We've referred to farmers/growers paying. For Plan Change 6 that means irrigators will pay for the lift in minimum flows during dry summer months through reduction in their own water security.
We will pay for the development of technically complex farm environmental management plans designed to minimise nutrients reaching our waterways and then pay for the on-farm investment needed to implement those plans. The outcome will hopefully be an improved river system which benefits us all. However, if Plan Change 6 operates without the RWSS, the gains for the environment will be slow, hard fought and extremely costly for both the community and the farmers.
Our clear preference is that the Tukituki Catchment Strategy is achieved in its entirety - with both an effective HBRC regulatory framework in place and the RWSS operating effectively and transparently within that framework.
Returning to the theme of the farmers paying. For the RWSS that means not only paying for the infrastructure both off farm and on farm, but also paying the investors for the cost of their money (including HBRIC/HBRC), and paying for both the mitigation measures designed to minimise the scheme's adverse impact on our waterways and biodiversity, and for the scheme's contribution to improving our shared waterways in the Tukituki Catchment.
Many of us have signed 35 year water access contracts. The contract is built around water price based on volume that any farmer deems necessary for his or her farming system. The water price covers the cost of all the elements outlined above. More specifically when it comes to mitigation, riparian planting and fencing of waterways, provision of water for flushing flows designed to remove algae in the Tukituki, environmental monitoring work, switching off water takes from groundwater to RWSS water thereby increasing the water in the river during dry summer months - and the list goes on. The contract also requires us to fund the Farm Environment Management plans to meet the standards required, failure to achieve this places access to RWSS water at risk.
Seems stringent doesn't it? You may ask why we'd sign up for all this let alone be willing to pay for it. It boils down to a fundamental proposition - access to reliable water over a long period of time, with regulatory certainty, creates options for our farming and growing businesses that are unavailable otherwise.
The range of land uses that are opened up are much more than if we are restricted to dry land farming. Having options and reducing climate variability will assist enormously in creating succession options for our next generation farmers and removing some of the existing stress that remains in our farming/horticulture businesses.
As a community we are well aware of the obligation on us to perform better in the environmental space - as a quid pro quo we are very keen to see the broader community value the producers and the farmers - as positive contributors to social and economic well-being. With the RWSS this will mean growing communities, more jobs, more stable school rolls etc.
With Plan Change 6 without the RWSS, we can only imagine declining communities, ironically less money to invest in good quality water infrastructure for towns such as Waipawa and Waipukurau, less water in our river during summer months and a risk of a deepening urban/rural divide.
Ian Walker is the spokesman for Water Benefits All (Waterbenefitsall.org).
