2. 1968 & 1969 Orders in Council

The Crown water rights for the Upper Waitaki in the 1969 Order in Council were granted under the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967, legislation significantly changing water allocation and management in New Zealand[3]. The new Act vested all use of water in the Crown and established a complex regulatory structure for the administration and control of water resources. The Waitaki Catchment Commission as the Regional Water Board would be responsible for administering the new water right system for other than Crown water rights. The new Act also provided for a system of Crown water rights administered by the National Water and Soil Conservation Authority, with a separate procedure for “waters of national importance”.

The Act effectively had “promoting and controlling multiple uses of water” as a purpose and implied that those allocating water should seek to accommodate the needs of different users of water. The Christchurch Press of 12 August 1968 reported a statement by the chairman of NWASCA the Minister of Works about the provision to be made in the design of the works for storage and release of water for irrigation, as well as electric power, and the great satisfaction of the NWASCA members about this provision for multiple use of national water assets.

2.3. Waters of National Importance Declaration

Section 23 (7) of the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 provided that:

“The Governor-General may from time to time, by Order in Council, declare any natural water to be of national importance, and in this event the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) shall apply, except that the application shall be referred by the Minister to the Authority for consideration and recommendation before he refers it to the Governor-General in Council for decision.”

The NZ Gazette Notice 14 November 1968 No. 74, page 2071 declared pursuant to section 23 of the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967, the natural water described in the Schedule to be of national importance. This included waters flowing in artificial channels.

The Minister of Electricity made the decision to seek an Order in Council declaring the natural water to be of national importance. This meant that for the subsequent Crown water right application, the National Water and Soil Authority obtained the report and recommendation of the Regional Water Board and submitted its own recommendation to the Minister of Works who then referred the application to the Governor-General in Council for decision. Unlike a standard Crown water right application, the Authority did not make the decision and there was no right of appeal to the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board.

The reasons for this appear to include the power scheme being at an advanced stage before the new Act came into force, considerable urgency over starting work and the ability to meet power demand if the process of consultation became too protracted. An additional reason was the recognition of the national importance of the Waitaki River for hydro-electric power development for some years, with a 1929 Order in Council authorising the control of the flow and lake level of Lakes Tekapo, Pukaki and Ohau still in force. [4]

The National Water and Soil Conservation Authority (NWASCA) was involved in the decision on the application for the major natural water in the Upper Waitaki area to be declared of national importance. It is known that members of the Water Allocation Council met with members of the Waitaki Catchment Commission and the Mackenzie County Council [5][6].

At its February 1969 meeting the Authority resolved to “accept the recommendation of the Water Allocation Council and recommend the Minister of Works to recommend the Governor-General in Council to grant rights to the Minister of Electricity in the following terms: …”.

In its resolution, the Authority included two additional matters. One was to note that the Minister of Electricity intends to write to the Waitaki Catchment Commission confirming his intention to compensate present users of water in specific terms.

On 26 March 1969 the Minister of Electricity wrote to the Waitaki Catchment Commission in the terms described in the Authority’s resolution, as follows:

“At its meeting on 6 February 1969, NWASCA resolved to grant to me, as Minister of Electricity, water rights to the Upper Waitaki generally in accordance with the terms of my previous application.

Before having these rights granted I undertook to confirm in writing, to your Commission, several assurances that I have made in connection with present users of water.

These assurances are:

Present users deprived of water by the above power development will receive equivalent supplies, subject to the user obtaining appropriate rights from the Regional Water Board, the capital cost of necessary works being borne by the Minister.

Present users incurring additional costs in obtaining increased supplies of water in the future because of the above power development will be given all reasonable assistance to compensate for the higher cost, subject to agreement on quantities of water and negotiation on costs of work involved, and subject to the user obtaining appropriate rights from the Regional Water Board. This assistance will be available for a period of ten years from the time the development affects the particular water concerned.

Land deprived of the use of water which has been an effective boundary for stock will, subject to negotiation on fence routes, be provided with equivalent fences, the capital costs being borne by the Minister.

