3. Irrigation

The 1966 Interdepartmental Committee’s Report contained recommendations on co-ordinated planning of water developments for hydroelectric power generation to make the best economic use of Mackenzie Basin waters. The Committee recommended that the MOW arrange for an investigation into details of ways and means of satisfying present and future water requirements for land use so that sources and points of supply may be determined.

The MOW had a significant national role in terms of the investigation, design, construction and operation of irrigation schemes. This included private and Crown irrigation, with the subsidies available through the National Water and Soil Conservation Authority and related sources. The MOW advised NWASCA on the viability of irrigation and on the subsidies.

3.1. Co-ordinating Committee

The Interdepartmental Committee report also 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.

As covered earlier a Co-ordinating Committee was set up, with its first meeting on 18 January 1968. In its early years the Co-ordinating Committee’s minutes record a focus on stockwater and at times state there was no known communal demand for irrigation. The minutes also allude to referring irrigation to the appropriate agencies, given the nature of the advisory committee.

3.2. Petition by Mackenzie Run holders

In July 1971 Mackenzie run holders forwarded a joint petition to the Waitaki Catchment Commission for a feasibility study on irrigation, with particular reference to the installation of outlet points. The Commission asked the MOW for urgent action by the Interdepartmental Committee on Irrigation for the purpose of determining the most suitable irrigation plan for the area, the costs to irrigators, and all other information associated with such investigations.

3.3. Interim Irrigation Policy

A change in irrigation policy, with an interim irrigation policy, meant a change in responsibility. The interim policy involved specific schemes to be referred to counties for promotion, proposals to be referred to NWASCO for recommendation particularly as regards the rate of subsidy and catchment authorities to be encouraged to offer assistance in planning for irrigation development.[12]

In March 1972 the Waitaki Catchment Commission forwarded a request for irrigation investigation in the Mackenzie Basin to the County. It says:

“In accordance with the announced interim policy concerning irrigation proposals, as conveyed to you in the … [DCW’s letter of 14 October 1971], a copy of an application from residents in the Mackenzie Basin is attached.

This application was made to the Commission, as the Regional Water Board, prior to this policy being announced. The Commission is currently working on a resources survey, and has assembled considerable information, in collaboration with the MOW, and Department of Agriculture, relating to an allocation plan.

The application by the 16 properties named for an investigation into the feasibility of the proposal to utilise waters from the canals is commended for your acceptance in principle, and subsequent co-operation with the Commission.”

The letter to the Waitaki Catchment Commission under the heading Federated Farmers Mackenzie Branch is as follows:

“We the Undersigned, being the possible users of water for irrigation from the Forks-Tekapo, Tekapo-Pukaki and Pukaki-Ohau, Twizel-Pukaki Power Canals hereby petition the Commission to arrange for a study of the feasibility of irrigation in the area.

We make this request particularly in regard to the installation of outlet points from the canals.”

In April 1972 the County responded by advising that the Council had agreed in principle to the proposal and proposed a Standing Committee with 3 representatives respectively from the County and the Commission.

3.4. Standing Joint Committee

There were issues with the time and cost it would take to provide the information necessary to advance irrigation and particularly outlets from the canals.[13] In May 1972 the Commission sent the Council an interim report on aspects of irrigation and their interrelationship with the works of the Power Project, a report prepared to form part of an overall water resources study of the County. This report recommended the Council be encouraged to design and promote irrigation development by stages, or by a large scale scheme. It also recommended the construction of outlets from power canals as they were constructed to encourage irrigation development. There was also to be a role for the Commission to promote irrigation development through catchment and run water and soil conservation plans and involvement in irrigation.

A meeting including the Commission, County and Federated Farmers representatives on 4 July 1972 reviewed the situation and considered a submission drafted for a direct approach to the Ministers of Electricity, Lands and Agriculture. Notes for the meeting indicate that from a time and cost aspect it was found to be impracticable for the Commission and County to investigate a complete irrigation scheme and estimate of expenditure. The joint subcommittee then felt that cost of irrigation outlets ($87,160) could not be financed locally and a direct approach for these to be built Government expense should be made to the Ministers of Electricity, Lands and Agriculture.

