files.ecan.govt.nzfiles.ecan.govt.nz/public/lwrp/submissions/doc/mail1726… · Web viewThis is a...

SUBMISSION Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan (pLWRP)

Date:

04/10/12

Name of Submitter:

Irrigation New Zealand Incorporated

Postal Address:

6 Sonter Road, Wigram, Christchurch 8042

Telephone:

03 341 2225

E-mail:

[email protected]

(Andrew Curtis CEO Irrigation NZ)

Overview

1. IrrigationNZ (INZ) is a national body that promotes excellence in irrigation throughout New Zealand. INZ represents the interests of over 3,600 irrigators totaling 350,000ha of irrigation (approximately 50% of NZs irrigated area), alongside the majority of irrigation service providers (over 140 researchers, suppliers, installers and consultants). This unique membership combination leads to a well balanced whole of industry approach to INZs advocacy activities.

2. All INZ members businesses are founded on secure, on-going access to reliable water supply without this they, and the Canterbury economy, do not function. The national economy would also be significantly impacted upon. INZ actively engages with its members on planning issues, proactively facilitating a wider understanding of the relevant issues by all.

Key Points

Significance of Agriculture and Irrigation to the Canterbury Economy

3. INZs membership is dominated by Canterbury irrigators. This is because approximately 70% of all irrigation in NZ occurs in Canterbury. Irrigation is therefore of regional and national significance. In 2002/03 based on 425,000ha irrigation contributed 11% of farm gate GDP (MAF 2004)[footnoteRef:1] - approximately 1% of national GDP. Since then the irrigated area has increased by over 50% and INZ now conservatively estimates an 18% contribution to farm gate GDP - approximately 2% of national GDP. Irrigation in Canterbury therefore represents a 1.4% contribution to national GDP. Note: the above figures are farm gate based and do not take account of the considerable flow-on community socio-economic benefits (processing and related service industries). [1: The Economic Value of Irrigation In New Zealand, MAF Technical Paper No: 04/01]

4. Looking at the future national potential, based on the NZIER report of 2010[footnoteRef:2], increasing irrigable area by 350,000ha increases national GDP (farm gate) by 0.8%. It should be noted that Canterbury is forecasted to provide over 250,000ha of the additional irrigable area. [2: The Economic Impact of Increased Irrigation, MAF 2010]

5. A recent report by AERU[footnoteRef:3], based on 500,000ha of existing irrigation Canterbury with a further 250,000ha added through the CWMS, demonstrates the Canterbury economy receives an additional $2billion in revenue and just under 8,000 FTEs from increased irrigation. For New Zealand wide impacts these numbers rise to $3 billion in revenue and over 8,000 FTEs. [3: Total Value of Irrigation land in Canterbury, AERU, 2012]

6. The Aoraki Development Trust in 2004 undertook an Ex-post study of the Opuha Dams impacts on the provincial economy and community[footnoteRef:4]. In summary - [4: The Opuha Dam: An ex post study of its impacts on the provincial economy and community, Aoraki Development Trust, 2006]

Gross Farm Revenue x3 ($900 - $2,100/ha)

Farm Expenditure x2 ($644 - $1,503/ha)

Cash Farm Surplus x3 ($210 - $570/ha)

Employment x2.5 (74 192 FTEs)

$41 million value added to the Timaru economy per annum

480 additional FTEs jobs created off farm

Younger & better educated workforce

7. The Waitaki Development Board, in 2009, undertook a study of the Economic benefit to the community of the North Otago Irrigation Scheme[footnoteRef:5]. In summary - [5: The Economic Benefit to the Community of the North Otago Irrigation Scheme, Waitaki Development Board 2010]

Gross Farm Revenue x3 ($2,100/ha - $6,500/ha)

Farm Expenditure x3 ($1,300/ha - $4,300/ha) most to local economy

Cash Farm Surplus x3 ($700/ha - $2,200/ha)

Employment x2 (71 - 147 FTEs) direct

Farmers spent $6,200/ha converting most to local economy

8. From the data above, it is clear that irrigated agriculture is the main driver of the Canterbury regions socio-economic well-being. The consequences of decisions that may adversely impact upon the irrigation sector must therefore be carefully considered.

Water Transfers in Over Allocated Catchments

9. Better enabling the transfer of water in fully and over-allocated catchments is an important mechanism for driving improved water use efficiency - one of the main targets of the CWMS. Water use efficiency is a principle driver for the achievement of the regions water quality objectives (another CWMS target) as it is linked to reduced nutrient loss through reduced drainage and/or surface run-off. It also decreases the regions overall water infrastructure requirements (in-take, storage and distribution), aiding both the hydrological achievability and financial viability of improved water supply reliability and increased irrigated area (also CWMS targets).

10. Water use efficiency can be broken into technical, allocative and dynamic components. However it is dynamic efficiency (enabling water to move to its highest value use over time - transfer) that is paramount. Enabling dynamic efficiency drives both allocative and technical efficiency. Dynamic efficiency will in part help ensure the Canterbury region receives the best value use and return from its ample water resources.