Where land is deprived of the benefit of ground water to pasture, without compensating changes elsewhere, negotiated lump sum compensation will be paid after the effect of ground water changes has been assessed.

Full compensation will be made where present users of water are adversely affected by the Upper Waitaki Development. Compensation will be approached in the light of the effects on the area, which have already been considered generally in the 1966 Interdepartmental Committee’s report on the Water Resources of the Mackenzie Basin.

In this letter “present users” means the users of water at the time that the above development works as carried out by the Minister of Electricity first affects their supply of water.”

2.4. Interdepartmental Committee Report

The 1966 Report to the Commissioner of Works by a local, special purpose Interdepartmental Committee on the Water Resources of the Mackenzie Basin set up under the District Commissioner of Works, Christchurch had a major influence on the allocation applied for in the Crown water right application by the Minister of Electricity and provided for in the Third Schedule of the 1969 Order in Council.

The Interdepartmental Committee Report states that it resulted from concerns from run holders[7], the Mackenzie Branch of Federated Farmers, as well as other authorities interested in better land use, about the effect the hydro-electric development proposals might have on farming in the Mackenzie Basin[8].

The Interdepartmental Committee comprised the Commissioner of Crown Lands Christchurch, Farm Advisory Officer Agriculture Department (Christchurch and later succeeded by an officer from Fairlie), Investigating Engineer Power Design Ministry of Works (MOW) Wellington and the Resident Engineer MOW Timaru, with the District Commissioner of Works (DCW) Christchurch. Its first meeting was on 23 October 1963.

The DCW wrote to the Mackenzie County Council on 29 October 1963 (and probably also to the Catchment Commission, although a copy of this letter has not been found) advising on the nature and order of reference for the Interdepartmental Committee. That letter advised that the Committee would like to visit the area and at the same time have discussions with representatives of the Catchment Commission, County and the Farmers Federation. At a later stage still, when final conclusions or alternatives were under consideration, the Committee would like the various possibilities to be fully explained to the people of the area at public meetings, and this would be recommended to the Commissioner of Works. The letter notes that the task set the Committee is in reality a phase of regional planning as the outcome will have an effect on the development of the total environment, both social and environment.

On 30 June 1964 the Interdepartmental Committee met Mackenzie run holders at a meeting in Twizel chaired by the President of Federated Farmers. The meeting was held to enable the Committee to find out from run holders what their future likely water requirements would be, and whether these might be likely to conflict with the demands of the Electricity Department.

Under the heading of minutes, the Chief Soil Conservator of Waitaki Catchment Commission recorded:

“The DCW explained that the Committee had been set up in recognition of the principle that all future national development was entirely dependant on the basic resources of land and water. The full development of industry and urban interests could only take place following sound development with adequate attention to soil and water conservation.

Although it was agreed that land had a very high priority for the use of water, it was necessary to decide what was the best possible use of water in the foreseeable future.

Future development in the Mackenzie would require increased water supplies for local use, including domestic and stock water besides irrigation. The Department of Agriculture Land Capability Survey had shown that 569,000 acres could be developed provided that adequate water was available.

The flow of the Tekapo River would be sufficient to irrigate 400,000 acres. However, both this river and the Pukaki would be required for future power schemes, equivalent supplies of “compensation water” being made available for present and future farming needs. The function of the Committee was to consider what these might be, together with the requirements of the Electricity Department, and to decide on a fair basis for allocation of the water resources available. Winchmore Research Station would be investigating the infiltration rates of soils, and this information was required before the Committee could reach a decision, as it would indicate the capacity of land to absorb water and also likely seepage losses in water races.”

An earlier draft of the Interdepartmental Committee’s Report was referred to Dr O’Connor of Grasslands Division of DSIR and he prepared material provided as Appendixes I and II to the final report.

The Interdepartmental Committee report considered the effects of power development on land use. The report recognises that:

“[L]and will be occupied by canals, structures and extra water storage, but the main effect on land use will come from the interruption of natural river flows and the consequential interruption of farming water supplies. …

At the present time, run holders have water available from natural streams and also from water races constructed at their instigation. The legal position regarding the use of water by run holders is set out in Section 8.

