Fish and Game's rant directed at progress

DISAPPOINTED: Andrew Curtis. PHOTO/SUPPLIED

An Open Letter

Fish and Game's comments about the Wairarapa Water Use Project were not only reckless and sensational, but they also go against the collaborative spirit the organisation signed up to with the Land and Water Forum.

Several years ago, in order to manage our water resources in a less combative and more constructive way, Government created the Land and Water Forum to bring diverse water stakeholder groups together to thrash out solutions with everyone's backing.

One of the recommendations in the first report, that Fish and Game signed up to, was to endorse a community approach (including both national and local financial support) when investigating water storage schemes. Forum members agreed it was appropriate that local communities should be involved in water storage investigations in their regions, given the many benefits it can bring including environmental flows and augmentation, as well as downstream social and economic gains.

So when the Wairarapa Water Use Project named its preferred sites for further investigation this week, Fish and Game (as one of the members of the Land and Water Forum) should have been among those to congratulate, not bag them, for the progress they are making through this collaborative community development.

They seem to have forgotten the promises they have made at the national level to work collaboratively and support community-driven water management initiatives.

Attacking the decision not to choose a prime salmon spawning site as one of two sites for further investigation smacks of madness.

Fish and Game's concerns have been listened to so why are they continuing to stir the pot? Criticising the possible recreational advantages water storage could bring seems petty. Perhaps they need to talk to their own membership to see whether a new lake or canal is of interest? In the South Island, some of the most popular fishing spots are located on irrigation dams and hydro lakes. Claiming water storage will have no recreational benefits doesn't line up with the reality where year-around kayaking, sailing and other boating pursuits take place on stored water lakes originally created for irrigation, but which now have multiple uses.

They then go on to attack Lake Opuha for failing this summer but the dam, having water releases for river flows as its first priority, actually managed to maintain flows in the Opihi River in the area's driest summer for 40 years.

Perhaps Fish & Game need reminding they were rescuing fish from other rivers that had gone dry and releasing them into the Opihi River, and that's only because of the Opuha Dam. Not a failure by our standards.

Let's be real. It appears that Fish and Game is only interested in blocking the progress of the Wairarapa Water Use Project. They claim support for 'environmentally sustainable farming' but are throwing missiles at a community project which will deliver sustainable, reliable water which will allow a variety of horticultural and agricultural land uses to multiply in the region.

What is the solution for Wairarapa if you take the project out of the mix? No other regional economic development solution offers the same revitalisation prospects for the area.

You only need to look at Canterbury and Otago to see how water has impacted these regional economies. In North Otago, the development of the North Otago Irrigation Company contributes at least five per cent or $48 million annually to regional GDP and maintains 274 jobs.

In Timaru, the nearby Opuha Dam and related irrigation creates 480 jobs and adds $41 million a year to regional GDP.

Any water storage and irrigation development that proceeds in Wairarapa will need to go through a robust consenting process overseen by national water quality and quantity requirements. This is what Fish and Game agreed to through the Land and Water Forum process. But now they are throwing their toys when a community-driven water project actually makes progress.

IrrigationNZ was disappointed to read this random rant and we hope the organisation will choose to resume its participation in local efforts to maintain a constructive dialogue around community ownership of water management.