11. The differences between a temporary and permanent transfer need to be recognised and provided for in the LWRP. Temporary transfers are of short duration (less than 5 years) and may be between sites (property titles) or individuals. An example of a temporary transfer would be cropping enterprises that lease ground due to crop health or exclusion requirements transferring their water from one title to another for a limited number of seasons. Permanent transfers encompass all other scenarios however, land sale related transfers should be treated as an exception.

12. Policy 4.73 and rule 5.107(5) are in part nonsensical and the latter arbitrary. Over-allocation, as a first principle, should be dealt with through a catchment specific, inclusive approach. In many catchments solutions will include the creation of new water through water use efficiency gains and infrastructure development. Confusing over allocation policies and rules with those for transfer will create unintended outcomes for CWMS targets and must therefore be avoided.

13. If an interim, generic method is required for dealing with transfer in over-allocated catchments, it needs to be robust and equitable, whilst enabling dynamic, allocative and technical efficiency gains. A better method than that proposed is to treat a consent as a proportion within the limit and a proportion in excess of the limit. If there is no seasonal volume, one should be applied based on the INZ recommendations made for schedule 10.

14. For a permanent transfer a consent holder would be required to surrender the proportion of the consent that relates to their over allocation. For a temporary transfer the entire consent should be able to be transferred provided it has a seasonal volume applied.

Nutrient Management Approach

Exclusion of Extensive Land Use Activities

15. INZ agrees with the pLWRPs output based approach to nutrient management. This allows for flexibility and innovation. However, INZ recommends that some additional input based threshold rules (fertiliser use and property size for example) are applied to exclude activities that pose little impact to the achievement of catchment freshwater objectives. Please note it is important these land use activities are still accounted for, however this can be done more efficiently and cost effectively through assumptions - instead of every property completing a nutrient budget to determine whether they are below the 20kg/N/ha threshold. If a detailed s32 cost-benefit analysis were undertaken it would become obvious a number more land use activities should be excluded from nutrient budget and/or farm plan requirements. Such an approach would also help better deal with the considerable rural service industry capability and capacity challenges that the pLWRP creates.

Emphasis on Nitrate

16. The pLWRPs is very narrow-minded in its approach to water quality. In short it has a one track nitrate focus. INZ agrees there are some areas where a focus on nitrate is appropriate. Groundwater zones with no sensitive receiving waters (streams or lakes) where drinking water quality (nitrate concentration) will be the water quality consideration for example. However, for most of Canterbury the focus will need to be much wider - a combination of nitrate, phosphate, sediment, microbial, temperature and habitat restoration. An inclusive approach is the only means to effectively achieve the community set freshwater objectives.

Change of Land-Use

17. The current definition of changed is problematic. Applying a volume of water threshold will result in detrimental outcomes inconsistent with CWMS target (Water Use Efficiency and Water Quality). Often the extra volume will be to improve reliability of supply and so will improve environmental performance enable a change to an as and when irrigation strategy as opposed to a just in case. Improved reliability results in decreased water use and drainage (nutrient losses). The irrigation component should therefore be removed. If an irrigation component is to be included within the changed definition it should only relate to additional irrigated area.

18. The 10% change in N loss is arbitrary. The percentage approach greater benefits those with higher existing N losses, which is nonsensical. The measurement timeframe given is also problematic and needs clarification. If input based thresholds are introduced this will avoid the capture of scenarios like a lifestyle block that has a record lambing year, alleviating some issues. However, legitimate mixed cropping land use activities, with long-term crop rotations (eight to ten years is common), that span multiple properties through lease hold arrangement, must be better accounted for.

19. The time frame over which changed is applied needs to be flexible to allow for a range of land use activities. The error and uncertainty associated with the use of OVERSEER (stated as +/-20%) also needs to be accounted for in the application of the definition. A combination approach which combines a percentage threshold with a threshold number is therefore recommended.

Audited Self Management (ASM)

20. For successful on-farm nutrient management the LWRPs emphasis needs to be very much focused on the implementation and uptake of industry ASM programmes. ASM programmes provide an educative pathway for achieving water quality objectives. They can be easily adapted to tackle the actual issues, they are collaborative, and importantly they focus on achieving outcomes on the ground. They also combine audit, enforcement, monitoring and adaption components to instil confidence in the catchment community.

21. A robust ASM programme must have:

Strong governance with clearly defined roles and responsibilities;

Clear programme targets and objectives linked to the catchments freshwater objectives and corresponding limits;

Transparent audit and reporting;

Corrective action and enforcement procedures;

Monitoring and adaption.

22. Successful ASM programmes have a two tier management system -

(a) An ASM programme must clearly set over-arching objectives and targets to be achieved by its participants, efficiency of water use and nutrient discharge targets, for example. The ASM governance group is responsible for setting these. The governance group is also responsible for drawing up the agreement with the regulator (the community representative) that clearly outlines roles and responsibilities. To integrate ASM programmes within the regulatory framework, a catchments water quality objectives and limits must be captured by the ASM programme they become its objectives and targets.

