1. Background
This report has been written in response to the information needs of a number of groups throughout New Zealand who are investigating and promoting communal irrigation schemes. It draws on the experience of the previous 80 years of development of communal irrigation schemes in New Zealand and experience gained in the recent commissioning of communal irrigation schemes. At present, communal irrigation schemes are providing irrigation water to farmers over more than 165,000 hectares in New Zealand. These range in size from 500 to 30,000 hectares. Investigations and feasibility reports under way at present have the potential to double the amount of land under communal irrigation schemes.
Communal irrigation schemes are characterised by the grouping together of people to share in the collection and distribution of water into a defined community of interest.
Over the years, the environment in which communal irrigation schemes have been developed has changed significantly from full development by government through to the present day where they are stand alone commercial operations with little government assistance at all. The lessons learnt on how to successfully implement a scheme are seen as an important resource for present irrigation scheme developers.
1.1 History
Pre-1930
Twelve schemes totalling 25,200 hectares were developed and financed by the government in this period. They were primarily designed to take advantage of existing water rights and reclamation of mining land in Central Otago and they did not attempt to involve farmers in the implementation process. Farmers at the time knew little of irrigation technology and their approach to farming systems meant that uptake and use of the water was limited to drought protection strategies.
1930–1950
Development occurred subsequent to the 1928 Public Works Act, which empowered the government to build an irrigation scheme without a vote by landholders and to take the land acquired for a scheme if needed. The Act treated development of communal irrigation schemes as an engineering project and generally provided poorly for the wide ranging changes that had to be made by landholders. Its activity was primarily directed towards large-scale irrigation schemes in Mid Canterbury. The failure to provide little reference to farmers’ needs and expectations meant that irrigation development on-farm was completed very slowly and therefore there was under-utilisation of the resource for many years. Nevertheless, during this period, five schemes totalling 72,500 hectares were developed. The majority of these were based on the development of the Rangitata diversion race canal.
1950–1980
Recognition of the problems associated with slow farmer uptake meant that in the mid-1950s, we saw a changed approach to communal irrigation development. This was due to:
- the slow development and utilisation of schemes by farmers; and
- the increasing annual costs of early scheme operation and upgrades with an unwillingness of farmers to pay the additional cost.
It became clear that schemes needed prior commitment by farmers and that all beneficiaries should contribute to the cost of development of the schemes. This meant that farmers had to be involved and fully informed of expected financial responsibilities in the future and the possible benefits that they would gain from irrigation. This brought about the active involvement of farmers in the promotion and implementation of schemes. It also brought about the provision of advice and research on irrigation practices and farm management benefits.
A 1960 amendment to the Public Works Act was made. Although this did not require prior notification of a scheme being investigated, it did require that a legal notice of a poll of landholders be held before a scheme would go ahead and also the requirement of the provision of full information to the farmers. The poll required a 60% vote to proceed and this committed all farmers within the scheme area to uptake water and the acceptance of appropriate water charges. Under this regime, five schemes were developed with an area of 29,450 hectares.
In 1967, the Water and Soil Conservation Act transferred the role of communal irrigation scheme development from the Ministry of Works to the National Soil and Water Conservation Authority. Subsequent to the instigation of this Act, there was a review of national irrigation policy in 1970. This recommended (amongst other things) County Councils and Catchment Authorities would be delegated the rights of promotion of irrigation schemes. Amendments to the Act in 1975 made changes that included the requirement for:
- prior public notification of an investigation of an irrigation scheme;
- cost sharing of capital costs between the government and farmers;
- specified 16 procedural steps for development of a scheme;
- financial assistance to farmers for on-farm costs.
The latter was in recognition of the substantial level of on-farm costs required for irrigation development. It also recognised the need to accelerate benefits of irrigation development and did so by providing low interest and suspensory loans to farmers for on-farm development. The 1975 changes also increased the requirement for full engineering, economic and financial reporting of the scheme to the potential farmers involved.
Under this regime, 10 schemes were developed with a total of 33,850 hectares. In the early 1980s, Mr AJ Warrington, who was then Manager of Irrigation and Rural Water Supply Operation of the Water and Soil Division of the Ministry of Works, commented:
"Fifty years or more of implementing and managing communal irrigation schemes should have shown us that irrigation is for farmers, and not just an engineering development. The ultimate success of any communal scheme depends on the vast majority of the individual farmers wanting irrigation and being able to make the changes necessary to utilise the increased production that it allows.
To achieve this, farmers must be actively involved, individually and through scheme committees, in the implementation of the scheme. As the work proceeds, the required scientific information must be available and used to increase farmers’ knowledge of irrigation processes through discussion and demonstration. The necessary physical and financial resources must be available to allow the development and adaptation of the knowledge to meet their needs and abilities in the management of their farms."
