Fly over the upper Waitaki catchment and there seems to be plenty of water, from Lake Waitaki to Lakes Ohau, Pukaki and Tekapo.
Farmers and communities in the region have asked for decades for a little bit of that for irrigation.
But decisions released this week will be causing consternation with water for new irrigation being declined by an Environment Canterbury panel.
The concern is not only with new but existing irrigation, some going back 80 years, and the effects the decisions could have on the economic viability of farms and communities.
The High Court in 2004 ruled all the water west of the Waitaki dam belonged to Meridian Energy Ltd (and now some to Genesis Energy) for electricity generation.
Subsequent to that, a deal was reached between Meridian and farmers through the Mackenzie Irrigation Company to make some of that available.
Under that deal come most of 109 irrigation applications, some to renew existing water resource consents, to make that water available to farmers for irrigation of up to 18,000ha.
Now decisions are being made on those resource consents - the first made public this week from the panel.
Those initial decisions have knocked back the aspirations of farmers by declining water for seven applicants who wanted to put in large irrigation schemes covering up to 5349ha.
That included water for developing up to 16 dairy farms with 17,850 cows on three properties in the Omarama and Ohau Basins by Southdown Holdings Ltd, Williamson Holdings Ltd and Five Rivers Ltd.
The others were for more traditional sheep, beef and cropping.
The panel did grant resource consents for the construction of the irrigation infrastructure - somewhat unusual when the water itself was declined.
The main reason for the initial decisions declining new irrigation was the effect on water quality.
Many of the applicants relied on a water quality study by Mackenzie Water Research Ltd on the effects from new irrigation.
Water quality was the critical issue for the panel, particularly the effects of nutrients reaching groundwater then streams, rivers and lakes.
"This could have serious adverse consequences for the environment," the decision said.
The effects on the environment were a "a significant influence" on whether individual applications were granted.
The water quality study was useful but did not provide enough information on the region for there to be any certainty about long-term effects, the panel said.
New irrigation was being looked at not only for the three dairy developments, but also for existing farms.
Financially stronger farmers, along with more intensive land-use leading to more employment, were viewed by some as the major economic development for the region.
But the decisions so far may also affect those seeking to renew past resource consents for irrigation.
So far no decisions have been released on renewing existing consents for irrigation on land west of the Waitaki dam.
An indication may come from a decision in September on the Upper Waitaki Community Irrigation Company which takes water from Lake Waitaki to irrigate 1925ha in the lower Waitaki valley.
The panel in that case questioned the efficiencies of the scheme, and only granted a consent for five years, during which the company had to prove it had made improvements.
Water consents can be granted for up to 35 years.
The decision pertaining to the Upper Waitaki Community Irrigation Company has been appealed.
That company and its farmers were concerned about making a large capital investment in improvements in the scheme and on their farms with such a short term for the water.
Whether the panel will treat renewals of consents in the Upper Waitaki the same way, when water quality is the main issue, is the question.
