The Press SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1975. Plans for the water of the Waiau

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33959, 27 September 1975, Page 14

The Press SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1975. Plans for the water of the Waiau

Until a few years ago New Zealand seemed to have a supply of fresh water in its rivers and lakes that Mas more than adequate for the country’s needs. In recent years conflicts have arisen over how the water in many rivers and lakes may be used to the best advantage. These differences are generally adjudicated by an " adversary ” system Groups which want the water reserved or used for particular purposes or in particular ways contend to assert their points of view. The country’s regional water boards and the National Soil and Water Conservation Authority take these conflicting views into account when deciding how to allocate the water in each river or lake. Those wanting to use water for agriculture or recreation have sometimes been overcome by those who wanted to use it to generate electricity The controversy over the water of the Waiau River in North Canterbury is between people who want to use the water to boost agricultural production and those who want to see the river left unspoiled for recreation, or protected for its own sake from any human intervention The water allocation plan devised by the North Canterbury Catchment Board, sitting as a Regional Water Board, and approved by the National Soil and Water Conservation Authority, strikes a reasonable compromise, on paper, between these conflicting views Those anxious to see the Waiau left untouched for anglers, boaters, and picnickers have not got their way; but those wanting to use the water of the river for irrigation will be obliged to leave minimum *' residual ” flows in the river, however dry the season may be In normal years, enough water can be taken for irrigation while leaving flows large enough to satisfy those who want to see the river loft undisturbed. The crunch will come in a very' dry year when farmers are desperate for water and when the river’s flow is at. or below, the minimum prescribed Farmers who have invested in an irrigation scheme and are keen to see their standard of living maintained or improved may be reluctant to accept that no water may be drawn from the river to maintain their production.

Conservationists who are unhappy about the water allocation, or who worry’ that the conditions for drawing water for irrigation might not be observed, may object to the Town and Country’ Planning Appeal , Board or urge the Government not to approve the scheme until an environmental impact report has i b‘>en nrepared by the Ministry of Works and audited bv the Commission for the Environment. The Government has good reason to assume that the important facts have already been established and assessed and that there is no need for a further report Rather than attempting to stop the project dead on environmental grounds, those anxious to keep the Waiau as undisturbed as possible wmuld do best to concentrate on establishing whether the i residual flows prescribed in the allocation plan are adequate The Government must also decide w'hether agricultural production will increase, as a result of irrigation, sufficiently to justify the considerable cost of building the scheme This decision must rest on a strictly economic calculation. Only if some appreciable damage to the river can be proved should the Government think twice about the scheme when its economics have been found favourable. Conservationists might even find good reasons for : efforts to control the river. For if farmers do not have to live by the river s water, many people have to live with it — in its wild and destructive moods as well as when it flows normally. Too narrow’ a view of conservation and too sharp a focus on the ( river, without attention to its environs, do not make good sense.