3.5. Deputation and Submission to Government Ministers

The deputation made urgent personal representation regarding the methods of financing irrigation outlets to be installed in the canals. Financial assistance was requested as a 2:1 subsidy from NWASCA to be granted to the proposed irrigation scheme with a 33% Land Settlement Board loan to meet the local share and charges on the loan to be deferred until the outlets are utilised. The deputation was to meet the Ministers of Electricity, Lands and Works and the Under-Secretary for Agriculture.

An issue already known to the subcommittee was the likely reluctance by Government to the expenditure in anticipation of an irrigation scheme proceeding at some future date. Some guaranteed local contribution, particularly with regard to outlets C-G (B and H excluded), and a more definite commitment on the timing of actual irrigation development could assist.

The supporting documentation advances arguments on the understanding of the local agencies and interest groups at the time.

The deputation was arranged for 14 July 1972 and included representatives from the County, Commission and Federated Farmers. The submission states:

“Integrated Development and Multiple Water Use

In 1967, following a visit by the late Hon .. Shand, the District understood that provision would be made in the hydro design where practicable, to incorporate such construction as would facilitate future irrigation developments.

This understanding was very clear locally, and it is a matter of considerable concern that these provisions were not made. The principles were also clearly enunciated by the Interdepartmental Committee, studying the Mackenzie Water Resources, in their Report, dated 1966. This report supplied the basic information utilised in the granting of the water rights to the Hydro-electric Power schemes, and the adoption of the report for this purpose was a further indication to the local area that the outlets would be provided.

The Council considers that it was most unfortunate that the wider view of integrated and comprehensive regional development was not taken in conjunction with the consideration of the hydro-electric power plans. Efficient water resource utilisation requires that hydro-electric power requirement should be considered in conjunction with, and not to the detriment of, medium term (20-40 years) needs of agriculture, recreation, tourism, conservation, forestry and irrigation. In addition, the sociological, and general environmental aspects need to be competently considered. Examples of this are apparent in this area, where the economic viability of several properties has been seriously limited by the taking of the flat winter-feed producing country for power production.

This has necessitated stocking reductions in some cases, and in others a serious depletion in the tussock cover of the remainder of the property. In some cases, Soil Conservation subsidised assistance has been required to off-set some of the more serious aspects. This evidence was available and a comprehensive regional study should have noted these aspects and assisted Government in its decisions. The provision of irrigation to the properties of the Mackenzie Basin will in some measure offset these adverse effects of hydro-electric development.

As hydro-electric power planning in the area is at an advanced stage, time does not allow a comprehensive up to date Regional study to be made. However, in the interests of effective multiple water use, where the uses are complementary, it is not unreasonable to allow a planned irrigation development to parallel the hydro-electric power works. Construction plant suitable for both purposes is available in the area; and Government assistance through finance, and scheme design can be proved to be in both the regional and national interest. … Appendix A [from the Interim Report on Aspects of Irrigation] discusses further comparative values of water.

Land Tenure

With the exception of approximately 8,500 acres, all of the potentially irrigable land is held under Pastoral Lease.

Compensation

The provision of irrigation facilities as part of the present development works, can be construed as reasonable compensation to the district, for the denial of a potential water resource and to the almost exclusive use of that resource for electricity.

Future Water Rights

It is pertinent to note that irrigation development over the period of the current water right is not likely to require the full use of 520 cusecs thus far allocated for irrigation. As irrigation development of the district reaches potential, an adjustment in water rights relating to electricity generation will be necessary. From examination of the storage/utilization of water in the complementary systems such an adjustment (to approximately 1200 c/s) will not detrimentally affect power generation capacity.”

On 28 July 1972 the Minister of Works wrote thanking the McKenzie CC for its proposals regarding the financing of irrigation outlets to be installed in the canals at present being planned and constructed. He advised he had referred the Council’s submissions to NWASCA after his colleagues and he had met the deputation.

