Water right renewal threatened

Press, 15 October 1981, Page 24

Water right renewal threatened

Water rights will no longer be automatically renewed if the Water and Soil Conservation Amendment Bill becomes law, ad hoc and local authorities and farming spokesmen have told a Parliamentary select committee. The committee was hearing the first of 10 submissions of the 146 received. Capital investment could be lost, the Mid-Canterbury branch of Federated Farmers told the committee. Water rights were usually issued for five years, and although those in force were protected when conservation orders were granted, they would not be when their terms expired, the branch said, quoting advice it had received. The bill protects rivers and lake with outstanding scenic and recreational qualities by providing for local and national conservation orders to be issued controlling the uses to which natural waters can be put. (It protects rights in force at the time an order is made, but makes no comment on the status of renewal rights, except that an order cannot be revoked without full consultation procedures.) Capital’ investment based on a water right granted for five years could not be repaid or amortised within that

time, said the branch. No such limits were placed on the duration of conservation orders, but should be. “As a result of objections, hearings, appeals, the renewal of water rights would be so delayed that farming enterprises depending on water from these rights, would be in jeopardy,” it said. The National Water and Soil Conservation Authority said: “The bill is unclear on the future of existing water rights which have been granted for a short, fixed term. “Right-holders could find themselves unable, as a result of an order, to obtain further rights, or limited by such stringent conditions that the enterprise is no longer viable.” Local orders should be issued for a fixed term, and be reviewable on expiry, it said. Federated Farmers said the bill shifted the “fundamental balance” of the act towards recreation, and should be deferred for further scrutiny, to restore the proper balance. There was no reason why irrigation and recreation could “not live happily together.” it said. The most important ingredient was that neither side should become too greedy about its share.