Has it served a useful purpose by adding to the information about the river or just helped to ramp up controversy and division over this contentious issue?
Two years ago, the Otago Regional Council narrowly voted not to set minimum flows, arguing over whether there was a "robust, fit-for-purpose and defendable rationale" (as described by staff) for the flows proposed.
The delay decision led to the resignation of Cr Marian Hobbs whose call for Environment Minister David Parker to disband the council and install commissioners was unsuccessful.
A year later, former chief freshwater commissioner Prof Peter Skelton, following up a 2019 report, questioned the use of the gaps-in-the-science argument, saying it was hard to accept the decision was solely due to concerns about the science.
As we said earlier this year, it was easy to lose track of how many times we expected the ORC was about to revisit the issue.
Concerns were raised almost a year ago by the ORC’s then acting chief executive Pim Borren about the slowness of an expected report from the Manuherikia Technical Advisory Group (Tag), formed in 2019.
(Tag comprises representatives from Aukaha, Otago Fish & Game, the Department of Conservation, the ORC, Omakau Irrigation company and the Otago water users’ group).
This week, input from Tag was finally included in an updated report presented to a public ORC briefing.
Those who might have been wishing for a dramatic reversal of earlier recommendations about the low flow level would have been disappointed.
In the contentious 2021 report, the low flow recommendation ranged from 1200 to 3000 litres per second, while the recommendation in the new report was for the river to eventually have a minimum flow of between 2000 and 2500 litres per second at the Campground site in the lower Manuherikia.
What was clear at the briefing was that irrigators’ voluntary minimum flow of 900 litres per second in the river at Campground was not sufficient to maintain the health of the river.
The work highlighted there was a significant margin of error within the hydrology, but due to the complexity of the catchment this was the best available information.
The findings of the report will help inform draft recommendations which will go to the ORC for noting at the end of next month, before the community consultation process.
Questions remain about whether more should have been achieved earlier.
The oversight of Tag seems lackadaisical, to put it kindly, even allowing for the fact there have been personnel changes on the group since its inception.
The update report states it had been intended Tag would make a final recommendation, but it became clear agreement was unlikely to be reached, especially within the timeframes of the Land and Water Regional Plan development.
Accordingly, what was proposed in the update report was a staff recommendation taking into account Tag’s "extensive input into developing the scientific information".
Whatever happens next, it would be naïve to expect it to be without controversy.
There will be those who want to delay any changes as long as possible and those who consider the river has suffered too long already and that proper planning for introducing minimum flows could have been well on its way by now.
The ORC chief executive Richard Saunders is urging all those interested to have their say in the forthcoming consultation.
Doing nothing will not be an option, as the ORC is required to meet obligations set out in Te Mana o te Wai, the government’s national standard for river health, which prioritises the health of a river above the needs of people and businesses.
The council’s Land and Water Regional Plan, which must be set by June next year, must comply.