On 22 August 1972 NWASCA wrote to the Council requesting further consideration to the best means of providing for the irrigation requirements of the area. The letter follows on:

“Your proposal is for the provision of irrigation outlets but with no commitment to make use of the facilities and even your most optimistic forecast is for only 32 cusecs, from a total capacity of many hundred, to be used over an undefined area within the next 20 years.

As a result of discussion with the Ministers it is apparent that the installation of outlets at a later date is not seen as a serious engineering problem, this applying to gravity outlets as well as siphons and pumps. In almost all cases there would be a financial gain by delaying construction until actually required. An exception to this could be the proposed outlet from Lake Pukaki and this is presently under further investigation by MOW.

It is suggested … that the farmers be approached again and asked to state their requirements for the near future, and for the county to ascertain if these can be satisfied by the installation of a limited number of outlets. As an example, the provision of an outlet near the Maryburn would provide water for some six properties in that vicinity.

I will request the DCW Christchurch to offer the assistance of his irrigation staff for the carrying out of feasibility studies.”

The County on 15 November 1972 responds to the DCW’s letter of 31 August accepting the offer to carry out a feasibility study of the irrigation proposals that may follow their further consideration of local requirements. The County’s letter also states:

“Local requirements have now been determined and these conservatively indicate the initial area involved to be a minimum of 1300 acres.”

A meeting on irrigation in the Mackenzie Basin convened and chaired by the Chairman of the Mackenzie Branch of Federated Farmers held on December 4 1975 includes a number of the stakeholders. The meeting expressed dissatisfaction with the progress. In March 1976 practically all the Mackenzie country farmers having an area of land commanded by water from the power canals, applied to the DCW for investigation into irrigation proposals. The Waitaki Catchment Commission and MAF (Fairlie) supported these applications. Subsequent discussion indicated that the farmers were interested mainly in small scale irrigation to guarantee winter feed to balance their run areas. The farmers were also very keen to see irrigation outlets for all possible irrigation schemes installed in the power canals at the time of their construction. [14]

3.6. Land Settlement Board and Pastoral Leases

The Land Settlement Board visited the Waitaki Basin 2-4 July 1980.[15] The background report to the Board’s visit identifies a number of options and states:

“As the agency responsible for the administration of Crown land the Land Settlement Board feels it has a duty to play an active role along with other agencies in influencing land use in the Upper Waitaki in respect of the development of irrigation. The Board wishes to obtain the views of the local people and other involved agencies and recognises there is no simple answer to the alternatives in respect of future use.” [16]

In 1980 MOW had pointed out to the Land Settlement Board that the pastoral lease situation in the Upper Waitaki Basin with a few farmers operating very large runs hindered irrigation development, with more farmers needed to settle on the land and as much as possible of the land irrigated to spread the scheme’s costs for a scheme to be economic. There was the potential for minor private irrigation developments using small streams as the water resource, as identified by the Waitaki Catchment Commission. Examples given were Godley Peaks, Irishmans Creek and Haldon Station (special case subsidised scheme), with irrigated flat to balance the hill area of the runs. Such irrigation could improve a run so it could be divided into two runs.

It is not known whether the Land Settlement Board took any action as a result of its consideration of land use in the Upper Waitaki undertaken in the early 1980s. It is noted that the Land Settlement Board was abolished around the time of the first stage of major state sector restructuring.

3.7. Progress by 1982

By 1982 the investigation and construction of irrigation schemes had been limited to the Wolds scheme (400 ha, 2 farmers, with water from Tekapo-Pukaki power canal, and an irrigation subsidy) with approximately half developed, The Maryburn-Simons Pass scheme (300 ha developed, 4 farmers, on farm subsidy, water from Maryburn Stream) and the Haldon scheme (400 ha, 1 farmer, subsidy from a Soil and Water Conservation plan for the property, Stony Creek water).[17]

In 1982 MOW advised that the possible enlarged Maryburn scheme (3800 ha) was the highest priority for irrigation in this area. This was mainly due to the fact that half of the six farmers involved have shown a positive interest in extending irrigation beyond that covered by the existing small Maryburn-Simons Pass scheme. The possible Pukaki-Ruataniwha scheme (5300 ha) appeared more attractive but the farmers there have not shown as much interest.

