changes changes to aspects of WCOs were contemplated, the Steering Group would look to retain the intent of the WCO but perhaps achieve it through other more flexible measures. Only Central Government would have the power to amend WCOs.

Zone Committees

6. Won’t they just duplicate what already exists?

There is nothing that currently exists that is equivalent to the zone committees. In fact many of the matters to be dealt with in zones are currently litigated in court, which is not a satisfactory situation. There are advisory and guardianship groups based around catchments, lakes and other water forms, but they do not have anything like the role that is intended for the zone committees.

It needs to be remembered that the RMA has tended to be an applicant-driven method of planning, and lacks adequate community-driven planning methods. The zone committees will redress this imbalance.

7. Isn’t there a real danger that they will become dominated by single interests such as irrigation?

There could be attempts by any parties to dominate the committees, but it would be difficult. Firstly, they are structured to reflect a wide range of interests. Secondly, they have to operate with the Fundamental Principles and the Targets and take account of the Regional Committee’s priorities. The implementation programmes need to be approved regionally (the mechanism for this is yet to be announced). For all these reasons, capture by particular groups is unlikely.

8. Isn’t the strategy moving in the opposite direction to the Government approach in Auckland?

That is a question of how you might interpret what is happening in Auckland. There is a similarity between the community committees proposed in the Auckland reforms and the zone committees in the CWMS. Although the CWMS may appear to have a number of layers, in practice we believe it will be more effective than current arrangements.

It should also be noted in particular that the committees will be supported by a single organisations – the Water Executive.

9. Can the zones change the targets to reflect local conditions?

The Targets are regional targets and there is provision for a level of interpretation at the zone level about how each zone can contribute to the Targets. Other than that proviso the targets are part of the framework within which the zone committees must operate. This will be included in their terms of reference.

10. Would the adversarial culture just be transferred to the zones?

There is no doubt that there will be robust discussion locally and sometime conflict-resolution may be the order of the day. However, the incentives will be there to find solutions that take everyone forward. The committees will operate on the basis of consensus decision-making rather than by voting. The big advantage of the zone committees is that people are there, together, and have the opportunity to work things out face-to-face.

11. Would zones simply look after their own interests?

Zones cannot just focus on their own interests. They will have regional considerations that will be highlighted to them by the regional committee. There will be inter-zone issues that will require negotiation with adjacent zone committees. The zone committees will need to see themselves as part of something larger.

12. How will cross zone issues be dealt with?

The Steering Group expects that issues that cross zone boundaries will be addressed by the regional committee or zone committees may have joint discussions on matters of common interest. The Water Executive as the facilitator and at times the mediator will also be able to assist in these matters. The principle remains that the zone groups will be encouraged to work through any conflicts of this nature.

Governance

1. How can the zones operate without knowing their legal mandate?

The zones will be committees of the territorial local authorities and the regional council. They will have a terms of reference and a practice guide. It will be quite clear how they have to operate. We expect to have the legal mandating issues resolved well before the implementation programmes are completed (which is when mandating is an important matter)

2. Are there too many levels?

The Steering Group does not believe this is so. Careful analysis has been undertaken of parallel examples both in NZ and offshore and the Steering Group strongly believes that the face-to-face element of this programme is vital.

The most important level is the zone level. The other levels are in some respects support structures to enable the zone activity to be effective.

If the zone concept works well and the mandating is well conceived then this structure should reduce, not increase, the level of bureaucracy. These matters will be fully considered in the preparation of the progress paper on mandating.

3. What’s the difference between the Water Executive and the Regional Committee?

The Water Executive is a wholely professional body that will be part of Environment Canterbury. It will provide the professional support to the zone and regional committees. It will also assist with the establishment of the Water Infrastructure and Services Entity and may have a role in the distribution of water. It will oversee environmental programmes with operational and technical expertise from other Environment Canterbury staff.

The regional committee, like the zone committees is concerned with creating practicable programmes of action to deliver the Targets. The regional committee is concerned with regional issues that go wider than zone issues.

4. Hasn’t the consultation period for the strategy been too short? A lot of time was spent on principles and priorities but very little of governance and management?

The Steering Group believes there was adequate time. There have been three separate public consultation processes in the last two years. In addition, there will be consultation around a number of the progress papers that are proposed in the project plan section of the Strategy document.

5. Is it feasible to appoint the zone and regional committees within the first quarter of 2010?

The Steering Group is keen to move forward with the strategy and keep the momentum going that we have generated to date. It is possible some zone groups may be underway prior to the holiday break.

6. Should a couple of areas be piloted first?

Not all the committees will begin at once. It will be important to get the regional committee underway to begin considering regional issues. There could be some early and later zones which would allow time for the Water Executive to form and dedicate quality time to helping each committee get underway.

7. What level of regulation, monitoring and enforcement is needed in addition to self-auditing?

Audited self-management includes third party auditing. Environment Canterbury would continue to operate compliance activity, but there will be a higher level of trust applied to consent holders participating in self-auditing. Enforcement resources would be focussed on “high risk” consent holders. The compliance burden will be reduced for consent holders with a track record of good practice.