1
From Hamilton Runs Limited
[email protected], [email protected]
Re: Proposed Plan Change 7 to the Regional Plan: Water for Otago Submission of Lay Evidence:
Introduction:
1. Hamilton Runs Limited was a submitter opposing Plan Change 7
2. Hamilton Runs Limited is a family run sheep and beef farm of 4,800 hectares. Three generations of the Weir family independently operate the farm, currently with room for employing further labour units. A large proportion of the property is a dryland operation, with irrigation occurring on a small proportion of the property which sustains the farming operation, producing crops for winter feed and finishing stock. 3. Our property is located in the Maniototo – Central Otago.
4. We farm approximately 9000 sheep and 600 cattle.
5. We have farmed on our property for 25 years, self-funding the purchase and through years of hard work growing the business to what we have acquired today. Current Situation
6. We have a permit to abstract water from the Pigburn and Capburn water sources for irrigation, stock water and domestic purposes. We also have a small number of shares in the East Side Irrigation Company supplied from the consent holder, Maniototo Irrigation Company from their storage at the Loganburn Dam. 7. The Pigburn water permit expires October 2021.
8. We are a member of The Pigburn water users’ group which consists of a total of 10 permits. The group was formed in 2015 and has been working collectively over the last 5 years to seek replacement permits.
9. The Capburn permit Consent No. RM17.263.01 was renewed in 2018 for a period of 25 years.
Comment on Specific Details of PC7
10. Proposed permit terms restricted to a maximum of six years.
11. Uncertainty created by a 6-year term is a massive disincentive to committing to future capital expenditure and provides heightened fear and stress of not being able to maintain or grow the business we have worked so hard to cultivate.
2
12. Hamilton Runs has developed and has extensive plans to develop further storage dams with more efficient water usage systems. We have worked over the last few years with consultants to identify areas for further pivot development with plans identified, and jobs scoped. We have invested considerable time and funds in the development of storage dams and replaced flood irrigation systems with K line, hard hose guns and centre pivots over the last 6 years.
Hamilton Runs Investments in Efficient Irrigation Practices over the last 6 years:
13. We have been told for many years by the ORC that we would need to be using water efficiently in order to get existing allocation on permits to be replaced when permits expire. We are also aware that National Policy requires us to use water efficiently. East Side Irrigation Company also have an expectation of efficient water use - this is for this Company to be compliant with ORC requirements. The investment required to do this on our farm has been significant, as a portion of the farm was historically irrigated using wild flooding. We now seem to be in a no-win situation – if you do not invest in efficient systems, you won’t get your allocation replaced, but the ORC will not give us long term permits to allow us to make these investments.
14. Below is an overview of the investments we have made to improve efficiency of use on our property:
15. Investment in 2015:
a. Installation of 350 m Pivot to replace wild flooding, mainline, Genset and installation of IQ (variable rate application) to enable water to be efficiently applied only where required and turned off on areas where it is not required for water conservation. A dam was also constructed in 2015 for additional water storage.
b. Total Cost (excluding labour) $264,593.
16. Investment in 2016- 2017
c. Replacement of 6 km pipeline carrying irrigation water from Capburn take to rectify water loss from inherited (at purchase) old leaking infrastructure (see fig. 16).
d. Purchase of Bulldozer and Digger - earthmoving equipment to build storage dams (see fig. 8 & 9).
e. 1/3 share purchase of rut-buster to rectify damage to land from pivot wheels. f. Additional pipeline costs, infrastructure costs of laying underground pipes,
and new fencing. Additional fuel and oil used in construction of dam. Consultancy and regulatory fees and consent fees for installation. Hire of
3
helicopter to carry pipes to site. Dam investigation fees by Geologists to identify suitable sites for construction of dams on our property.
g. Total Cost (excluding labour) $592,903
17. Investment in 2018-2019
h. Installation of Debont pivot, mainline, electrics and pump for Dam,
Installation of power to run the pivot, underground pipework, troughs and fencing, Additional fuel and oil costs.
i. Total Cost (excluding labour) $483,733
j. The Total spend on improving water efficiency on Hamilton runs between 2015 – 2019 (excluding labour) is $1,341,229, bank funded.
k. On top of this a calculated labour and contracting cost over the 5 years of approximately $500,000 +
18. Investment in 2020
l. Fencing of 4-hectare area around dam, family planting project of native and exotic species (see fig .1, 2, 3, 12, 13 & 14 at end of this submission),
contouring work to create nutrient traps and ongoing fencing.
19. Investment in 2021-2025
20. Proposed future developments in relation to efficient water use:
m. Geologists and consultants have identified several areas suitable for dam construction.
n. Each dam would carry an estimated cost of over $1 Million.
21. Commencement of any dam construction has been delayed due to the uncertainty of our water permit renewals and viability of borrowing funds to complete this project. Commencement will depend on outcomes of water permit renewal and any changes with National & Regional Water Policy.
22. ORC asked farmers to use water more efficiently, we have invested a considerable portion of our farm income on this ideal, financing through bank loans; with the understanding we were being proactive in protecting the environment whilst producing a valuable food source in the form of grass-fed beef and lamb. A valuable food source that is required to maintain healthy communities. The water is required to increase productivity (growing more feed for stock) to make the small profit we do to repay the bank loans – Our bank has indicated that future lending could be
4
difficult to obtain for farmers without confirmation of a water permit being of reasonable terms.
23. The proposed six-year permit would create challenges in securing finance and efficiency improvements will be restricted.
