Controversial consent granted

An independent hearing commissioner has granted a controversial irrigation consent that had some Cantabrians concerned about its potential effect on the environment and human health.

But it will be a cause for celebration for Mid-Canterbury farmers, who say the consent was their licence to keep farming.

The Mayfield-Hinds-Valetta (MHV) irrigation scheme had sought a 10-year replacement consent from Environment Canterbury (ECan) for 56,500 hectares of farmland between the Ashburton and Rangitata rivers.

The case was considered by an independent hearing commissioner but was not required to be publicly notified, to the concern of local freshwater advocates.

The commissioner said the consent was granted on the basis that significant adverse cumulative effects on the environment would be reduced, and there would be measurable environmental improvements within the 10-year term.

‘‘It also gives the applicant sufficient time to demonstrate that land use practices can change to significantly reduce nutrient inputs and to address environmental degradation,’’ they said.

‘‘It is a significant step in the right direction, and it is now up to the applicant to demonstrate that the necessary reductions can be made and are sufficient to result in environmental improvements. I consider this will be challenging, but achievable.’’

The consent was granted with a strict set of requirements, including a 15 per cent reduction in nitrogen losses by 2025, and 25 per cent by 2030. Farmers in the scheme were legally bound to achieve these reductions as part of their water supply agreement.

Farmers managed by the scheme must also have comprehensive and audited farm environment plans, and the scheme must monitor ground and surface water quality to ensure no further deterioration.

If any was detected, a response plan must be carried out to further reduce nitrogen inputs. If that failed to improve the water quality, ECan could review the consent.

The scheme must also protect community drinking water supplies.

Opponents of the scheme were concerned it could raise nitrates above what international studies considered safe.

Aotearoa Water Action spokesman Peter Richardson said irrigation not only depleted aquifers, but also contaminated them as the water filtered down through Canterbury’s stony soil, taking pollutants with it.

He said he was disappointed to learn the consent was granted, and did not believe the basis for granting it was correct.

‘‘Nitrate pollution is a very worrying issue for Canterbury, and the result will be a continuing downward trend in the quality of our freshwater environment and our aquifers.’’

Richardson believed the measures in place to reduce nitrate concentrations from farming were ‘‘speculative at best’’.

‘‘What we need to be doing is reducing cow numbers and the amount of water taken for irrigation on the Canterbury Plains, if we want to make a real difference,’’ he said.

But supporters had feared the region’s economy would lose its lifeblood without the consent, and 200 farmers would have been forced to apply for individual consents, making environmental outcomes harder to manage.

MHV chief executive Melanie Brooks said the renewal provided clear expectations and held farmers to account on achieving improved water quality outcomes.

She said with confirmed consent conditions, they could now refine their internal programmes and build on their environmental management strategy to meet or exceed them.