Gerrard Eckhoff (ODT 14.8.23) accuses me of not being "particularly helpful and even less accurate" when contributing to the debate on the Manuherikia catchment.
I am bemused by these comments. I would also like to correct some misconceptions in Mr Eckhoff’s article.
I live in Woodside, 10km southwest of Outram. Not in "distant Balclutha", but in part of the Taieri catchment, which is also affected by former mining privileges (deemed permits), for taking water. I am familiar with how such issues affect rivers and streams in Central Otago.
Mr Eckhoff implies residents elsewhere in Otago should not be able to have a say in how the Manuherikia River is to be managed. I have assumed the Otago Regional Council is responsible for managing Otago’s natural resources for and on behalf of all residents of Otago, not just those who, for the time being, reside alongside any particular river. Have I got that wrong?
It is not a "false narrative" to claim there has been a groundswell of public opinion favouring more sensitive management of our freshwater resources. Regular surveys of public opinion by Lincoln University researchers attest to that.
Fish and Game Otago, a Crown entity, is not a government quango. It has statutory responsibility to the government, under the Conservation Act 1987, for the management of sports fish and gamebirds in the recreational interests of anglers and hunters.
It is independent from government, is funded entirely by anglers and hunters, and is able to criticise government policy if it sees the need.
While I was at the Department of Conservation, the Otago conservancy’s freshwater and native fish conservation programmes were my responsibilities. I am well aware that trout predate galaxiids. I do not need any lessons from Mr Eckhoff in this regard.
Fish and Game Otago is also aware of this, which is why it is responsibly contributing to initiatives by both Doc and the regional council to remove or exclude trout from tributaries, where this is possible. The recent trout exclusion barrier in Thomsons Creek, in the Manuherikia catchment, is one example.
Trout are here to stay. There is no available technology that would enable their removal from rivers, their larger tributaries, or from freshwater lakes (or the sea). However, it is possible to do this in some smaller tributaries by constructing barriers to prevent further trout colonisation.
The trout populations above the barriers are removed, so that remnant galaxiid populations can expand, or trout-free stream fragments are created in which galaxiids may be re-established.
In those tributaries where natural barriers have excluded trout and galaxiid populations thrive, regular monitoring and occasional maintenance are required to ensure the continued integrity of those barriers.
It would be impossible to lower the flow in the Manuherikia River to such an extent that trout would be excluded and galaxiids would remain, without imperilling other river values.
Its natural landscape features birdlife habitat, swimming, picnicking, walking and recreational fishing opportunities for the general public, and water for stock.
If such lowering were to be done, the summer flow would be reduced to merely a warm trickle among the stones. Although some galaxiids may be able to survive, survival does not mean preference for such harsh conditions.
Elsewhere in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a river management concept known as the "natural flow paradigm" has been developed. This requires rivers to be managed so that the taking of water and the regulation of flow for hydro-electric generation and flood control is managed so the flow regime mimics the natural regime, seasonally, annually and inter-annually.
This maintains river ecosystems’ ecological integrity, ensuring that the natural river cycles are retained and that fish migration, wildlife use, public, industrial and agricultural water supplies, recreational and commercial fishing and general recreational use of water are all provided for.
We are progressing towards a similar regime with the establishment of environmental flows in New Zealand, designed to protect and maintain the "life force" of rivers and streams.
The 30-year lead-in time before mining water rights were removed under the Resource Management Act was established following Treasury advice.
The use of water without charge (apart from infrastructure maintenance costs) for that length of time was deemed sufficient compensation for the extinguishment of those rights.
Elsewhere in Otago, farmers and industries which had held water rights under the previous Water and Soil Conservation Act were required to obtain Resource Management Act consents to replace those rights and to pay for them.
The former taxpayer-funded Crown Irrigation schemes in Central Otago were also sold to farmer co-operatives, some for as little as a dollar at the time. To claim that those users were hard done by is stretching the truth somewhat.
Building more water storage makes sense. Government funding should be available for this.
This storage should be on-farm. Some properties in the Manuherikia catchment are already doing this, which is heartening to see.
This must be accompanied, though, by a reduction in take from the river at summer and autumn low-flow periods. Water should be taken at high-flow periods in winter and early spring and stored for later use.
The ORC has decided Kai Tahu should be represented on its policy committee. What Kai Tahu wants is what society wants — for the Manuherikia, and all other rivers in Otago, to function as flourishing freshwater ecosystems that provide for all.
— Murray Neilson is a trustee of the Clutha Fisheries Trust, a former Fish & Game councillor and a retired Department of Conservation freshwater technical support officer.