(b) Individual participants in an ASM programme develop a risk management plan (farm plan) for their property. The plan identifies both sensitive areas (waterways, for example) and management practices that create risk (irrigation on slopes, for example). Specific management actions, to be used by an individual to manage their risks, including nutrient discharge targets, are stated in the plan. This results in a list of management actions an individual agrees to undertake in order to do their bit in achieving the catchments water quality objectives a social contract.

Red Zone non-complying activity status

23. Appendix 6 of the section 32 report acknowledges the crudeness of the process and the coarseness of the spatial and temporal resolution used to set the regional water quality red, orange and green zones. Unfortunately there seems to be a marked disconnect between how the scientists set the water quality zones and the corresponding activity status applied to each in the pLWRP.

24. Non-complying activity status for the red zone makes a presumption that the activity will generally be unacceptable. This is not appropriate given the acknowledgments made around the water quality assessments. Non-complying activity status cannot be justified. Restricted discretionary activity status would be more appropriate. Alternatively the water quality zones need defining with greater spatial and temporal resolution. Non-complying activity status can then be appropriately applied.

Section 15 Discharge Allocations and the use of OVERSEER

25. The allocation of a discharge quantum, a nutrient discharge allowance (NDA) through section 15 is often regarded, in the main by non-practitioners, as the best way to manage within water quality limits. An NDA is allocated to a title and managed within using traditional regulatory compliance enforcement. Transfer of all or part of the NDA may or may not be allowed. This allocation based approach has been used to manage and enforce water quantity limits for decades. For quantity the measurement and enforcement of the allocation is, in the main, easily achievable. However, for water quality there are multiple challenges with the allocation and enforcement of an NDA at the farm scale:

Linking the discharge quantum to the water quality objectives. This is a particular problem where multiple attenuation factors and time lags are present in a catchment or within a farm.

The limitations of measurement and the complications this creates for enforcement. The direct measurement of diffuse contaminant discharges, such as nitrate or sediment, is not currently practical or cost effective. To overcome this, a modelled approach is used. However, models have limitations (inputs and assumptions) resulting in error and uncertainty. Enforcement must acknowledge this and can therefore be challenging.

Using one contaminant as a catch all. Many contaminants are too difficult to measure or model. Contaminants interact with one another meaning there are multiple ways to achieve a water quality objective. A focus on one contaminant will often create perverse outcomes.

Creating a numbers game rather than outcomes on the ground. Numbers game means the focus becomes subverted resulting in arguments as to the appropriateness of the number or developing models that meet the number.

26. OVERSEER has become the default model for managing within water quality limits. INZ is extremely supportive of the use of OVERSEER for its intended purpose a management tool to aid farmers in nutrient decision making economic and environmental performance. However, INZ has considerable concerns with the rapid application of OVERSEER to the regulatory environment, particularly as a compliance and enforcement tool.

27. National protocols for the use of robust and consistent use of OVERSEER are urgently needed. These will help set a framework for its more appropriate use in the regulatory environment. OVERSEER also needs further development for both cropping and for irrigation. However, OVERSEERs limitations and assumptions must be recognised and accounted for by regulators. OVERSEER is a long-term average model based on the presumption of Good Management Practice. It will not account for the intricacies of actual farm management practice.

28. Currently OVERSEER is a useful tool for policy development, informing the community as to what current Good Management Practice scenarios may achieve for specific environments. For compliance it also gives a rough indication of annual average performance with the assumption of Good Management Practice. However, it does not reflect actual performance and thus could create perverse outcomes - reward poor performers and penalise early adopters and innovators.

29. INZ is therefore supportive of the use of OVERSEER for the setting of management targets contained within ASM programmes. In this instance the OVERSEER outputs can be verified in the context of the farm practices being undertaken and a confidence based adjustment made accordingly.

30. INZ opposes OVERSEERs use for the setting and enforcement of section 15 discharges (NDAs). INZ acknowledges that in the long-term OVERSEER may become well enough developed that it could be used for this, but until this occurs, INZ will oppose its use for this.

Specific Submission

Section 1

31. First paragraph, page 1-4 The first paragraph states that intensification of farming, particularly with irrigation, has the potential to increase nutrient losses to water bodies. This statement is not true as Good Management Practice irrigation enables the better management of water and nutrients. Reliable just in time irrigation allows optimal vegetative growth, maximising the uptake of nutrients from the root zone whilst minimising drainage (nutrient loss). This allows an irrigated farming system to better perform to a higher environmental standard than a similarly intensive rain-fed system.

Relief Sought: Amend

........intensification of farming has the potential to increase.......

32. 1.2.6 Managing new and existing activities - The pLWRP requires that holders of existing resource consents that expire and reapply be considered subject to Part 2 of the RMA. INZ would like to see explicit reference made to Part 104(2A) of the RMA which states that the consent authority must have regard to the value of the investment of the existing consent holder.