1980s–present
This period saw very little communal irrigation development, primarily as a result of the government economic reforms undertaken at the time. These had far-reaching impacts on all parties previously involved in the promotion of communal irrigation schemes. These reforms included:
- the removal of all subsidies and concessionary loans to farmers and the sale of the Rural Banking and Finance Corporation;
- withdrawal of central government as a funder of community irrigation scheme development; and
- local body reform in both District Council and Catchment Authority level seeing the establishment of wider regional councils with responsibility over resource management and an amalgamation and contraction of local government activities.
However, the most significant reform in this period was the implementation of the Resource Management Act in 1991. This framed a completely different planning environment on the use of water as a resource. It incorporated the requirement for a balanced approach to the issue of water resource allocation including a consents process which gave a much greater involvement and influence on the process from other stakeholders with a wider interest in resource use other than those primarily proposing its use for irrigation.
These wide-ranging changes had the impact of virtually halting the development of communal irrigation schemes. However, a number of schemes which had started feasibility investigations under the old legislative regime were able to continue development of their processes in a private rather than a public capacity.
1.2 Present
The period of slow development mentioned in the previous section has two major schemes that came to fruition. These were the development of an 11,000-hectare scheme in the Waimakariri area and the development of the 16,000-hectare Opihi augmentation scheme in South Canterbury. These schemes both had significant elements that provide lessons for those wishing to carry out communal irrigation development in the present environment.
In the case of the Waimakariri scheme, it was promoted by a private irrigation development company but strongly supported by the Waimakariri District Council. The tight financial conditions of farming through the late ‘80s and early ‘90s meant that many farmers in the area were not in a position to make the required capital contribution or the commitment to uptake of water and ongoing payment of the costs of the provision of that water. Consequently, the scheme took approximately 10 years to achieve the required subscription rate of farmers to allow it to proceed. During this time, the scheme continued to be promoted by a small band of individuals who were convinced of the financial benefits that could be gained from it. It also gained ongoing support from the Waimakariri District Council (including financial underwriting) who recognised the flow-on impacts of irrigation development to the communities in the Waimakariri District at large.
In the case of the development of the Opihi Augmentation Scheme with the development of the Opuha Dam, there were two important elements:
- a group of promoters or "champions" who treated the development of the scheme as a business operation; and
- the multiple benefits achieved through enhancement of flows of water in the Opihi River.
The latter was significant, as the scheme was able to provide not only irrigation water for 16,000 hectares but also a small electrical power generation capacity at the dam. Thirdly, and most importantly, it provided augmentation of the flow of the Opihi River to greatly enhance the in-stream environmental and recreational values of the river. All of these elements were able to contribute financially to the development of the scheme.
In 1998, government became aware of growing interest in water development projects for irrigation in the summer dry areas of both islands. A need for seeding finance to help initiate investigations was recognised.
To help facilitate these investigations and feasibility studies, government jointly with Agmardt established a Contestable Water Studies Fund of $2.25 million. This fund has had considerable success in encouraging studies to help fill the gaps in knowledge on surface and ground water supplies and their possible use for community water needs including irrigation.
In 2000/2001, the fund was nearly fully subscribed and government provided an additional $1.35 million which is being administered by MAF. Further opportunities for new water development projects will be considered by the Sustainable Farming Fund.
The $2.25 million joint fund with Agmardt and the additional $1.35 million are assisting approximately 45 water projects. The level of funding provided has generally been 60% to 75% of the project cost. Funds are for investigations, not capital works.
1.3 Lessons Learned
The major lessons learned from the history of irrigation development in New Zealand are:
- There must be a balance between the engineering and on-farm economics as drivers of the assessment of community irrigation schemes.
- Scheme development must include farmers early in the planning process and include an iterative process of feedback to farmers.
- An analysis of the implications on the community and servicing industries.
- Scheme promoters must be able to identify all potential benefits and beneficiaries of a scheme early in the process.
- There is a need for consultation with all stakeholders with an interest in water resource allocation early in the feasibility process.
- Wherever possible, effort should be made to maximise the non-productive benefits of water resource enhancement including other productive uses (electricity generation) environmental, recreational and cultural.
- It is critical to have a lead agent or champion in the initial promotion and feasibility analysis of schemes.
- Provision of information and support to farmers and other beneficiaries to assist decision making on how to manage and maximise the benefits from the resource is essential to encourage rapid uptake and efficient resource use.
Contact for Enquiries
MAF Information Services
Pastoral House
25 The Terrace
PO Box 2526
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
Fax: +64 4 894 0721
Contact this person
