Rakaia water wanted

Press, 4 December 1979, Page 10

Rakaia water wanted

A water-right application to double the amount of water taken from the Rakaia River for the Te Pirita irrigation scheme has been considered by the North Canterbury Catchment Board. The application by eight individual farmers was to divert 195,000 cumecs of water a day at a rate of 2.25 cusecs through a proposed irrigation race. The quantities of water exceeded the board's normal allocation limits (500 m depth of water application in 120 days), said the board’s regional water engineer (Mr M. J. Bowden). The water would irrigate

1850 hectares of land on the North side of the river. The existing irrigation race would be improved, the intake resited upstream, and a joint fish screen installed. Submissions from the Northern Central Plains Irrigation Committee supported the application. They considered the scheme would dovetail with a proposed irrigation scheme for the whole of the central plains. Increased water-use efficiency and lower water demand rate would occur by the time water extraction for the Central Plains Irrigation Scheme took place, it said. The District Commissioner of Works (Mr P. F. Reynolds) said the Ministry

of Works and Development did not wish to oppose the application. “We are investigating a communal irrigation scheme for the area,’’ he said. Should the rights be granted and a Government communal irrigation scheme eventuate. arrangements would have to rationalise rights and make additional applications for discharges, etc., on the final scheme, said Mr Reynolds.

The applicants applied for water rights on their own behalf rather than through the Ministry, so that they could proceed immediately and if necessary without Government subsidy, said Mr Bowden. Objections from the

North Canterbury and South Canterbury acclimatisation societies would be met if adequate fish screens were installed at intake structures. The chairman of the board and the water committee (Dr W. R Holmes), said the concept of “beneficial use” must be made, not just indicated. In many of these instances it stood for “hope,” he said. The committee agreed to make inquiries before deciding on the waterright application. The need for double the volume of water, use of the waterway, organisation of the scheme and responsibility for larger fish screens, were still in doubt, said Dr Holmes.