Add a reference to Part 104 (2A) of the RMA

Section 2

33. 2.6 Limits There are a number of issues associated with the use of values/objectives in Table 1 to form the basis for water quality limits in this plan:

1. The values were developed with the aim of being aspirational but achievable;

1. Some hill-fed rivers are naturally enriched with P and other minerals and may not be able to achieve the numeric limits set for hill-fed rivers;

1. The thresholds for periphyton indicators are conservative and will be naturally exceeded by some upland rivers;

1. There is inconsistency in the application of QMCI thresholds, with thresholds indicating good to excellent water quality set for the upland reaches of the main river groups, fair to good quality set for the lower reaches of the main river groups and poor water quality for urban streams.

1. The full cost and consequences of achieving the objectives has not been determined.

The objectives in Table 1 are aspirational and, in some instances, unachievable. They are inconsistently applied with urban water bodies being treated much more leniently that rural water bodies. The same standards should apply to all water bodies regardless of whether they are urban or rural. In addition, it is essential that the full cost and consequences of achieving water quality objectives is determined.

Any water quality limit setting by this plan should be done using objectives which are achievable, appropriate for the water bodies concerned and consistently applied.

The Zone Committee collaborative approach is a more appropriate mechanism for the establishment of catchment-scale freshwater outcomes and limits. The NPS for Freshwater Management requirement to set water quality limits could be met via the community-led development of catchment-based plans. The NPS implementation timeframe would allow for this. It is stated that councils may implement the requirements of the NPS by a programme of time-limited stages, to be fully completed by 31st December 2030.

Therefore, water quality limits need not be set by this plan. If they are, then the limitations of Table 1 (and the Nutrient Allocation Zones) need to be acknowledged. It needs to be explicitly stated that it is the role Zone Committees to critically examine the default water quality settings and recommend alternatives where appropriate.


Delete reference to Table 1 in its current form and refer to limits which are achievable (in a cost-effective way), appropriate for the water bodies concerned and consistently applied.

Acknowledge that the Zone Committee collaborative approach is a more appropriate mechanism for the establishment of catchment-scale freshwater outcomes and limits, with full understanding of their implications for the community.

State that it is the Zone Committees role to critically examine the default water quality settings and recommend alternatives where appropriate, for incorporation into sub-regional plans.

Definitions Relief Sought: Amend the definitions as below

34. Changed Remove part 1 or instead relate to additional irrigated area. For part 2 it should be rewritten as a combination of a percentage (20% - which is consistent with the error and uncertainty associated with OVERSEER) combined with a number once a threshold is reached to avoid rewarding poor performers (25kg/ha threshold with a +5kg/ha as the maximum change. The explanation given in the Key Points section of INZs submission justifies such an approach.

35. Efficiency Add dynamic efficiency to the definition .......and includes dynamic, technical and allocative efficiency.

36. EMS for Irrigation This definition will need to be updated as the given methodology is currently being updated to better account for the recent changes in the regulatory environment. This is an INZ project, being undertaken by the same authors, and due for completion in March 2013. The goal is now to have this work finalised before the LWRP hearings.

37. Infrastructure Part e) needs greater clarity. A water supply distribution system, including intake structures, storage, distribution structures, channels and pipes, and application equipment.

38. Irrigation Irrigation is used for vegetative production - grass is grown for stock to consume! .......for the purpose of assisting with the production of vegetation on that land.......

39. Profile Available Water remove. The definition is no longer required with the changes INZ has made to schedule 10 in its submission.

40. Water body make clear this does not include farm or irrigation races and storages

41. Add the following definitions under Water Permit Transfers

Temporary water permit transfers are of short duration, typically less than 5 years, and are made between properties (titles) or individuals.

Permanent transfers encompass all other scenarios. However, they do not include land sale related transfers of water permits.

Objectives

42. Objective 3.11 This objective is unclear. It needs to be split into two objectives. However, its content is supported.


Water is available for abstraction to support a variety of socio-economic activities.

Maximum socio-economic benefits are obtained from the efficient storage, distribution and use of water available for abstraction.

43. Objective 3.22 It needs to be recognised that a range of methods, including regulatory, non-regulatory, collective and individual based approaches will be used to achieve community freshwater objectives through managing within limits.


Community outcomes for water quality and quantity are met through managing within limits and by utilising a range of different methods so optimal outcomes are achieved.

44. Add an additional Objective - The socio- economic importance of food and fibre production to the Canterbury region and national economy needs to be recognised. This is consistent with the CWMS Economic target.

Relief Sought: Add an objective

The socio-economic contribution of sustainable food and fibre production within Canterbury and nationally should be maintained and grown.

Policies

45. Policy 4.1 There are a number of issues associated with the use of values/objectives in Table 1 to form the basis for water quality limits in this plan as outlined in the submission on section 2.6


Delete the reference to table 1 in its current form.

46. Policy 4.4 The RMA and NPS Freshwater Management both require all values to be balanced. The over arching basis of the CWMS, that INZ bought into, was a parallel development philosophy that balanced the needs of communities. The priority approach taken by the pLWRP is unhelpful and is not reflective the above.

