Annex 3: Interviews with Other Users
Domestic
One interview was undertaken. The major issues were associated with long term planning for the resource.
Security was considered reasonably high. Consent terms were long, and expectation of renewal was high. Renewals have been completed in the last five years for all consents held. Consent conditions are able to be changed, but the consent holder is not significantly concerned about this because of the purpose to which the water will be put and therefore priority accorded to them for municipal supply purposes.
There was considerable flexibility with the consents, with the definition of the use being "municipal supply" which covers a variety of potential uses. The supply authority also has considerable potential to move water takes between different wells. In practice no overall cap has been placed on abstraction from their wells.
Exclusivity and divisibility are not significant issues for the domestic supply authority. The major issues for them are the quality of the title. In particular they were concerned about the potential for the regulatory authority to continue to issue consents from the resource to the point where reliability for them was compromised. They consider that the reliability required fro their supply is much higher than that required for other uses such as industrial or irrigation supply. If continued allocation continues they will be forced to seek supplies from other resources, at considerably higher expense.
The consent holder was also concerned about a lack of long-term planning by the consent authority, which made it hard for them in turn to undertake their long term strategic planning. The quality of the title was therefore seen as low because of the uncertainty surrounding future value of the consent.
The consent holder regarded the consent as essentially non-transferable. They see considerable value in making the consents transferable, since this would give greater flexibility in managing future trade-off with other extractors in aquifers of importance.
In summary the consent holder had a very thorough understanding of the rights granted by the consent, and had been heavily involved in the planning process with the regulatory agency. The two items of interest were again the attenuation of the consent in quality terms as a result of a lack of planning and long term goals, which was the primary concern of the consent holder, and the perception of consents being non-transferable despite perceiving this as a desirable characteristic.
Industrial take 1
This holder operates a large factory in a rural area. It has consents for its factory operations and for land associated with disposal of effluent (five in total).
In general the holder regards the consents as reasonably secure. They have been involved in the renewal process, and whilst it is regarded as time consuming and bureaucratic, it is not regarded as a major obstacle. There are issues associated with renewal which have the potential to impact on the business, and they are aware of the potential for changes to the conditions of the consent, but they regard these as business risks which are manageable. In practical terms they regard themselves as maintaining a watching brief over their consents.
They are aware of the duration of their consents, and while they are fairly long term they regard the potential for changes as a greater threat. The duration of the consent is longer than the time horizon for their investment, so it is not a major issue.
The quality of their property right is of more concern, particularly the potential for changes and review. They do not see a further threat from further abstraction from their resource because of specific geographical features, but they have noticed that nearby extraction has impacted on their wells causing them to install a larger pump. They do however see a greater threat from pressure groups with a narrow focus forcing changes through the political process. Their comment was that five years ago they would have felt very secure in their consent, but the politics of water appears to have changed and now they feel much more nervous about their consents. It is a factor in further investment, but not a constraint at present.
This party was aware that consents are transferable on notification, but had not had a need to do so for their main plant. They had experienced an issue with transfer elsewhere, but this was able to be resolved through the creation of different company structures.
Their consents are very specific to use, but this is not an issue for them because there are no other contemplated uses at present. They have built a certain amount of flexibility in the system by holding consents for more than they currently use, with the excess allowing for future plant expansion.
Divisibility and exclusivity were not discussed with this party as they were not likely to be relevant issues.
In general this party felt reasonably secure with their consents, but had some concerns about developments in the future. They noted that their size made them somewhat more secure, since the consequences of adversely altering their consents would be very significant, and they felt that they were likely to be accorded priority to water as a result. It should also be noted that water in this operation was very important, but the scale of costs associated with issues such as changing their wells or pumps to accommodate changes in the accessibility of water are small in relation to other costs that the operation faces, and minor changes in their property right are therefore much less of an issue than for a smaller operation.
Industrial take 2
This take is a large urban industrial take, with water used directly in its operations as well as general purpose water around the site. The take is from five wells between 70 and 130 m. The site also has some municipal water supply, but this is being phased out as plumbing is replaced. The direct take offers considerably lower costs of operation than would be the case for all municipal take.
The takes are for a 35-year period, and have recently been renewed. The consent period is long enough, although the operation hopes to be on the site for longer than that period, as it has been in operation at the site for over a century. The holder expects that as long as it meets the conditions of its consent the permit will be renewed.
The holder understands that the consent could be reviewed at any time, but they do not consider this to be highly likely. They generally assume that the water will continue to be available to them under generally similar conditions. They do not see any threats to the quality of their title. While their wells ran a bit dry 10 years ago during a dry period, they have not observed any detrimental effects associated with other wells being located in the general area.
The wells are tested annually, and the holder provides its records of takes to the regulatory authority. Exclusivity and compliance monitoring is not seen as a major issue.
The consent is for a single purpose associated with the holders operations. The holder does not envisage putting the water to any other use, and therefore does not view the conditions as onerous. In general the phrasing is sufficiently broad to cover anything they could envisage doing with the water. The only major consent condition is the cap on take, but this is sufficient for current and future operations, so is not a major issue for the holder.
The holder is not aware of whether the consent can be transferred, but does not envisage this ever happening.
The holder appeared very familiar with the issues surrounding the consent, but problems were not seen as significant and they considered the water right to be very secure. An ongoing investment programme is undertaken at the site, and the consent conditions do not constraint this investment in any way.