Water is vital for stock and, if present supplies were to be cut off without some form of replacement, part of the Mackenzie Country below the power canals would become virtually useless for grazing. Therefore, below any point of interruption, run holders could reasonably expect to have suitable alternative supplies or water made available for present needs and also for additional needs when their land development requires it.

For those runs entitled to alternative water supplies, it may be convenient in some cases to supply them directly from power structures and canals, but it could be preferable to incorporate their supplies in more general County rural water supply systems which clearly will be needed for the future development of the whole area.…”

Section 8 looks at riparian rights and the extent of these rights. It concludes that Crown pastoral runs do not legally possess riparian rights, but the Crown for all practical purposes has allowed run holders to be treated as riparian owners. Under the extent of rights the Report states:

“A run holder who still retains riparian rights may use water from the river for purposes that may be ordinary or primary, extra-ordinary or foreign to his riparian tenement. In the exercise of his ordinary right, using the water for domestic purposes or for his stock, he may exhaust the water altogether. In the matter of usage of water for extra-ordinary or secondary purposes, such as irrigation, the riparian farmer is restricted to use which is reasonable and connected with his tenement. He is bound to ensure that the flow is substantially undiminished in volume and unaltered in character. He cannot take more than he can legitimately use and although he may grant rights to nonriparian farmers to take water such rights cannot exceed his own nor can these be to the detriment of other riparian farmers. Under these rules very limited irrigation appears possible.”

Note that the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 changed the legal position for run holders, with the vesting of the use of all water in the Crown and the system of application for and granting of water rights.

The Interdepartmental Committee then introduced the concepts of “compensation water” and “replacement water”, defining them as follows:

“Compensation Water

“Compensation” water is water to be made available in agreed quantities at agreed locations and times at the expense of the NZED as compensation for the interruption of a supply now available to an area at no present cost to the land user. It relates mainly to stock water, but it could also be related to the natural irrigation effect on certain river flats.

Replacement Water

“Replacement” water is water to be made available by NZED in agreed quantities at agreed locations and times at a cost to the land user not greater than the development cost from supplies as they exist at the present day. Replacement water is additional to compensation water, as it will replace water available now but not capable of being used without the outlay of capital.”

The Interdepartmental Committee concluded:

“LAND USE

The Mackenzie Country farming output is steadily increasing and the future potential is very great.

Land Use Requirements

Although the quantities of water required for land use will be significant, they are not large enough to require modification of power development proposals. Water supply sources and systems should be planned as soon as possible to meet all foreseeable demands for the next 30-40 years and to permit orderly expansion of reticulation by stages, as required. This planning should be carried out urgently to permit land use water supplies to be integrated with power works that are being planned now and that be could under construction within the next few years. ….

Irrigation

Provision for irrigation of up to 11,000 acres by 1980 and up to 49,000 acres by the year 2000 is thought to be reasonable and desirable, although this probably implies an optimistic estimate of the rate at which irrigation development is likely to go ahead.

The irrigation of 49,000 acres is estimated to require up to 500 cusecs of water[9] mainly during the summer and autumn, with an average seasonal usage of about 150,000 acre feet. Further stages could be reached which would require more water.”

A map included in the Interdepartmental Report indicates the land area considered suitable for irrigation.

The Report also concluded:

“POWER DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS

During the next 15 or 20 years, power developments are likely to be quite properly taking over most of the water resources of the Mackenzie Basin. These developments should be planned in conjunction with and to assist the utilisation of water for optimum development of the land potential of the area. NZED can expect to have the use of all available water until it is actually required for land uses. Decisions to incorporate or by-pass tributary streams such as Irishman, Mary Burn and Twizel, should be made on the basis of these conditions.

