24 July 2009 The Hurunui Water Project- a missed opportunity

 

'Outrageous', was the headline that accompanied details of the Hurunui Water Project (HWP) irrigation and hydro power proposals, and outrageous they are, unfortunately. Before I analyse the situation let me first declare my interests in the river: I am a whitewater kayaker (of little note), a fly fisher, and a wildlife scientist- all activities I have variously partaken in over the full length of the river, including the proposed dam sites. But sitting above this context is my role as an academic interested in sustainable water resources management, the hat I want to wear for the remainder of this article.

 

Now to the debate. At first glance it would appear there are two sides clearly in dispute, i.e., irrigators and hydro power proponents who want to dam upper reaches of the river, and recreationists and environmentalists who want those same areas to remain wild and scenic. But, it is far more complex than this. And, unfortunately, the current application by the Hurunui Water Project flies in the face of this complexity and the opportunities that exist for sustainable water resource development.

 

So, lets now look at the more complex nature of the debate. Water is surely the life blood of Canterbury and a resource to be cherished, whether for development or for conservation, or ideally a combination of the two. There is no doubt in my mind that well planned water resources development is potentially worth billions of dollars to the Canterbury economy, but it needs to be well planned, something this proposal clearly is not. Such a criticism clearly begs a difficult question - assuming that developing the water resources of the Hurunui is a good idea then how should we proceed?

 

First, some context. There is ample research evidence to show that rivers are extremely important to New Zealanders for recreation, conservation and other social reasons. Yet, interestingly enough, there is only one medium to large river along the eastern South Island that is not significantly developed or in the process of being developed, and that river is the Clarence (which probably would have been developed had there been any substantial areas of farmland along its banks). Even the Hurunui has an existing major irrigation scheme (the Balmoral) abstracting water from its middle reaches. The recreation and conservation lobby groups naturally ask - when is enough enough? The HWP proposal answer would seem to be - when we get the water we want for irrigation and hydro purposes.

 

Second, some more context. There is a large area of land on both sides of the Hurunui that would benefit, economically, from further irrigation development. Arguably too so would land in the Waipara catchment, to the south. But, do we need to irrigate every hectare of this land if it comes at a high environmental cost?

 

What then are some of the likely recreational and environmental costs of damming the upper Hurunui? First, the river is home to endangered bird species. One, the black-fronted tern, breeds in, relative to its small population size, very large numbers on the Hurunui. Several colonies are located in the reach of river that would be flooded by the dam -this habitat for this species would be lost. The north branch of the river is heavily infested by the invasive algae, Didymo, which is highly damaging to recreational trout fishing. The only known effective control is flooding - damming the South Branch will largely negate these floods and likely lead to Didymo spread along the length of the river. Recreational kayaking on the river occurs in multiple upstream reaches, largely depending on flow - different levels of expertise require different flows. The proposed development will hugely change these flows and likely reduce the overall amenity value of some of these reaches - there is no other river in Canterbury with the same sorts of kayaking attributes. These are a few examples of impacts which under this proposal are surely unacceptable. So, is there another way?

 

The Canterbury Strategic Water Study, much lauded by central government, the Mayoral Forum and many others, might provide one such mechanism for exploring other options. Indeed, such has been the case and in 2006 I (along with many farmers, recreation and others interests) took part in a series of facilitated meetings looking at storage options in the North Canterbury area, with a main emphasis on the Hurunui. At the end of what was a very long day we came up with some largely unanimous
conclusions. These conclusions, and they are important, included:
• Most in the Group believed a water storage option should provide enough water to irrigate at least 60% of irrigable area, and probably 80%.
• The Group supported a combination of managing Lake Sumner (within its natural range) with some other "back-up" storage (but not the proposed South Branch dam). That would allow much of the land to be irrigated with more social and economic benefits, and avoid the impacts of a South Branch storage though there will still be impact on river flows (and related in-stream uses) and concern about risk of nutrient leaching from a large intensively-used area. The Group identified one potentially viable alternative water storage site, the Mandamus.

 

So, between 2006 and this application, what has happened, and clearly what has gone wrong? Why have the farmers changed tack and chosen an option with clearly
unacceptable environmental impacts which they rejected in 2006? The answer is easily identified. Within the confines of a carefully facilitated and broadly representative discussion forum (The Canterbury Strategic Water Study), 'group think' occurred. When well managed this 'group think' can lead to the design and implementation of finely balanced and workable compromises. The conclusions reached reflect such compromises: farmers accepted not all land could be irrigated; instream interests accepted some further water resource development albeit with some negative consequences - a win-win situation.

 

Since 2006 the farmers, in the form of the HWP, have gone away and been consumed by narrowly focused 'group think', from a purely production perspective. Almost by definition they were bound to recant their earlier views and deliver what they have - a think big project which will be disastrous for the environment of the Hurunui and
overall bad for Canterbury.

 

What then is the answer? Well, fortunately, we await the findings of the Water Conservation Order application on the river. Assuming a positive decision is made, leading to 'full' protection of the Upper Hurunui and recognition of the values of the Lower, then we need to get back together in a facilitated forum, get the well managed 'group think' going again and explore options which will lead to sustainable water resources development and instream protection, with what remains. If such is not the case then I lament the future for truly sustainable water resource management in the Hurunui, in Canterbury generally, and elsewhere.