Hundreds in breach of water consents

Nearly one in five monitored consent holders with permission to take water in Canterbury were significantly breaking the rules, according to figures from the regional council.

After an unusually dry season in which river flows dropped significantly, it has emerged hundreds were caught breaching their resource consents for taking water, either taking too much water, or taking water during a restricted period.

Environment Canterbury (ECan) has released its annual compliance monitoring report, detailing which rules were broken over the 2014-15 season.

The primary offenders were those with consents to take water – more than 350 of them were found to be significantly non-compliant.

The offenders represented 18 per cent of all monitored groundwater extraction consents, and 17 per cent of monitored surface water extraction consents.

Wide-spread use of irrigation throughout Canterbury has been a contentious issue, particularly following concerns about low river levels. Excessive water extraction has been blamed by some as a contributor to low water levels.

ECan planned to continue targeting water extraction consents this year, compliance and monitoring manager Marty Mortiaux said.

‘‘[The rate of non-compliance] is higher than we would like . . . and it is an area of concern for us.’’

Despite having the highest rate of non-compliance, water takers were infrequently subjected to enforcement action.

Of the 117 abatement and infringement notices issued throughout the year, nine related to taking too much water.

Concerns about irrigation were also reflected in a rise in complaints to ECan about water usage.

In almost all areas, complaints to ECan about excessive water usage increased by several hundred per cent – around Timaru, they increased by 2200 per cent.

Problem areas for irrigation non-compliance were Hurunui, Ashburton, and the area surrounding Timaru.

The other activity with notable levels of significant noncompliance were agricultural discharges, which included ponding and discharge of dairy effluent. Nine per cent of consent holders were significantly non-compliant.

Who is ECan monitoring?

The regional council monitored 16 per cent of the more than 24,000 consents in Canterbury – about 1600 fewer than the year before.

About 40 per cent of the monitored consents involved a site visit, meaning less than seven per cent of all consents were checked in person.

This was the result of a more focused response, in which consent holders who had offended previously were targeted.

‘‘I think we’ve had some positive results out of it. Sometimes it makes the numbers not look as flash, but I think by targeting the areas with most need, you get a better environmental effect,’’ Mortiaux said.

Despite targeting higher-risk consent holders, the number of abatement and infringement notices issued was the lowest in five years. The total of 117 was a 40 per cent reduction from the previous year. The total value of fines recouped through infringement notices was $24,100, less than half the previous season.

Just three prosecutions were completed over the year.

Mortiaux said ECan’s preference was to ensure compliance without relying on enforcement.

‘‘Prosecution is very serious. The penalties for that are really quite high. It is essentially the last resort for us – we like to work with people to get compliance. If we can get compliance without needing [enforcement], great. That’s always the ideal situation.’’