Major water projects are among the list of projects included in the list of fast-track proposals for economic development unveiled by the Government.
The giant of them all is the old Ruataniwha water storage project in central Hawkes Bay. Other schemes are the so-called Klondyke scheme in mid Canterbury and the Amuri Basin scheme in North Canterbury.
Getting these schemes fast-tracked is welcomed by the industry group, Irrigation NZ.
“The great thing about a panel of experts deciding applications is that it allows people who are actually involved in the project or understand the project to have a view on its actual impacts,” says its chief executive Vanessa Winning.
“It’s less about the possibilities of a project, it is more about the reality.”
With a storage capacity of a massive 104 million cubic metres, the Ruataniwha scheme is the giant of them all. It would dam up water in a tributary of the Tukituki River and release it for agriculture, drinking water and smoothed river flows. The scheme won resource consent earlier but was killed off in a decision by the Supreme Court.
But it was kept alive by a group that purchased the intellectual property of the original scheme and renamed it the Tukituki Water Security Project (TWSP). A spokesperson for TWSP, Mike Petersen, says the Hawkes Bay regions has always been dry in summer and the problem would get worse with climate change.
“Doing nothing is not a realistic alternative,” he says.
“It denies opportunities to restore significant bodies of water in the Tukituki and Southern Heretaunga catchments culturally and environmentally, at a time when climate change is rapidly degrading water availability.”
The original scheme was strongly opposed by some residents and NGOs like Forest and Bird, which fought the proposal in the courts.
Forest and Bird has already denounced the revived project.
“The Fast-track Approvals Bill is the most extreme attack on nature in decades,” it says.
“New Zealand already has the highest proportion of threatened species in the world, and we’re in the midst of a climate and biodiversity crisis. It is the time to work towards bringing back birdsong, not starting a war on nature.”
About half the size of Tukituki project is the Klondyke Scheme, run by Mid Canterbury Water Ltd near Ashburton. It would enhance output of existing MHV Water irrigation scheme and Ashburton Lyndhurst Irrigation Ltd by constructing storage for 53 million cubic metres of water.
The third big scheme would improve irrigation in the Amuri Basin, which is a flat plain between the Cheviot Hills and the mountains. This would be done by constructing a large dam to contain 10 million cubic metres of water. The Amuri Irrigation Company already irrigates 28,000 hectares of land North of the Hurunui River.
Irrigation NZ says irrigation schemes are more about providing insurance against climate change than agricultural intensification. And its CEO Vanessa Winning says just getting onto the fast-track list in is not the end of the story. The economics of the scheme and any conditions imposed by the panel of experts will play a part as well.
But she says the need for water must be faced up to.
“About 90% of our fruit and veggies needs irrigation,” she says.
“It’s not about dairy. This is about food. And I think we do absolutely need to start thinking about not just what are we are exporting, but also what are we providing within New Zealand”
17 Comments
You can check out the full list of the 149 projects chosen for fast-track in the link to the .pdf in the article below;
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/529962/government-unveils-149-proj…
I never got past looking at the new residential subdivisions in the Auckland region - and thought OMG if traffic is bad now...
It might get consent but I can't see it ever being funded and built - there just isn't the type of high value crops/land use in the catchment to fund it - even Waimea Dam in Tasman has struggled needing neighbouring districts to pick up part of the tab.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/127867843/waimea-dam-project-f…
Dams simply can't be fully funded by private irrigation interests; no matter whether the business case starts out that way!
Sounds like in Waimea, the council had to take out a loan to cover all the cost blowouts. Ratepayers have to cover the cost of the loans, but the irrigators somehow get to keep their 49% equity. Seems like socialise the build cost, and then privatise the asset?
Drummond said most of the additional cost came from financing costs in relation to an irrigator capacity loan, which the council was responsible for until June 30, 2026.
The interest costs on that portion of that irrigator loan were met from general rates, he said.
That would mean the council would need to collect an additional $216,000 from general rates in the next financial year, he said,
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350345893/contractors-dispute-ramps-dam…
Great news about Ruataniwha dam. Big areas of resilient soils on those Plains, with their relatively high volcanic faction. Water a limiting factor for utilisation for a whole range of higher value land use, eg counter seasonal seed production for Northern hemisphere, process food crops, etc.
Does a big dam like this increase resilience or increase reliance?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/rural/350221629/opuha-dam-pushed-limits-el-nino…
Irrespective of storage dams or rainfall there is an inherent RELIANCE on water for any biological function. Irrigation provides resilience. Nothing different from having your emergency water storage at home.
Irrigation can mean the difference between finishing livestock to maximise return rather than selling store at depresssed, drought driven prices. Or harvesting a good yield rather than a low yield. Or maintaining milk yield for longer.
Irrigation at minimum, delays the onset of drought conditions. at best, negates the impacts of drought. That's resilience.
The thing is, the water storage at home is for just one family.
But build these dams and are they for a capped as today usage? Or do they just enable more scaling up? More crops, more livestock, more people. Because when the inevitable once in a 'x' years drought hits, then you're way past trying to figure out how to support that one family. You've now invited in multiples of dependents that are now crying out for water.
I guess my summary would be, a dam with no more intensification would be more to the resilience end of the spectrum. A dam which results in more intensification moves towards the reliance end of the spectrum.
Enterprise economics change over time. 50 years ago an economic sheep and beef farn (supporting one family) was about 1300-1500 stock units. Now it's 5500 or more. As economics of 'traditional' farming gets squeezed, innovation on the existing land area is needed to maintain viability. A number of innovation options come with higher climate risk that can be reduced through irrigation. It may lead to additional labour resource on farm, but that additional labour is more likely in the post harvest area - jobs in towns.
Remember the water being stored is peak flow harvested water that would otherwise flush down the river as a flood, out to sea. Not taking when river levels are low. Storage dams may reduce the intensity of down stream flooding in major weather events within the river system they are harvesting from. And maintain better river flows in droughts.
Trouble is the enterprise economics only seems to go in one direction, bigger is the only way but it's not necessarily best. And the lack of flushing of river systems while it may suit humans need to control is not necessarily good for the ecosystem.
Economics that adding the cost of irrigation, even when only paying a fraction of the actual cost, means intensification is going to happen.
Napier rate payers face a 24% increase this year. Those that benefit from this scheme should pay for it. How about a capital tax on the increase in land value attributable to the dam? Nutrient budget and fresh water plans better be in place before horticulture and dairy on Takapau plains gravel start up or we will have a repeat of Canterbury rivers nitrate pollution.
The Ruataniwha dam is within CHB District Council, not NCC. NCC has bugger all agricultural land.
I expect that you will be happy with the NCC bore field redevelopment being included in the fast track.
The regime governing on farm nutrient management, introduced in the last 5 to 10 years, to avoid the Canterbury experience is unlikely to change. There has been massive change in fertiliser, irrigation and grazing practices over that period but beneficial outcomes of those changes will take a long time to work through the hydrology systems in the soil.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.