Governance model doesn’t make sense for region

A twin authority governance model for Otago will be bad news for water allocation and water quality management, writes Dr Dean Olsen. I read the article “Otago regional deal already ‘agreed’” (ODT, 4.8.26) with interest. Much of my career in freshwater science has been in Otago. I work with a wide range of clients and my general rule is to remain apolitical when it comes to my professional positions. However, in this case I feel a duty to provide critique on what I consider a poorly considered proposal. The changes proposed aren’t trivial. They will frame resource management in Otago for generations to come. We really have to get this right. Holistic or integrated catchment management, often captured in the statement “ki uta ki tai” (from the mountains to the sea), is one of the fundamental concepts in good water management. The foundation of this principle is that any management regime should be done at the whole-of-catchment scale. The connections between waterways and their catchments have long been recognised. Whether it be water allocation or water quality management, environmental outcomes reflect the accumulation of actions across the catchment, meaning that consideration of the potential effects of an activity at any point within a catchment should be done with the most sensitive downstream receiving water in mind. Fish don’t respect boundaries and large-scale migrations (upstream and downstream) are an important or essential part of the life-cycles of many of our indigenous and sports fish species. Splitting catchments between proposed unitary authorities is a recipe for poor management and conflict. During the original local government reforms much of the Waitaki catchment was included within the area managed by Environment Canterbury despite the south bank, Ahuriri and some of the Ōhau catchment originally being within Otago. It was recognised then that splitting management of the Waitaki catchment between the two regions based on historical boundaries wasn’t a good idea. Thirty-five years later, our regional leaders seem to have forgotten that wisdom. The proposal, as presented in the article, splits Otago’s two largest catchments (Clutha/Mata-Au and Taiari) between the two unitary authorities. The Clutha/Mata-Au upstream of Roxburgh would fall to the inland unitary authority and the lower river would fall within the coastal unitary authority. In a practical sense, this would mean that Contact Energy’s dams at Roxburgh and Clyde would be regulated and consented by the inland unitary authority and people within the Clutha district downstream would have most of the environmental consequences. Similarly, the inland unitary authority would have responsibility for consenting water takes and developing policies and rules to manage water quality for the Clutha/Mata-Au upstream of Roxburgh that would directly affect residents downstream. That doesn’t seem fair or sensible. Values, perspectives and pressures can differ between communities. Should communities in the upper Clutha/Mata-Au have precedence over those in the lower Clutha/Mata-Au? Because there is a very real risk of this proposal resulting in that outcome in the Clutha/Mata-Au. The proposal also appears to split the Taiari catchment between the two unitary authorities. At present, the Taiari spans four districts — Central Otago, Waitaki, Dunedin and Clutha. The proposal is to split the top portion that currently falls within Central Otago into the inland unitary authority and the remainder into the coastal unitary authority. This is a recipe for disaster. There is a huge demand for water within the Taiari catchment and the split between the current Central Otago boundary and the rest of the catchment is arbitrary. There is already tension between water users in different parts of the catchment during dry periods and this proposal will exacerbate this by fragmenting management of water takes within the catchment. Water quality management between the two unitary authorities within the Taiari will potentially be even trickier — should downstream communities have a say in how the upstream unitary authority manages water quality? It is easy to say that the unitary authorities will share information and work closely together, but history would suggest that this is unlikely to be straightforward. The uncertainty regarding whether the Waitaki district will be included within the coastal unitary authority or whether it will go with other Canterbury districts adds to my concerns, as part of the Taiari falls within the Waitaki district. It seems absolutely nonsensical for part of the Taiari to be managed by a Canterbury council. It is essential that whatever unitary authority boundaries eventuate, they should align with catchments, not historical district/city council boundaries. Whether councils have been reluctant to redraw their boundaries, or the government has told them not to, the result is the same. There are many different ways that these reforms could be implemented in Otago. Any proposal should be guided by principles that underpin good resource management. Such principles must recognise the complex interconnectedness of waterways and catchments and water management must be made at a whole-of-catchment scale. The current proposal simply doesn’t make sense for Otago and I believe that future generations will not look back favourably on those making these decisions. Dr Dean Olsen is a freshwater scientist. He is the owner-operator of Freestone Freshwater, a freshwater science consultancy based in Dunedin.