Compensation

Apart from the normal provisions for land purchase and compensation, the NZED will have a continuing responsibility to make available Compensation Water and Replacement Water. …”

The Interdepartmental Committee’s Report was made widely available and it appears that Mackenzie County Council and possibly also Federated Farmers were in broad agreement with it.[10]

2.5. Co-ordinating Committee

The Interdepartmental Committee report recommended that a committee under the chairmanship of the District Commissioner of Works, Christchurch, be continuously available to assist in co-ordinating the future development of the water resources of the Mackenzie Basin. Desirable membership of this committee would be representatives from: Federated Farmers (Mackenzie Branch), Mackenzie County Council, Waitaki Catchment Commission, Department of Lands and Survey, Department of Agriculture, DSIR, MOW Power Division. A Co-ordinating Committee was set up, with its first meeting on 18 January 1968. This was an advisory committee.

It appears that this committee had no involvement in the application process for the Crown water rights. The minutes record that the Chairman introduced the first meeting by referring to its purpose “to facilitate the future development of the water resources of the Mackenzie Basin. At present this means ensuring that progress is maintained in planning water resource development for land use.” The Chairman also said that the Committee would also provide for reports on progress as well as exchanges of information and opinion between the interested parties.

The focus of the first meeting of the Co-ordinating Committee was on stock water as the first land development target, with a report sought from the Department of Agriculture to undertake an investigation. It is noted that this investigation was to also consider the areas the run holders wish to irrigate and when they hoped to develop them. However, this work focussed on stockwater. The advice of the December 1968 meeting of the Coordinating Committee minutes includes:

“Irrigation Requirements

Some irrigation trial work is being planned jointly by the Department of Agriculture and one or two run holders, but there is little or no sign of interest in major irrigation developments for the foreseeable future. So far nothing has occurred to justify planning irrigation structures to be built along with power works. It may be realistic just to ensure that irrigation intakes can be built when water is actually required. This procedure can be simple enough. It was twice used on the Rangitata Diversion Race … .”

The minutes of the meeting record agreement with the first two points. The Power Engineering representative indicated that NZED “contended that it had no responsibility in the financing of irrigation intakes.”

2.5.1. Press Release and Cabinet Decisions

A Cabinet Works Committee paper of 30 July 1968 seeking approval in principle for the Upper Waitaki Development states:

“An interdepartmental committee was set up to consider the water resources of the Waitaki Basin, to determine the water needs of farmers in that area, to reconcile farming needs with those of the NZED and to consider in broad terms how the irrigation should be distributed. The final report was submitted by the Committee to the Commissioner of Works in 1996 and recommend forward planning of irrigation schemes so that proper provision for them could be made in the design of power schemes.

The water required for irrigation in this case would not be large but would reduce the amount available for electricity generation unless storage were increased slightly, so it is proposed to add 3 ft to the height of the dam – to save on the average enough flood water to provide approximately the amount required for irrigation. The cost of this would be met out of the Electricity Vote and the benefit of the extra storage on electricity storage on electricity generation during the initial period before irrigation water is required would offset the extra cost involved. When irrigation water is made available the users would meet the annual capital charges of the additional expenditure.”

The paper also states that the MOW support the proposal to provide the extra three feet of storage in Lake Pukaki for irrigation purposes. The Cabinet Works Committee submission included a statement the Minister made to the residents of Mackenzie County when he met them on the shores of Lake Pukaki in June 1967. Relevant extracts from the statement are:

“An important stage has been reached in the development of hydro electric power in the Mackenzie County. The 1967 Power Plan will probably recommend to the Government that the remaining water storage capacity necessary for the proper operation of all the power stations on the Waitaki River and its tributaries, be provided by the construction of a high dam at the outlet of Lake Pukaki and that control works be provided at Lake Ohau outlet to allow its level to be varied though no more than its natural range. …

The … stations complete or nearly complete was based on a plan to make the fullest possible use of the water available in the Waitaki River system by providing storage in all three lakes – Tekapo, Pukaki and Ohau. In June 1965, in an endeavour to provide as much notice as possible to persons who might be affected, the Minister of Electricity announced that it was intended to complete the scheme by raising the level of Lake Ohau.

Objections

There were, however, numerous representations from land and property owners, local bodies, tourist and fishing interests, and the Nature Conservation Council which indicated that the original scheme was not acceptable to the public and that a review was necessary. The Minister indicated that this should be done.

