Water requests pour in

Press, 27 November 1982, Page 2

Water requests pour in

Water-right applications to the North Canterbury Catchment Board rose 600 per cent recently after statements that some users did not have authority to draw water. The ’ board's resources committee was told yesterday that 189 applications were received in the month to October 23. compared with the usual 10 to 20. In his report, the manager of resource planning. Mr R. W. Cathcart, said that a proportion of the increase could be attributed to the dry weather but about twothirds were for existing, unauthorised water uses. The level of applications had since dropped, but was still higher than in previous

years. The suggestion that some uses were not authorised had been made when the board thought it might have to introduce water rationing to protect domestic water. Well water levels had dropped markedly during the year. Mr Cathcart said that until the board had a complete record of all water users, it could not ration water, and give each user a fair share. He proposed a door-to-door survey to record water use on a property, and to check if well permits and water rights already issued had been implemented. The survey’could also check if the correct amount of water allowed in a water right was being drawn. A recommendation for two inspectors to help with the survey would be made by staff next financial year. The committee’s chairman, Dr B. P. J. Molloy, said that an informal amnesty existed for people using water without a water right. -Response to publicity outlining the need for water rights had been excellent. Mr T. N. D. Anderson proposed a formal amnesty of 18 months to ensure that the high level of, applications, continued until all water uses were covered by a right. Other members thought the move was not .appropriate. Some form of penalty would have to be imposed after a formal amnesty. A recommendation was passed to ask. farming bodies, well-drillers, and local bodies to remind their members of the need to hold water rights. It -was thought that the organisations might not help the board if their members felt threatened, by a formal amnesty and subsequent penalties. Dr Molloy said an approach to the organisations should ensure that waterright applications for existing, unauthorised uses would continue. If staff later thought that the board needed'to “get tougher,” p formal amnesty, and penalty, could be investigated.