Impact of Waitaki water loss 'irreversible'

Future generations would prefer a big river to use and enjoy rather than the "tiny allocation" of water left if a new power scheme was built on the Waitaki River, the Environment Court was told yesterday.

The catchment had already experienced environmental degradation, with eight dams along its length, and an additional hydro-electricity scheme would add to that, Moeraki consultant Dugald MacTavish said.

Mr MacTavish is an interested party in an appeal by the Lower Waitaki River Management Society against the granting of four water-only resource consents for a Meridian Energy north bank tunnel concept power scheme between the Waitaki dam and Stonewall.

The scheme would take up to 260cumecs from the river, leaving average variable monthly flows of between 110 and 150 cumecs between the dam and Stonewall. That did not comply with the Waitaki catchment water allocation regional plan, which set a minimum flow of 150 cumecs.

He said the court's decision was "something of a crossroad" for the river's future.

Evidence at the hearing showed that to divert up to two thirds of the river into the new power scheme, and radically alter the flow regime, caused adverse impacts that could not be considered minor.

The scheme was too big and left too little in the river to avoid high risk to the environment, he said.

Mr MacTavish accepted that an allocation of water from the river for hydro-electric development had been provided in the Waitaki allocation plan.

However, Meridian wanted to take more water than was allocated - the extra from the minimum environmental flow allocated for the river in the plan.

The magnitude of the diversion from the river and direct adverse effects were "highly significant and irreversible".

A significant number of local residents objected to the development.

The local community must be given as much consideration as the presumed national good of more electricity generation, he said.

Waitaki First chairwoman Helen Brookes concentrated on the Waitaki water allocation plan and where her organisation believed it had been breached by the granting of consents.

She appealed to the court to revisit the Environment Canterbury (Ecan) decision and make "a second decision" on the granting of consents.

Provisions in the Waitaki plan were different from those on which Ecan's decision was based, she said.

Dr Brookes said Waitaki First was not opposed to hydro development between the dam and Stonewall, if it satisfied the provisions of the plan. But the large allocation of water to hydro development did not comply.