Skip to main content.

7 Specific Problems Identified in Current Water Allocation and Use Systems

Specific problems with the current system identified by the project team are discussed in more depth below.

7.1 Little strategic planning

There is very little strategic planning designed to cope with increasing demands for water or water scarcity. While New Zealand does not have a water scarcity problem at the scale experienced elsewhere in the world, there are times and places where water is scarce. It is becoming increasingly common for water resources to be closed to further allocation (ie, applications for new resource consents are turned down). There is increasing recognition that water has a value, and that the current system is not able to recognise or meet all demands and still sustain the important natural, cultural, amenity and economic values of our water resources.

7.2 Uncertainty in process and science

In some cases, where no limit has been set as to how much water can be allocated, there is increasing public unrest at the continued allocation of water which is often viewed as a common or public resource being used for private benefit. The setting of environmental (and other) baselines has been and is a contentious process, nearly always resulting in appeals to the Environment Court. Science and environmental knowledge is evolving, especially in relation to flow patterns and issues beyond minimum flow setting, but water allocation and abstraction continues in water resources approaching full allocation. This is despite current shortfalls in information and knowledge, the understanding of consequences, and availability of suitable management tools. Together these factors lead to an administratively complex system that is not consistent in its outcomes.

7.3 Limited scope for consideration of allocation of water to the highest environmental, social, cultural and economic values

Regional water plans can specify environmental baselines, how the availability of water to a resource consent holder can be altered by issuing of subsequent consents, and which consent holders have priority when not all the allocated water is naturally available. However, most plans provide limited evaluation of where water would be most valued for environmental, social, cultural and economic reasons, [Both instream and out of stream values.] what types of development are appropriate and where, and what forms of mitigation best address the effects of such development. This is likely to reflect the effects-based approach to resource management inherent in the RMA and the fact that the resource consent processes in the Act are not oriented to assessing the relative benefits of competing applications. The limits of existing planning are heightened when a water resource is nearly or fully allocated. [The Waitaki situation is an excellent example of this type of problem.]

7.4 Problems with first-in first-served

Where there is insufficient water for all demands, the first-in first-served system does not guarantee that water is allocated to the greatest environmental, social, cultural or economic values. Further, when the amount of water already allocated from a catchment comes close to the allocation limit, then there is the potential for 'goldrush' situations which exacerbate the problems with first-in first-served. The current first-in first-served system can also make it difficult to manage the cumulative effects of numerous small water takes or discharges to water bodies.

7.5 Little use of ability to transfer and reallocate water

Even though there is provision for the transfer of water permits under the RMA, this has seldom been used except in association with changes of land ownership. This has led to a situation whereby spare capacity in the water system (eg, from unused allocations) has not been transferred or reallocated. A major stumbling block for facilitating transferability is that transfers must be permanent under current legislation and there is no capacity for the temporary or partial transfer of water permits. After a transfer is made there is no provision in the RMA to ensure that the consent is transferred back later. If the transfer is intended to be for a specific duration there would need to be a separate agreement (outside the RMA) to ensure that this occurs.

7.6 No incentives for technical efficiency

Water is increasingly recognised as a valuable and scarce resource. However, the allocations specified in resource consents do not encourage consent holders to adopt efficiency measures, although in making the application an applicant must show that the requested take is reasonable for the intended use. There are also problems with old infrastructure and with the bundling of domestic, stock water and irrigation takes under some old irrigation schemes into a single permit, making it difficult for councils to separate out the water take permitted as of right and that which is subject to greater controls. It is widely recognised that the amount of water allocated is far greater than the amount of water actually used - some of this is inevitable (using less irrigation water in a wet year, for example) and some is to do with the way people use water. Some councils have started reducing allocations in line with metered take but this has proven in some cases a perverse incentive, and encouraged people to use more water.

7.7 Length of consents - tension between certainty and flexibility

Consents tend to be 'set in concrete', sometimes for up to 35 years, and have proven difficult to adjust. Once a water body has no more water to be allocated then it is very difficult for new and highly valued uses to access water, especially given the undeveloped nature of trading of permits. Existing users believe they have rights to their allocation and indeed require this certainty to ensure reliable investment and to allow for future planning. There is a tension between flexibility and the certainty needed for investment. It is likely to be difficult to adjust environment baselines in fully allocated catchments when new information shows them to be inadequate. Such claw back situations have proven extremely difficult politically in Australia, and have to date been largely avoided in New Zealand.

7.8 Opportunities for Māori to participate in process are restricted

Māori have particular concerns about the effects of over-allocation of water - including diminishing mauri of a water body (caused by inadequate water flows, pollution or inappropriate mixing of waters), the loss of habitats supporting indigenous species, and an inability to practice customs and traditions related to waterbodies. [Nga Taonga Tuku Iho Ki Whakatu Draft Management Plan (2003).] All these effects can offend the mana of hapū and iwi. The Treaty of Waitangi is seen by Māori as having provided a Crown guarantee of their rights in relation to water bodies. These are sometimes expressed as an ownership right, especially where there are extensive riparian Māori landholdings, or the beds of waterways are still in Māori ownership. Property rights in, and management of, freshwater is frequently an issue in Treaty settlement negotiations. Section 6 of the RMA recognises the relationship of Māori with water as a matter of national importance. However many Māori consider that, in practice, their opportunities to participate in management and decision-making on water allocation are restricted, due to both a lack of capacity and resources (within their own institutions and in local government) and limitations in the legislative framework. Māori want greater engagement in resource management, and will expect greater involvement, better opportunities to express their kaitiakitanga and value systems, and improved relationships.

7.9 Limited organisational capacity, experience and skills in water issues

There is a very small pool of people with appropriate skills, time and experience working on and contributing to water issues in New Zealand. A wide range of skills is needed to manage water within new paradigms such as incorporation of ecological values, Māori values and sustainable development. There is often also a lack of organisational capacity, resources and information to address water issues with the required level of expertise and commitment. These limitations affect the ability of government agencies (local, regional and central), community groups and iwi/hapū to deal with water issues.


[ | ]