Revised Plan

The need to review the situation together with the postponement resulting from the earlier completion of the full Manapouri power station, has allowed full consideration to be given to the alternative scheme involving at Lake Pukaki outlet, a high earth dam which would have been quite impracticable both economically and technically at the time the original scheme was drawn up.

The dam now proposed for Lake Pukaki would be sufficiently high to provide a storage volume, confirmed as still necessary by recent studies, equivalent to that originally planned for Lakes Ohau and Pukaki combined and would allow the Tasman River water to be used for power generation through an extra 100 feet of head. …

Advantages

… The canal between Lake Pukaki and the Ostler station on the Ohau River, constructed at a higher level would be shorter and cheaper and would facilitate possible future irrigation and water supply for some 9,000 additional acres.

Future Irrigation

An interdepartmental committee … has studied the water requirements of future irrigation in the Tekapo-Pukaki-Ohau region and has indicated that irrigation requirements could ultimately be significant but not large (few hundred cusecs) and that further studies should be made to ensure that provision is made in hydro-electric structures where practicable, to facilitate future irrigation developments if and when they can be shown to be economic.”[11]

Cabinet at its meeting on 5 August 1968, on the understanding that design and operation will be in accordance with the requirements of the National Water and Soil Authority, approved in principle the Upper Waitaki Development (CM68/29/19). The Cabinet minute “noted that application has been made under Section 23 of the Water and Soil Conservation Act declaring the water to be of national importance.” Cabinet noted that this will entail raising Lake Pukaki to a Maximum Storage Level not higher than 1746 ft (127 ft higher than at present) and noted that the Maximum Flood Level could then rise to 1756 ft (122 ft higher than at present).

A Christchurch Press 5 August 1968 article covers the announcement of the Government’s approval in principle of the total development of the Upper Waitaki Valley for hydro-electricity use by the Minister of Electricity. The article extensively quotes the announcement by the Minister. It also contains the following:

“The early features of the development include: - … An earth dam across the outlet from Lake Pukaki about a quarter of a mile downstream of the present control works.

 The approval for the future raising of the lake envisages a maximum storage level of up to 1746 feet (127 feet higher than at present), and a design flood level of up to 1756 feet (122 feet higher than at present). A study of the area that might benefit from irrigation has shown that 3ft of stored water in the lake would meet the annual requirements. The above figures allow for possible extra height for this purpose.”

In 1969 the situation appears to have changed to some extent. The MOW comments on a Cabinet Works Committee submission of 8 September seeking approval to construct the Pukaki High Dam now state “The MOW … supports the proposal to use for irrigation some of the water stored in Lake Pukaki.”

The 5 September 1969 Cabinet Works Committee paper also refers to a study that has concluded that the design flood level must be kept 12 ft below the crest of dam for safety reasons. It states that:

“The recommended safe levels are now:

Maximum storage level – 1741 ft

Design flood level – 1748 ft

These levels must now include the allowance for irrigation water”.

Under the heading of irrigation water the paper states:

“An inter-departmental committee was set up to consider the water resources of the Waitaki Basin, to determine the water needs of farmers in the area, to reconcile farming needs with those of the NZ Electricity Department, and to consider in broad terms how the irrigation waters should be distributed. The final report was submitted by the Committee to the Commissioner of Works in 1966, and recommended forward planning of irrigation schemes so that proper provision could be made for them in the design of the power schemes. The water rights applied for make full allowance for the irrigation needs which this report foresees.

The water required for irrigation in this case will not be large, but when it is required, it will reduce the amount available for electricity generation. The full cost of storage will be met out of the electricity vote initially, and the full benefit of the total storage obtained for electricity generation until such time as any irrigation requirement is established as a viable proposition. Water users will then be expected to meet the annual capital charges attributable to irrigation.”

Cabinet Works Committee did not authorise the construction of the Pukaki High Dam until 16 December 1970 (W(70) 325). Comments in the Cabinet paper of that time on the safe design levels and irrigation water were the same as in the previous paper.