24. There would be increased costs associated with obtaining multiple permits and consultancy fees for each renewal. Because we have a permit to abstract from Pigburn, Capburn and a small amount from East Side Irrigation we would have duplicated regulatory red tape and compliance costs as well as having to engage environmental consultants on a regular basis. The financial impact of this restricts us to be able to be proactive with making aspirational environmental improvements that we know will make real measurable gains on Hamilton Runs (see fig. 12, 13, 14) 25. Our Pigburn group application was lodged prior to the notification of PC7 but has still
been affected by it – we are aware that the ORC is recommending the grant of short term permits for all such applications. The process for our application began in 2015 and over 5 years after significant on-farm investment to improve efficiency,
countless meetings, consultancy hours and time spent pulling together the application we are tired and stressed by the process.
26. According to MPI, anecdotal evidence and analysis of mental health statistics reveal that rural communities have high rates of burn out and stress, which have the potential to lead to depression and other forms of mental illness, as well as suicide. We have invested in irrigation improvements, taking on this debt to ensure we are using the precious water resource in the most efficient way. We have real concerns which are impacting the mental health of our family members - we have sleepless nights worrying about renewal of consents and what the outcome of PC7 will do to our ability to repay the debt we have. Will we have the means to repay this debt if our permits are heavily restricted?
27. As a small family unit, we see ourselves as Kaitiaki of the land and have every intention to leave the land better for the next generation. If our small profit and limited spare time is spent fighting policy, we are not able to get on with the environmental improvements we want to undertake. Our whanau has a
commitment to our community and are active participants in our rural community, involved as Chairpersons, secretaries and treasurers of numerous community groups from Rodeo club, Maniototo Promotions, Athletics Club, Junior Rugby Club, Golf Club, Bridge Club, Curling Club, Garden Club, , Irrigation Companies, Upper Taieri Catchment Group, Art Council, Justice of the Peace, Collie Club, Rural Fire brigade (see fig. 15), Red Meat Profit Partnership group and Community Development Groups as well as anything else we are asked to contribute to. Without the ability to irrigate, our farm would not be sufficient as a stand-alone unit that could support all three generations that live here. This could be a driving factor to leave the rural sector and look for employment in urban areas, depleting the community of active members who have pride in where we are from and what we have to offer.
5
28. With the permit terms being limited to 6 years and current flows being reduced it has potential to significantly bring down the land value of property. Irrigated land in our area currently sells for between $ 15,000 - $20,000 ha compared to dry land properties which sell for $2,000 - $8,000 ha. This is partly to do with the
infrastructural improvements on irrigated land but more importantly the water permit being long term and secure. If we were in the undesirable situation where we had to sell the property due to the inability to maintain our current farming practice, affecting our ability to generate enough income to repay interest and principal repayments to the bank we predict that the purchasers either won’t be interested or the amount they are willing to pay for unsecured and short-term water permits would be at dry land prices.
29. ORC is represented by a collaboration of paid employees who have time and experts appointed to them, funding is provided for their organisation to present their case in the environmental court. Whilst we are representing ourselves to avoid further associated expenses incurred through the use of legal and consultancy advisors as we present our evidence to the Environment Court. The whole process of appearing at the Environmental Court is well outside our comfort zone, and feels awfully intimidating and unlike anything we have done before. However, we believe it is especially important to be part of the conversations that underline our family and farming existence.
30. Water is integral to our farm; we work on the land daily and have knowledge and experience of how our environment and waterways work and change (see fig. 10). Not only are we trying to get on with the day-to-day workload of our busy farming operations where we have been faced with an exceptionally dry winter and spring, followed by severe flooding during January, (fig. 4, 5, & 7), we have the added stress of proposed changes that could eventuate with proposed PC7 changes. Stress levels are extremely high, we are restless and losing sleep and the process of renewing permits and facing multiple changes to the regional water plan is taking a toll on the health and wellbeing of our usually very robust and optimistic family.
31. The time and money spent stalling the deed permit process, would be better spent working alongside the willing rural community, listening, and having a solutions-based approach. The farmers that we know in our catchment are proactive and dedicated to improving environmental factors for fresh water in the Maniototo. 32. We ask that the Environmental Court consider feedback from the farming
community of the impact any changes will have on our families, farming operations and livelihood.
33. We respectfully submit that Plan Change 7 be rejected by the Environment Court. Stuart, Tracey, Gerard, Renee, Eddie and Marley Weir
6
Fig. 1 Hamilton Runs fenced off dam and tree planting relating to ref. 18 & 24
7 Fig.3 Family tree planting around dam. Ref. 18 & 24
8
Fig. 4 Flood Damage Hamilton Runs Limited, January 2021 Ref. 30
9
Fig 6 – Flooding on the Pigburn across an entire paddock, Ref. 30
10
Fig 8 – Celebrating the achievement of our first pivot with extended family
Fig 9 – Plant and Machinery purchased to enable us to independently continue with irrigation improvements. Ref. 16
11
Fig 10 – Children saving stranded fish after flood waters had retreated leaving fish in pools of water. Ref. 30
12
Fig 12, 13, 14 – Making our own environmental improvements with money we budgeted towards this project. Ref. 24
13
Fig 15 – The importance of having farmers who drop tools to support the rural community. Neighbouring farm lost 300ha to fire caused by a lightening strike in 2019. Ref. 27
14 Fig 16 – Capburn Pipeline installed. Ref. 16 c
