They had thought up to five years was needed to identify and execute long-term solutions to PC6 challenges.
But any extension looks unlikely after a recommendation for council staff to begin discussions about deferring PC6 dates through a plan change was lost by one vote at a regional planning committee meeting yesterday.
There had been two possible plan change paths which could have been used, had stakeholders supported this.
But no budget or staff time were allocated for any type of PC6 "fix" plan change.
One possibly could take a year, and cost up to $150,000, and the alternative could take about 18 months and cost up to $200,000.
This was labelled a "fools errand" by Hastings councillor Tom Belford, who said the wider Hawke's Bay community wanted to see the council get on with implementing the plan change.
"Moves like this to me are just diversionary and distracting in delaying the inevitable, I don't think we're doing anybody a service in holding out these kind of changes."
Some committee members took issue in considering undergoing "what is in effect ... a plan change for 76 irrigators", as councillor Rick Barker said.
He worried there was no assurance the same issue would not arise again if an extension was given, adding he wanted to know specifically how water users would use the extra time.
Other members sympathised with the CHB community, with Mike Mohi saying they faced a "real tragedy" as the 76 consents with minimum flow conditions were tied to hundreds of jobs and played a key role in the area's economy.
"All jokes aside it was only in the last couple of months that the penny dropped that no, [the RWSS] was not going to go ahead, and that was a real shock to CHB."
Central Hawke's Bay councillor Debbie Hewitt assured members the community were already working together, and holding regular meetings to discuss a way forward.
"People in CHB are closely running out of time and they are certainly not resting on their laurels," she said.
Yesterday 10 members voted for the recommendation to discuss a plan change, while four voted against, a council spokesman said. The committee requires an 80 per cent super majority for anything to be passed - meaning it needed 11 "for" votes out of 14.
Options were still available for consent holders, including requesting a private plan change be formulated, or applying to change consent conditions.
The council remained open to speaking with stakeholders and working with consent holders on collaborative solutions to mitigate the impacts of the new minimum flows.
The introduction of new minimum flows - below which irrigation bans are imposed - would raise the current minimum flow from 3500 litres a second to 4300 litres a second by July 2018 at one location. This would go up to 5200 litres a second in July 2023 .