3.8. Installation of Canal Outlets

A 1982 memo from the Project Engineer states that the official position was the provision of outlet points in the power canal at the construction stage was not practicable because the irrigation development was not known. Future withdrawals could be established using pumping and siphoning techniques, as had been used successfully at Lakes Hawea and Waitaki. However, the Project Engineer took a different position and considered that the engineering difficulties of going back into areas of finished work with resulting canal shut-downs and dewatering etc would justify the forward expenditure, as well as tidying up the administrative processes and resulting in a few large outlets constructed rather than a whole series of small outlets.

Some irrigation outlets were installed in the canals during the construction of the Upper Waitaki Scheme. The Project Engineer reports on two irrigation outlets about 2 kilometres apart on Tekapo B canal, 12” siphons with a wasteful 2” permanent outflow from the peak in the line used to make these work, and comments adversely on the use of siphons in general. A 42” pipe outlet on Tekapo B canal for irrigation water in the Maryburn as a gravity outflow (estimated to cost about $100,000) was proposed involving considerable disturbance to an otherwise completed area. However, this was not constructed because of the two week shutdown of Tekapo B and A required with consequent loss of generation.

A planned outlet at the Lake Ohau control weir with the potential to irrigate flat country between the Ohau and Ahuriri Rivers (costing about $92,000) is signalled and was constructed. The Project Engineer’s “intention on the costs is that the money spent can be held in project account until such times as irrigation work can pay for it.” [18] It is understood this outlet has never been used for irrigation.

A similar outlet was proposed for the Ohau B penstock intakes and this was built into the Ohau B penstock intakes with a pipe laid to Tomahawke Gully from where the run holder constructed a water race from the pond.

3.9. Change in Government Policy on Irrigation

In the mid-1980s the Government reduced and then removed subsidies for irrigation and disposed of Government owned community irrigation schemes. The abolition of MWD and NWASCA and their respective roles also occurred on 1 April 1988.

The major Government policy changes in the mid-late 1980s in respect of the removal of subsidies for farming, along with the demise of the MOW, MAF farm advisers and Rural Bank support and the termination of all government assistance for irrigation development, may also have had an impact on irrigation.

A September 1987 Report Review of Existing Community Irrigation Schemes in New Zealand with a View to the Future was prepared for the Minister of Works and Development to explore and recommend ways in which existing community irrigation schemes could achieve financial and management independence from Government by putting full responsibilities in the hands of the irrigators. The report produced recommendations specific to each scheme for the control of all existing community schemes with a view to having them self sufficient and ensuring their long term viability.

This report has listed as Community Irrigation Schemes:

Scheme Name	Region	Operator	Irrigator Organisation	Irrigable Area	No. Of Irrigators
MARYBURN	Waitaki	Irrigators	Farmers cooperative company	270	4
THE WOLDS	Waitaki	Irrigators	None	400	2
HALDON	Waitaki	Irrigators	Single farm owner	283	1

3.10. In Summary:

The 1966 Interdepartmental Committee’s Report contained recommendations on co-ordinated planning of water developments for hydro-electric power generation to make the best economic use of Mackenzie Basin waters. The Committee recommended that the MOW arrange for an investigation into details of ways and means of satisfying present and future water requirements for land use so that sources and points of supply may be determined.

A Co-ordinating Committee chaired by the DCWChristchurch was set up, as recommended in the Interdepartmental Committee’s Report, but made little progress on irrigation.

In July 1971 the Mackenzie run holders petitioned the Waitaki Catchment Commission for a feasibility study on irrigation, with particular reference to the installation of outlet points. The interim irrigation policy resulted in a change in responsibilities for irrigation and the Commission forwarded a request for irrigation investigation in the Mackenzie Basin to the Mackenzie Country Council.

