Water Transfer in Context – A New Zealand Case Study

eal use out of it in the future”. Information on the number and type of transfers that have taken place isunavailable but there is strong anecdotal evidence that people have transferred water. Comparison of statisticalinformation on transfers with information on the hydrology and climatic conditions of the transfer period will beuseful for future research and decision-making.Interviews with farmers and an iwi representative took place in and around Fairlie and Timaru, Canterburybetween May and October 2006. These farmers were from various parts of the catchment – above the dam,below the dam and those with no direct supply, as it appeared that these farmers had differential access to watereven though all held shares (from an initial interview with the chair of SCFIS). Background to the Opuha Damscheme and the methods for water transfer were obtained from a director of the scheme, the accounting firmresponsible for the administration of the scheme (Hubbard Churcher and Co), and staff from EnvironmentCanterbury. The aim of the research was to gain a greater understanding of some of the key issues involved withwater transfer in the Opuha scheme through discussions with people from a variety of stakeholder positions.2 FACTORS IMPACTING ON WATER TRANSFER2.1 FACTORS THAT ENABLED THE SCHEME TO GET UP AND RUNNINGThe Opuha Dam scheme has, as mentioned above, been hailed as a success, with farmers and the communityreceiving benefits. “It’s a win-win situation because there were no losers – everyone gained. It is affordable tofarmers” (farmer below dam). “Storage was our community’s solution to achieve sustainable management of ourlocal resources while simultaneously increasing farm productivity and processing opportunities on a reliablebasis” (Chair of SCFIS). There are various process, technical and economic factors that enabled the Opuhascheme to work well:2.1.1 PROCESSESThe success of the scheme has, in part, been made feasible by the partnerships established between irrigationcompanies, the power company Alpine Energy, and the Timaru and MacKenzie District Councils. Alpine Energyprovided the Opuha Dam Company with 50% of the finance, and generates about 10% of South Canterbury’senergy requirements as a consequence of releases for irrigation (Chair of SCFIS). The Timaru and MacKenzieDistrict Councils are also involved as owners of equity interest in Alpine Energy Ltd. Timaru city is providedwith a guaranteed industrial and residential water supply.A variety of opinions were expressed about the processes involved in setting up the Opuha Dam scheme. Somefarmers stated that they were happy with the process used to inform and update them of developments andprogress. There were many public meetings and much discussion, and the directors put a lot of effort intodiscussing the scheme with farmers. The directors of the scheme believe they were aware that there would be arange of issues and of the importance of involving the community. “It was a South Canterbury thing, and wecertainly were mindful of and had to respect the real concerns of the community” (Chair of SCFIS). However,there are also those who were unhappy with the process. “Not many ask your opinions, most are usingjustifications as to why it [water] needs to go there” (farmer above dam). Another farmer (below dam) explainedthat he felt ‘black-mailed’ into buying shares in the scheme. One of the directors spoke of the importance ofconvincing everybody of the benefits of the scheme. Overall, it seems that the processes used were satisfactoryand acceptable to most shareholders.2.1.2 TECHNICAL AND CONSENT ISSUESA key enabling factor has been the fact that the Opuha scheme has been able to enhance river flows as well asuse water for irrigation. The scheme utilises a minimum flow regime in an attempt to limit negativeenvironmental impacts. Minimum flows for surface water are set to protect environmental factors such as fishhabitats and natural character and to ensure adequate provision of water for recreational activities (Counsell &Evans, 2005). “So we’re not there to flog the whole thing, we’re there to look at environmental and recreationalbenefits too” (Chair of SCFIS).2.1.3 ECONOMIC OUTCOMESReliability of supply is a key issue for farmers. The scheme has provided a greater reliability of supply of waterfor farmers, some of whom have experienced up to 50% increases in yield as a result of irrigation (farmer