Relief sought: Oppose and Amend

Water is managed through the setting of freshwater objectives and managing within limits. In doing this the maintenance of the life supporting capacity of ecosystems, customary uses, provision of community and stock water supplies, water for irrigation, food and fibre production, hydro-electricity generation and other economic activities, and the maintenance river flows and lake levels for recreational needs should all be considered.

47. Policy 4.6 There needs to be clear provision for the renewal of existing consents. As catchments in Canterbury do not have common expiry, there are equity issues if a literal approach to this policy is adopted. It needs to be made clear exception that there is an exception for consent renewals and that over-allocation should instead be dealt with through a separate inclusive process.

Relief Sought : Oppose and Amend

Where a water quality or quantity limit is set in Section 6-15, new resource consents will generally not be granted if the granting would cause the limit to be breached or further over-allocation to occur.

48. Additional Policy - There needs to be a specific policy to set out the principles as to how over-allocation is to be resolved. This should be contained in the strategic policies section on page 4-1.

Relief Sought: Add the policy below

Where there is an over-allocation of water quantity or quality, an all inclusive, catchment based approach, that recognises existing investment will be adopted for its resolution.

49. Policy 4.8 Whilst INZ agrees with the need for a regional concept for water harvest, storage and distribution. The current blueprint has to be recognised for what it is - a concept that will change as more information comes to hand. To date there have been limited feasibility investigations undertaken to (no detailed geotechnical investigations for example) which creates limitations to both the regional concept and ZIP priority outcomes. They will both change.

Relief Sought: Support in Part

Recognise that the regional concept, as set out in schedule 16 or the ZIP priority outcomes, is evolving in real-time - as more feasibility information comes to hand.

50. Policy 4.11 (c) (v) It is stated That any discharge of a contaminant into or onto land where it may enter groundwater shall (v) not have any adverse effects on the drinking water quality of the groundwater, including any risk to public health. It is not possible for a contaminant to have absolutely no effects. There needs to be clarification as to what any adverse effects means in the context of this policy.


not have adverse effects on the drinking water quality of the groundwater that pose risk to public health.

51. Policy 4.19 It is not possible to prevent sedimentation of water bodies. Natural events occur from time to time that will result in sedimentation regardless of the mitigation taken.


Replace the word prevented with managed.

52. Policy 4.26 Either accept the amended definition of Water body in the defining section of specifically exclude irrigation and stock races from this policy. Livestock are commonly used to graze races for vegetation control purposes.

Relief sort: Amend Policy or Alternatively the Definition of Waterbody

Add an exemption clause for irrigation and stock water races

53. Policy 4.27 INZ runs the Farm Dairy Effluent (FDE) Design accreditation programme which is underpinned by the FDE Design Code of Practice and Standards. INZ is very supportive and promotes the uptake of best practice for FDE discharges.

Relief Sought: Support

54. Policy 4.28 INZ is not supportive of the widespread implementation of nutrient discharge allowances through section 15. As discussed in the key points, the tools available for setting and managing nutrient discharge allowances have many assumptions and limitations that must be considered. If applied in their current form they would create perverse outcomes in the achievement of water quality objectives the Lake Taupo case study provides a good example of this. Instead nutrient management targets should be set and managed within an Audited Self Management framework. INZ acknowledges that in the long-term the tools will be better developed and allow for their use with setting and managing section 15 discharges (nutrient discharge allowance). However, until such time INZ will oppose their use for this.

Relief Support: Oppose and Amend

....... and finally, introducing nutrient discharge targets within an Audited Self Management framework, or other alternative methods, to achieve collaboratively.......

55. Policy 4.30 INZ is supportive of this policy as it will give primary industries time to find solutions for the current capability and capacity gaps facing the industry.


56. Policy 4.31, 4.32 and 4,34 INZ has concerns as to the achievability of this policy. Firstly there is more to the achievement of water quality objectives than nitrogen, this must be recognised. Secondly as there is currently no accounting system for the various drivers of water quality, how can a proposed activity demonstrate, when assessed in combination, it will not prevent water quality outcomes being achieved?


.......by demonstrating the discharges from the proposed activity will not prevent the water quality outcomes of Policy 4.1 being achieved.

57. Policy 4.36 INZ recognises the importance of providing for existing marae, community, hospitals and schools wastewater discharges. However, these activities should be subject to a continuous improvement approach and Good Management Practice operation.


....... to allow the following existing discharges, providing a continuous improvement and Good Management Practice approach is implemented.......

58. Policy 4.46 INZ supports the provision of community drinking water supplies not requiring compliance with flow regimes, subject to continuous improvement in water use efficiency and restrictions (garden watering and car washing for example) at times of low flow. Stock water should also be included (for animal welfare issues) but again subject to improvement in water use efficiency and restrictions as appropriate.

Relief Sort: Amend

....... for group, community drinking water or stock water supplies.......