A Joint Committee of the Waitaki Catchment Commission and Mackenzie County Council worked on irrigation from 1972. However, issues with the time and cost it would take to provide the information necessary to advance irrigation and particularly outlets from the canals resulted in a decision to take a deputation to the Ministers of Electricity, Lands and Agriculture. The deputation reminded the Ministers of the background to hydro-electricity and irrigation provision in the Mackenzie Country.

The deputation and submission results in the matter being referred to NWASCA. NWASCA seeks some commitment from the farmers to make use of the facilities and offering to the assistance of the MOW’s irrigation staff to carry out feasibility studies. NWASCA points out that outlets can be installed at a later date.

In March 1976 Mackenzie farmers applied to the MOW for investigation into irrigation proposals and were keen to see irrigation outlets for all possible irrigation schemes installed in the power canals at the time of their construction.

Some irrigation outlets were constructed as part of the canal construction works for the hydro-electricity development. These were two irrigation outlets about 2 km apart on Tekapo B canal and an outlet built into the Ohau B penstock intakes with a pipe laid to Tomahawke Gully from where the run holder constructed a water race from the pond. An outlet at Lake Ohau was also constructed.

The land tenure situation, with much of the area suitable for irrigation in large run holding pastoral leases, may have had an impact on the take up of irrigation. The general requirement at the time was for supplementary feed for winter rather than the intensive irrigation development considered feasible by the Interdepartmental Committee.

The major Government policy changes in the mid-late 1980s in respect of farming, irrigation and state sector restructuring may also have had an impact on irrigation.

The 1987 Review of Existing Irrigation Schemes lists the following irrigation schemes and irrigable area: Maryburn (270 ha), The Wolds (400 ha), Haldon (283 ha).

12 On 28 February 1972 the Minister of Works Percy Allen replied to the local MP on irrigation development in the Mackenzie Basin. Since his visit to the area last year he says the Government has reviewed irrigation policy and there are interim measures for dealing with proposals pending the adoption of a new policy. He describes the interim policy. The Waitaki CC had been informed of these moves and told that for any irrigation proposal under investigation the project engineer Twizel would prepare an estimate of the cost for the supply of water from the canal where this is likely to be the best water source. The Minister said he had also informed the South Canterbury Federated Farmers that the location of withdrawal points could not be fixed until the irrigation development has been planned and this depends on the farmers concerned making a firm commitment to irrigation and accepting the responsibility for costs apart from any Government contribution that may be granted.
He recommended encouraging the CC to complete its resources survey and allocation plan and farmers wanting irrigation to request the County to undertake necessary investigations. The letter says that the county would no doubt require a commitment from the farmers that they would be prepared to pay the cost of investigations.
On 15 March 1972 the local MP wrote to the County with a copy of the Minister’s letter and suggesting a meeting of the County, Waitaki CC, Federated Farmers and the Project Engineer Twizel.

13 Preliminary cost estimates provided for the installation of irrigation outlets from the Ministry of Works were provided on the understanding that “MOW will provide formal design and firm estimates at no cost to the irrigation system. These firm prices will have to be met by the farmers or their promoting authority.” Only one outlet appeared to justify construction at the present time on technical and possibly economic grounds. There was to be no come back on NZED if after detailed design of the irrigation system the locations were found to be less than most favourable. A letter to the Council from local consulting engineers and land surveyors says:
We are informed that MOW considers that no government irrigation subsidy would be available unless the above works are accompanied by a full scheme and estimate and of course this would have to stand up to economic survey as well.

14 6/37 vol 2 Mackenzie Plains Irrigation Scheme General 1979-82 – various correspondence

15 Background Notes Land Settlement Board Visit to Waitaki Basin 2-4 July 1980

16 The Mackenzie County Council was advised of a meeting on 3 July 1980 in Omarama.

17 6/37 vol 2 Mackenzie Plains Irrigation Scheme General 1979-82 – various correspondence

18 Power Engineering MOW correspondence 15 March 1980, 28 March 1980

19 6/37 vol 2 Mackenzie Plains Irrigation Scheme General 1979-82 – various correspondence

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