When two worlds collide as they surely can when conservation and production meet, there is a wrong assumption that there can only be winners and losers.
A recent contribution to the debate over water use in the Manuherikia catchment by one Murray Neilson from distant Balclutha was an example. Not particularly helpful and even less accurate.
His hasty retreat to the protection of the government quango called Fish & Game offered little in the way of helpful information which is needed to resolve further acrimony. It’s not just about the science any more than it is just about production.
There can be no doubt the National Policy Statement for freshwater is as much, if not more, about political advantage than it is about seeking better water quality. The claim of a groundswell of public opinion favouring cleaner water over food production is clearly a false narrative.
Economic reports between the comparative benefits of extractive and non-extractive use rights have been commissioned in the past (project Acqua) to enable decision-makers to make informed decisions.
We do know that the multiplier effect of irrigation versus other uses including power generation leaves all other uses well behind as to wider economic advantage to all of our society.
It is clear however that the optimal flow levels for introduced trout — which predate on our native species — would need to be higher than is currently the case.
Low flows actually ensure the survival of native galaxiids as they survive where the predatory brown and rainbow trout cannot — a point which Mr Neilson clearly has overlooked in his article.
A trade-off between the opportunity cost of catching a fish versus growing fruit, beef, lamb, milk or wine is therefore an essential aspect of this debate but never held.
Mr Neilson also mentions natural justice for the river which is an interesting concept. Perhaps natural justice could also have been first extended to water users where their property right to this water was uni-laterally extinguished without any thought of consultation let alone compensation.
The fact that there was a 30-year lead-in time before water rights were removed under the Resource Management Act is akin to saying you only have temporary property rights in New Zealand, especially if you are a minority group such as fruit growers in Central Otago who are so entirely dependent on water.
Apparently politicians have learnt nothing from a similar appropriation of property rights from Maori.
By some "fortunate" state of affairs, injustice apparently can still be transferable to those wretched souls who are unfortunate enough to rely on renewable water today. As for the mauri or life force of the water in question, it would be most helpful if a scientific explanation of such an entity could be offered; perhaps in conjunction with any recorded sightings of taniwha, which can apparently reside in fresh water.
Cultural differences are heightened if spiritual beliefs enter the debate along with all other historical and social complexities. That, Mr Neilson, is what is wrong with Kai Tahu being appointed to the all-important ORC policy committee.
Most people also understand the democratic process fully depends on individuals — regardless of ethnicity — standing for election and being voted on by their peers. The process by which a high degree of social harmony exists — but not evident in this debate relies on this time-honoured proposition.
The alternative breeds something akin to China and Russia which may or may not find favour with Fish & Game.
Now for the important bit as it behoves us all to offer solutions rather than just lob in a few handwritten grenades. When bed demand in a hospital reaches far beyond capacity; a new one is built. When a bridge cannot cope with weight and size needing to cross; a new one is built. When a region’s infrastructure is "over allocated" through population growth; more is built.
When a school is unable to provide facilities to meet need; more capacity is built. When the demand for town water supply rises; capacity is increased and pipelines are built.
When rural New Zealand needs irrigation water to grow food; they shut down extraction to preserve other people’s values.
Building more storage not reducing use is the blindingly obvious answer.
Why is the ORC to spend $54 million on themselves (a new headquarters) rather than on environmental answers for their ratepayers?
With so many competing interests in this debate, can we look forward to advanced discussion and financial investment by Fish & Game, Ngai Tahu, Central Otago District Council, Otago Regional Council, government, water users or environmental groups (Central Otago Environmental Society)?
As a glimpse into the probable future of rural environment, we will see control pass from opportunity and creativity to political will and capture by irrelevant urban authorities. They will build their monuments and write legislation for themselves and not for the people they serve. The land will endure without water and investment but can only then be retaken by the desert that will surely return it to weed and the rabbit.
— Gerrard Eckhoff is a retired Central Otago farmer and former Otago regional councillor and Act New Zealand MP.