....... provided the water supply has an active asset management plan that addresses water use efficiency, and is managed to restrict.......

59. Policy 4.47 (a) INZ is accepting of the status quo for existing community and drinking water supplies, subject to an asset management plan that addresses water use efficiency and management restrictions in times of low flow (as per policy 4.46 above). However in catchments that are fully or over allocated existing lawfully established rights must not be derogated by further allocation of stock or domestic water supply. Such an approach will also ensure all parties attentions are focused on working together to find solutions for over-allocation.

Relief Sought: Oppose and Delete

60. Policy 4.48 INZ is supportive of this policy as it encourages hydro-generators and irrigation schemes to adopt a culture of continuous improvement through modernisation.


61. Policy 4.50 (a), (c) and (d) These points are unnecessary. There is no need for a seasonal or annual allocation limit on a take to storage. If the storage is not full it should be allowed to be filled within the bounds of the catchment plans flow regime and resource consent site specific take conditions. Points (c) and (d) should instead be replaced with a reference to the resource consent being made consistent with the corresponding flow regime, as set out in the catchment plan.


62. Policy 4.51 INZ supports water measurement and the use of telemetry but questions the arbitrary 30l/s threshold. INZ has not been able to find the justification for it in the s32 report? Consistency with the Water Measurement regulation thresholds may provide a better approach - 20l/s. However, exceptions should be allowed for in scenarios (such as remote hill country) where there is significant cost involved in implementing telemetry.


Change 30 l/s to 20 l/s and provide exclusions for exceptional circumstances.

63. Policy 4.64 Plantation forestry is proven to adversely impact upon the hydrology of catchments over a short timeframe, particularly in low rainfall catchments. INZ therefore supports this policy


64. Policy 4.67 (b) INZ is not supportive of defining an irrigation season within a policy. Irrigation should be able to be applied at anytime providing it is justified (there is a soil water deficit and the soil temperature allows for plant growth). There are also reasons to apply irrigation for other beneficial uses, for example, frost protection, activating herbicides and this should be allowed for.


65. Policy 4.70 A scheme currently looking at making efficiency gains through pressure piping (gains in water use efficiency a CWMS target) would be adversely affected by this policy as the act of piping will result in a loss of groundwater recharge (previously unlined open channel races).


Systems to convey or apply water are designed to maximise efficient use of water, including the improvement over time of existing systems.

66. Policy 4.71 and 4. 72 INZ is supportive of the need for the transfer of water permits. The reasons for this were discussed in the key points.


67. Policy 4.73 The differences between a temporary and permanent transfer need to be recognised and provided for in this policy transfers as a result of land sales also need to be accounted for. Temporary transfers are of short duration (less than 5 years) and may be between sites (property titles) or individuals. Permanent transfers encompass all other scenarios however, land sale related transfers should be treated as an exception.

Over-allocation, as a first principle, should be dealt with through a catchment specific, inclusive approach. In many catchments the solution will include the creation of new water through water use efficiency gains and infrastructure development. Confusing over allocation policies and with those for transfer of permits will create unintended outcomes for the CWMS targets and must be avoided. INZ has suggested an over-allocation policy be added to the strategic policies.

If an interim, generic method is required for dealing with transfer in over-allocated catchments, it needs to be robust and equitable, whilst enabling dynamic, allocative and technical efficiency gains. An appropriate proportional surrender approach for permanent transfers not related to an irrigation scheme may be justified. However, for temporary transfers it is not.

Relief Sort: Amend and Add Temporary and Permanent Transfer Definitions to Section 2

.......irrigation scheme or is for a temporary transfer, in all other instances, except for transfers associated with land sales, enable the transfer of water provided there is a surrender of an appropriate proportion of the allocated water.......

68. Policy 4.76 INZ opposes this policy. It is well proven short-term consents do not enable the level of investment required in farm infrastructure to achieve the upper quartile of environmental performance. They are therefore inconsistent with the CWMS targets water use efficiency and water quality objectives. Short duration consents will effectively create a block to any further development in the red zone debt financing will not be able to be sourced to fund the mitigations required due to the increased level of risk.


69. Policy 4.86 For some intake structures maintenance works may have no alternative but to be carried out in flowing water, for example work is frequently required on irrigation and stock intakes after a fresh. For smaller rivers the impact of this may be considered as more than minor, even though the work is of very short duration.


Amend the policy to make provision for works around existing intake structures to continue to be legitimately and easily undertaken after freshes.

Rules

70. Rule 5.39 As discussed in the key points section of this submission, achieving the community water quality outcomes for most catchments in Canterbury will involve a whole of farm management approach, as opposed to a limited focus on Nitrogen. It therefore be more appropriate if nutrient budget records were kept as opposed to only nitrogen losses.


An annual nutrient budget, for the period from 1st July in one year to the 30th June in the following, is undertaken using OVERSEER and kept, and is available to the CRC upon request.