Cabinet decisions of the time approving hydro-electricity development in the Upper Waitaki recognise that the water rights applied for by the Minister of Electricity make full allowance for the irrigation needs the report foresaw and also that water users would be expected to meet the annual capital charges attributable to irrigation.

2.6. In Summary:

The Government provided for an allocation of water for irrigation from the natural and artificial waters of the Upper Waitaki the subject of the 1968 Order in Council declaration of waters of national importance and required for the Upper Waitaki hydro-development in the 1969 Order in Council.

The application included an allocation for irrigation based on the Interdepartmental Report on the Water Resources of the Mackenzie Basin, with the addition of 20 cusecs for land to the west of the Ohau River not taken into account in the Report, and this was carried through to the water rights granted by the 1969 Order in Council The allocation was for a maximum of 520 cusecs (15 cumecs) and a total volume of 140,000 acre-feet during any one irrigation season. It is noted that the Interdepartmental Report referred to a total volume of 150,000 acre-feet and the reason for the difference is not known.

The Interdepartmental Committee was set up in response to concerns from run holders, the Mackenzie Branch of Federated Farmers, as well as other authorities interested in better land use, about the effect the hydro-electric development proposals might have on farming in the Mackenzie Basin.

The Interdepartmental Committee comprised government officials, but it is known that the Committee met with run holders.

The Interdepartmental Report on the Water Resources of the Mackenzie Basin contained the following conclusions and recommendations related to irrigation and power development. During the next 15-20 years power developments would take over most of the water resources of the Mackenzie Basin and this was appropriate. The power developments should be planned in conjunction with and to assist the use of water for optimum development of the land potential of the area, with the planning to meet all foreseeable demands for the next 30-40 years. The planning should be carried out urgently to permit land use water supplies to be integrated with power works being planned now and that could be under construction within the next few years.

The Report concluded provision for irrigation of up to 11,000 acres by 1980 and up to 49,000 acres by 2000 was reasonable and desirable, although this was probably an optimistic estimate of the rate of irrigation development. The 2000 figure was estimated to require up to 500 cusecs of water mainly during the summer and autumn, with an average seasonal usage of about 150,000 acre feet. Further stages could be reached which would require more water.

The Interdepartmental Report was widely disseminated.

The use of the allocation of water for irrigation required application to and a water right from the Waitaki Catchment Commission, the Regional Water Board for the area in 1969, and subsequently the Canterbury Regional Council.

The rights were granted “for a period of 21 years from the date of this Order in Council (18 August 1969), with successive rights of renewal for further periods of twenty-one years for so long as the Minister of Electricity requires the use of the water for the generation of electricity”.

Government decisions of the time recognised the rights made full allowance for the irrigation needs the Interdepartmental Report foresaw, but that NZED would have the benefit of the use of all available water until it was required for land uses. The full cost of storage was to be met by NZED initially until such time as any irrigation requirement was established as a viable proposition and obtained a water right from the Waitaki Catchment Commission. Water users would then be expected to meet the annual capital charges attributable to irrigation. The Minister of Electricity gave certain “assurances” or undertakings to the Waitaki Catchment Commission about his intention to compensate present users of water and referred to the Interdepartmental Report. The Minister’s intention to confirm his intention in writing was noted in NWASCA’s recommendation on the Crown water rights. These assurances appear to be more relevant to domestic and stock water.

1 Memo from MOW to NZED 23 December 1968, Canterbury Regional Council file Electricorp 905337, Electricorp water right application and supporting material 1990-1991.

2 Applications were made through the Commissioner of Works for the right to use water in the Upper Waitaki and for the waters concerned to be declared of national importance on 31 July 1968. A 19 December 1968 memo from NZED to MOW refers to the need to define more closely the particular rights sought on behalf of the Minister of Electricity and attaches an application. The memo notes that: “In this application [see attachment] the Interdepartmental Committee’s report on the Water Resources of the Mackenzie Basin has been used as the basis in acknowledging the likely needs of other users of the water. To allow for the fact that the report did not take into account the land to the west of the Ohau river, a further 20 cusecs was added to the 500 cusecs for irrigation.” The memo forwards 50 copies of the application.

