As Wayne is, I believe, a National Party insider, I think it exposes National's real agenda in terms of the environment and our conservation estate.
On-farm dams will initially be more expensive than the RWSS on a per cubic metre of water stored basis. However what wasn't factored into the review paper was a true cost comparison over 35 years, which would present a much fairer picture, considering farmers must commit to RWSS water for 35 years. Also, according to the Water User Agreement, farmers pay for their water yearly whether it's used or not. So what are the advantages of on-farm water storage?
Firstly, the skills to build, operate and maintain on-farm dams are available in New Zealand - no foreign involvement or profits going offshore. The Rangitata scheme in Canterbury is a very good example of this.
Secondly, it will create real jobs for local people, and business for local contractors. Profits and wages will be spent and invested locally, more so than the RWSS.
Thirdly, irrigators can use their own dam water when they need it, and won't have to pay for it whether they use it or not. Existing bores can be used to fill the dams in winter when the aquifer is high, or if near a river, dams can be filled during high flows.
Fourthly, on-farm dams will significantly add to a farm's capital value, and will be under the farmer's control.
Fifthly, on-farm dams will prevent the huge environmental destruction the Ruataniwha Dam will cause, protect and enhance the mauri of the Makaroro, Waipawa and Tukituki rivers, and provide the benefits groups such as Water Benefits All espouse.
This excludes flushing flows, not required with reduced extraction of ground water, and which has been scientifically proven to be ineffective.
In fact Niwa has suggested that for flushing flows from the Ruataniwha Dam to have any beneficial effect, quantities of water from the dam would need to be increased from 30 million cu m to 50 million cu m - half of the dam's capacity.
Lastly, I was interested to read Will Foley's comments from June 10, where he suggested that farmers needed to sit around the table with other stakeholders when discussing water issues.
He also commented that the negative stories were discouraging farmers from looking at other solutions.
The possible reason for this could have a lot to do with the fact that while the Feds (and other organisations) talked a lot about the positive environmental stories happening on farms across the country, they still back environmentally destructive schemes like the Ruataniwha Dam.
The talk doesn't match the walk, perhaps? When they start admitting that the RWSS will be an environmental disaster, and stop promoting irrigation schemes as environmentally beneficial, perhaps urban Kiwis will start looking at the farming sector differently.
Having said that, I have no hesitation in giving credit where credit is due, and applaud the good work many, many farmers have been doing over the years with regards to water management, riparian fencing and planting.
However it's no excuse using that as a counter for large destructive irrigation schemes, and I'd suggest to Will that the Feds need to start thinking along a different paradigm. I'm sure that environmental stakeholders in the process will only be too happy to then sit around the table.
As Hugh Ritchie, a prominent CHB farmer, recently said, the technology is currently available to limit water and fertiliser application to exactly what plants require, resulting in zero net leaching into the aquifers.
If we can marry this technology with on-farm dams, it will be a win-win solution for everybody, where water truly benefits all.
Dan Elderkamp is a CHB environmental advocate and conservationist. Views expressed here are the writer's opinion and not the newspaper's. Email: editor@hbtoday.co.nz