71. Rule 5.40 Lake Zones where there is no change should be treated in the same manner as other farming activities in Canterbury prior to the threshold date for change. The reasoning for this is the lack of capability and capacity within the service industries. Farm Environmental Plans need to be robust and consistent throughout Canterbury if the approach is to be accepted. Rule 5.40 should therefore be deleted.


72. Rule 5.41 INZ is supportive of the non-notified approach in this policy. However matter 4 is unnecessary as it is already covered by matters 1-3.


Delete Matter 4

73. Rule 5.43 As per rule 5.41 a non-notified approach is appropriate for this policy. The expertise lies with relevant industry body, expert consultants and the CRC for the robust assessment of an application. It is therefore not appropriate to notify the consent and create unwarranted cost to the applicant. The establishment of a best practice advisory panel would be a more appropriate and robust method for the processing of land use change applications prior to the threshold date. Also, matter 4 is unnecessary as it is already covered by matters 1-3.


Add Notification paragraph as per rule 5.41 and delete matter 4.

74. Rules 5.44 and 5.45 As per rule 5.43 a non-notified approach is appropriate for these policies. The expertise lies with relevant industry body, expert consultants and the CRC for the robust assessment of an application. It is therefore not appropriate to notify the consent and create unwarranted cost to the applicant. The establishment of a best practice advisory panel would be a more appropriate and robust method for the processing of land use change applications prior to the threshold date.


Add Notification paragraph as per rule 5.41

75. Rule 5.45 As discussed in the key points of the submission, appendix 6 of the scetion32 report depicts how the water quality zones were delineated. At best these are coarse assumptions both temporally and spatially. Non-complying activity status for the red zone makes a presumption that the activity will generally be unacceptable. This is not appropriate given the crudeness of the water quality assessments. Non-complying activity status cannot be justified. Discretionary activity status would be more appropriate. Alternatively the water quality zones need defining with greater spatial and temporal resolution. Non-complying activity status can then be more appropriately applied.


Change Activity status for red zones to discretionary

76. Rule 5.46, 5.47, 5.48 and 5.49 INZ agrees with the approach of these policies however, we question the logistics of achieving these, unless a greater number of input rules are added to exclude the more extensive land use activities. Logistically it will take approximately 1 year from the plans notification to provide a robust and consistent Farm Plan template that can be rolled out. This then leaves 4 years to develop and implement 10,000-12,000 farm plans in Canterbury, when there is presently very limited capability and capacity. It should also be noted Canterbury is not an island and this approach is now commonly being adopted nationally which will lead to further capability and capacity issues. A 7 10 year timeframe would be more realistic for the implementation of this policy.


From 1st July 2020,.......

77. Additional Rule INZ suggests that an additional threshold based input rule would be beneficial to exclude extensive farming activities from Farm Plan requirements. This would make the proceeding policies far more achievable. However, for accounting purposes, all activities should be made to complete nutrient budgets.

Relief Sort: Add a rule based on the above

78. Rule 5.78 INZ agrees with this rule but condition 3 needs to be rewritten as it is unclear.

Relief Sought: Rewrite

79. 5.96 (1) INZ questions why a seasonal or annual volume is required on takes with conditions that relate to a flow regime in a plan and with a maximum rate of take? Water quality rules will now drive water use efficiency excessive irrigation results in high nitrogen leaching rates. On-farm storage opportunities (takes to storage) should not be foreclosed as they will provide reliability and enable an efficient as and when approach to irrigation.


....... any rate of take or the flow regime as set in Sections 6-15

80. Rule 5.96, 5.99 and 5.101 Limited notification to affected parties only should be added to these rules. There is no need for public notification as the planning process (setting the limit) has already reflected the community values. This amendment will also help put the focus squarely on the plan process and move away from the consent led process of old.


Add a limited notification clause to each rule.

81. 5.107 (5) As discussed in the key points section of this submission, better enabling the transfer of water in fully and over-allocated catchments is an important mechanism for driving improved water use efficiency and achieving water quality objectives. Rule 5.107(5) is arbitrary - no justification can be found in the section32 analysis for the numbers given.

Over-allocation, as a first principle, should be dealt with through a catchment specific, inclusive approach. Confusing over allocation policies and rules with those for transfer will create unintended outcomes for CWMS targets and must therefore be avoided.

Relief Sort: Oppose and Delete

82. Rules 5.109, 110 & 111 As per Policy 4.64, plantation forestry is proven to adversely impact upon the hydrology of catchments over a short timeframe, particularly in low rainfall catchments. INZ therefore supports this rule.


83. Rules 5.129 and 5.132 Rule BLR2 in the NRRP allowed the use of structures built before November 2010 to be permitted, providing conditions 1-4 were complied with, and maintained providing conditions 5-7 were complied with. In the pLWRP larger structures are now given either controlled or discretionary activity status. This imposes unnecessary cost and constraints on structures that have been in service and well managed for a number of years, particularly for irrigation scheme intakes and irrigation-hydroelectricity dams. The Dams and Damming rules should therefore be made consistent with the NRRP. These rules have already been through considerable due process


Amend Rules 5.128 to allow for the previous permitted activities of the NRRP or alternativelt create a new rule as per Rule BLR2 in the NRRP.