3 The Crown water rights for the Upper Waitaki are believed to be the first major water right application under the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967.

4 Briefing note with recommendation from NZED to the Minister of Electricity 29 July 1968; Memo from MOW to NZED 30 July 1968.

5 NWASCA was involved in the decision on the application for the major natural water in the Upper Waitaki area to be declared of national importance. The NWASCA February 1969 minutes note the Minister’s application for the right as well as an application for the declaration. “At its meeting on 1 August 1968 this authority resolved that it had no objection to such a declaration being made provided the proposals for development were referred to the Water Allocation Council and the Regional Water Board for comment. At the same time it was suggested that … [the Chairman] should visit the area and the Waitaki Catchment Commission.

6 The matter was referred accordingly and [the Chairman] did make the visits suggested. The waters involved have now been declared of national importance.”

7 The August 1968 Water Allocation Council minutes record that “It was explained that while the NZ Electricity Department could make provision in its projects for water to be available for irrigation, it had no function of promotion or construction of irrigation work. It was suggested that further study might be necessary of the amount of water required for irrigation. Copies of the inter-departmental committee report on “Water Resources of the Mackenzie Basin” were tabled.

8 In the early 1960s the Waitaki Catchment Commission and the Tussock Grasslands and Mountain Lands Institute expressed concern to the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council on the future of water supplies in the Mackenzie Basin area. Farmers and the Mackenzie County Council also made representations to the Minister of Works seeking the development of irrigation.
The Soil Conservation and River Control Council’s main functions were mitigation of soil erosion and control of excess water and the co-ordination of government departments for these purposes. The Waitaki problem was one of water deficiency not really a function of the Council and the Council reported the problem to the Commissioner of Works who referred the report to the Inter-departmental Irrigation Committee.
Matters did not rest there, as the Commissioner of Works asked the District Commissioner of Works to set up in Christchurch a District Interdepartmental Committee to investigate the whole problem of water utilisation in the area. The Committee was to submit a report to the Commissioner of Works.

9 Note the Order in Council included a further 20 cusecs to the 500 cusecs for irrigation referred to in the Report to take into account the land to the west of the Ohau River. See footnote 1.

10 In August 1967 the DCW wrote to the Mackenzie Country Council asking for the Council’s views and advised he was also writing to the Mackenzie Branch of Federated Farmers along the same lines. He writes “[I]f there is general agreement with the intention of the recommendations, then perhaps we should shortly get together to sort out the next steps to ensure that adequate and satisfactory plans for future land use water requirements are made, along with the power planning which is in progress.”
On 19 October 1967 the County replies:
“I am directed to convey Council’s sincere congratulations to the members of the Interdepartmental Committee for the comprehensive report submitted and to advise that Council is in complete agreement with the recommendations of the said Committee. In respect of recommendation number five (5) I would advise … has been appointed as council’s representative on the suggested Co-ordinating Committee. Council further agrees that all concerned should meet within the near future for the purpose of discussing the matter in further detail and I await your further advice on this point in due course.
The only concern expressed by members during the discussion … related to the extremely harmful and lasting effects that construction activity could have if weed establishment is not continuously prevented. …”
Prior to this decision, the Chairman reported in detail on his attendance at a meeting convened by the Mackenzie Branch of Federated Farmers for the purpose of considering the report.

11 MOW commented to NZED on 26 July 1968 on the draft Cabinet Works submission, as follows:
“The new Pukaki dam was designed to allow an even higher utilisation of the Pukaki water than does the present one, and for that reason, based on hydrological records, it will not fill as frequently as does the present one. In fact it appears that at times and for several years in succession the maximum water level will be much more than three feet below the maximum permissible storage level if the hydro plants are used to their nominal capacity.
All things considered the dam height chosen is as high as can be justified for a hydroelectric development, and we have no reason to change the figure because some of the stored water may at some time be used for irrigation.
In brief, adding three feet to the height of a dam which has already been designed for high utilisation of the available water does not enable an extra three-foot depth of water to be stored per annum; and except in quite unusual circumstances water used for irrigation will be at the expense of electricity production.”