As long as deemed permits were not replaced by Resource Management Act permits imposing minimum flows and residual flows in various catchments, risk remained to indigenous biodiversity in waterways that would not be effectively managed, the Otago Water Resources User Group (OWRUG)’s lawyer told the Environment Court sitting in Dunedin yesterday.
The argument was one of several from the group which largely disagrees with the Otago Regional Council’s plan, known as plan change 7, to introduce interim permits to replace historic ones that are due to expire in October.
Plan change 7 is effectively a temporary holding pattern, which the regional council says is necessary to enable a replacement land and water regional plan (LWRP) to give effect to new national freshwater management standards announced by the Government last year.
Once the regional plan is in place by the end of 2023, the council could make final resource consent decisions based on that plan.
Under plan change 7, temporary water use permits would be issued to holders of expired permits, largely based on what was expected to be in the new regional plan.
Most of the expiring permits are historic and are in inner Otago.
OWRUG’s members come from the Upper Clutha through to the Alexandra basin, including the Cardrona, Arrow, Bannockburn, Pisa area, Teviot, Manuherekia and Taieri catchments.
They include all of the irrigation companies in the Manuherekia catchment.
The four Manuherikia Valley irrigation companies are also the owners of the Falls Dam company.
OWRUG counsel Phil Page said the group was disappointed to hear the regional council say it was not ready to replace the permits, when it had had 30 years to get ready, and the group itself had been preparing for the past 10 years.
"OWRUG is here to tell the court that its members have spent much of the last decade preparing for this day and they are ready to go," he said.
As well as arguing that not issuing longer-term consents now could mean continued degradation of the waterways that could affect fish and other biological life in the water, the group also argues that plan change 7 does not address a requirement for local authorities to put into practice the 2020 national policy statement freshwater management "as soon as reasonably practicable".
Mr Page said the regional council was not moving swiftly enough to meet the 2020 policy statement’s requirements. He said meeting the requirements could be done by imposing conditions on resource consents, including those around minimum flows and levels at which water could be taken.
"All resource consents for taking water must identify flows and levels at which taking is no longer allowed.
"That obligation exists now.
"This is of course exactly what OWRUG’s members have been doing but exactly what plan change 7 does not do."
He said it might seem ironic that farmers should oppose the proposed plan on that basis, but he pointed out that farmers had devoted significant time, energy and investment over the past decade in preparing for replacement permit applications.
"They have invested heavily in hydrological and ecological research to understand the nature and behaviour of the various catchments ...
"They hold the knowledge necessary for setting minimum and residual flows to protect habitat and freshwater ecosystems, " Mr Page said.
OWRUG also questioned where the cost of the consent process should lie if the plan was to go ahead and permit holders had to apply for short-term permits.
"It seems to be common ground that the need for plan change 7 arises from the regional council lacking an appropriate planning framework or the appropriate resource science knowledge to adequately resource consent applications for replacement permits.
"These are difficulties (if they exist) that are not caused by permit holders," Mr Page said.
The hearing continues today.