Schedules

73 Schedule 2 INZ is supportive of the move away from the prescription of mesh size and instead the new focus on approach and sweep velocities alongside design of bypass. Recent field work INZ has undertaken in partnership with CRC, DoC and Fish & Game has shown the importance of each of the above to fish screen design.


74 Schedule 8 The stated intention in Rule 5.46 is that Schedule 8 will be populated with values which define the upper limit for nitrate discharges for farming activities.

The aim of the farming (nutrient management) rules must be to improve the environmental performance of primary industries. For individuals this must be reasonable given their current performance (some will already be performing at best-practice level) and able to be achieved in a cost effective manner.

Because thinking is evolving along with increased information and improved understanding of relevant processes, flexibility must be retained as to what the values in Schedule 8 represent and how they are to be used. This is crucial in order to deliver improved performance and meet the environmental objectives of this proposed plan.

INZ believes that a key function of Schedule 8 is to provide a definition of Good Management Practice. INZ is committed to working with ECan and other primary sector stakeholders to define Good Management Practice, INZs focus will be centred on the irrigation component of it. Any definition of Good Management Parctice should be based on productive, profitable farms and should include all critical factors relevant to water quality outcomes. It is essential that the definition is not solely focused on nitrate. In some instances this will result in the needless imposition of costly constraints which have no beneficial impact on water quality outcomes. Nitrate is not always the critical factor influencing those outcomes. A definition of Good Management Practice must include at the very least the management of nitrate, phosphate, faecal and sediment contaminants.

75 Schedule 8 should:

Provide good management practice targets.

Take a systems approach to individual farms and to catchments with inter-related land uses.

Provide flexibility to allow for the adjustment of farming systems.

Provide for focus on critical environmental factors (present focus solely on N will not work in catchments where some other factor, such as P, is having most influence on environmental indicators).

Allow for 90% of farms to be a permitted activity post-2017.

A table of rigid limits may not deliver overall improvement in water quality outcomes and would have serious shortcomings, including the following:

It would not provide for the complexity of farming systems (depending on how and at what level they are set).

It would not provide flexibility to allow for the adjustment of farming systems.

There is a lack of sufficiently precise tools for the purpose of assessing compliance (OVERSEER estimates are +/-20% and based on Good Management Practice).


Develop Schedule 8 as outlined in the above submission. The key points are:

1. Retain flexibility as to what the values in Schedule 8 represent and how they are to be used because thinking is evolving along with increased information and improved understanding of relevant processes.

1. Aim to improve the environmental performance of primary industries - for individuals this must be reasonable and able to be achieved in a cost effective manner.

1. Define good practice based on productive, profitable farms.

1. Focus on all critical factors relevant to water quality outcomes (at least N, P & sediment).

1. Provide flexibility to allow for the adjustment of farming systems.

1. Allow for 90% of farms to be a permitted activity post-2017.

76 Schedule 10 INZ is supportive of a reasonable use test being applied to the activity of using water for irrigation. However, the schedule needs to be amended. Firstly a list of over arching criteria should be listed -

Technical Efficiency An irrigation application efficiency of 80%

Timeframe A nominal irrigation season of 1st September to 30th April

Reliability a demand scenario of 9 out of 10 years

The system capacity criteria should be removed. System capacity does not influence how much water a land use activity needs, it reflects the ability of an irrigator to keep up, and is influenced by the risk an individual is prepared to take. Also crops such as grapes and stonefruit do not require a system capacity of 4 - 6.5mm/day!

There should be two methods available for the reasonable use test

Method (1) Records of past use that are adjusted for Reliability and Technical Efficiency.

Method (2) The use of an approved method that meets the following criteria. A set of criteria were drawn up between Federated Farmers, INZ and ECan to find a way through the previous NRRP WQN9 debacle! INZ has attached the ECan internal memo that contains the set of criteria used to test and approve IRRICALC. We suggest this is included in schedule 10.

Relief Sought: Amend Schedule 10 as above

77 Schedule 16 INZ is supportive of the inclusion of this schedule, but it needs to be recognised that it the map will date rapidly, particularly once ground truthed feasibility information becomes available. INZ notes the map includes no Tekapo to South Canterbury option for movement of water across zones, this should be added. If the option for Rangitata water moving south is shown to be unfeasible, the water from Tekapo to South Canterbury option will then have to be further investigated.

Relief Sought: Support and Amend

Add the Tekapo to South Canterbury water movement option so the map is inclusive of all potential water supply options for Canterbury.

INZ Submission Ends

5

INZ proposed Canterbury LWRP Submission 04/10/2010

files.ecan.govt.nzfiles.ecan.govt.nz/public/lwrp/submissions/doc/mail1726… · Web viewThis is a...

Documents

Transcript of files.ecan.govt.nzfiles.ecan.govt.nz/public/lwrp/submissions/doc/mail1726… · Web viewThis is a...