Waimak. seen to have greatest potential

Press, 5 August 1985, Page 7

Waimak. seen to have greatest potential

The Waimakariri River has been found to have the greatest scope for enlargement or augmentation of water use in the North Canterbury Catchment Board’s district.

At Friday’s meeting, the board decided to advise the Rangiora District Council of this and that the Ashley catchment was unlikely to support major augmentation. As part of its Waimakariri River investigations the board has found that it would be possible to irrigate 32,000 ha of land between both rivers. This could allow a further 18,000 ha to be irrigated from groundwater. Board staff are continuing investigations using a computer model of the groundwater system in the area. This is part of a five-year project and a simple model is expected to be developed within two years.

The board also decided to advise the council that it was not possible to determine the public response to new water allocation rules necessary for the Waimakariri River until a Waimakariri management plan had been published, which should be about nine months.

The deputy chief executive, Mr M. J. Bowden, told the board that staff were interested in establishing small augmentation projects in the board’s district such

as Cheviot and Banks Peninsula schemes. High country The board wants to convene a meeting to discuss the implications of a recent review of policies for dest ocking and land surrender in the South Island high country. Catchment authority staff throughout the South Island will be invited to the meeting jointly convened by the two Canterbury boards. Released in June by the National Water and Soil Conservation Authority and the Land Settlement Board, the review is in line with Government policy. This stated policy is that lands, retired from grazing, should be surrendered from pastoral lease, revert to Lands and Survey Department administration and be available for public recreational use.

One objective of the review is the identification of inconsistencies in Land Settlement Board and National Water and Soil Conservation Authority policies.

It also aims to identify inconsistencies in their implementation for land surrender retirement and dest ocking. A third aim is to consider changes of policies and procedures to bring these into harmony. As a result of these objectives, policy changes have been recommended and

adapted by N.W.A.S.C.A., the Land Settlement Board and approved by the Ministers of Works and Development and Lands. In their staff report to the board, Messrs C. R. Mason and F. J. McGuigan said that the proposed policy changes involved a shift of responsibility. Pastoral Lands management would return to the Lands and Survey Department. A major policy change is that catchment authorities and the Lands and Survey Department jointly identify class eight and severely eroding class seven land. This is within pastoral leases on a progressive basis and with a view to having some areas destocked and then excluded from pastoral leases. a Such land will be resumed by the Land Settlement Board and the lessees’ rental account credited with a sum equal to the lessees’ interest in the land, Grants for off-site grazing or retirement fencing for areas recommended for resumption from April 1, 1986, would not be provided by N.W.A.C.A.

From that date a 60 per cent grant rate would apply to all soil conservation works. Grazing permits would replace occupation licences.

The staff report predicts big policy changes with the renewal of many leases due

around 1986. The new policies would have regard for the “political unpopularity” of moves to renew pastoral leases or occupation licences over Crown land, the report says. “Increasing numbers of the public are seeking freer access to this land recognised as unsuitable for grazing. It would appear that current soil and water conservation plans and those approved by April 1, 1986, will proceed as planned. “The policy changes seem to provide compensation for the pastoral lessee’s interest but it is not clear how this would be calculated. With the removal of grants it is unclear how destocking would be achieved.” The review had not considered the disadvantages or impact on runholders of the policy changes and was unlikely to be welcomed by them, the staff report says. “About four properties within the board district will probably become uneconomic. The runholders will also be concerned about possible impacts of the protected natural area programme and the threat of further inroads into their holdings. “A more gradual move towards the policy changes at a more advanced date could have achieved the same objectives with less risk of alienating runholders.”