Water allocation Te Awarua-o-Porirua whaitua Water allocation - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

water allocation te awarua o porirua whaitua water
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Water allocation Te Awarua-o-Porirua whaitua Water allocation - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Water allocation Te Awarua-o-Porirua whaitua Water allocation topics Connection with values and objectives Setting limits Decisions needed Permitted activities Managing within limits High level objectives and values Eg.


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Water allocation Te Awarua-o-Porirua whaitua

slide-2
SLIDE 2
  • Connection with values and objectives
  • Setting limits
  • Permitted activities
  • Managing within limits

Water allocation topics

Decisions needed

slide-3
SLIDE 3
slide-4
SLIDE 4

High level objectives and values

Eg.

  • Mahinga kai
  • Diverse and healthy ecosystems
  • Sustainable land management
slide-5
SLIDE 5

Setting limits

We set at least 2 types of limits:

  • Minimum flow limits
  • Allocation limits

…in order to provide

  • Habitat protection; and…
  • Reliable water supply

…that contribute to achieving your objectives

slide-6
SLIDE 6

The “default” limits are…

  • Minimum flow limits = 90% MALF
  • Allocation limits = 30% MALF

These came from national defaults (“Proposed NES”) put into the existing proposed GW plan. But we’ve now modelled their effect for Porirua streams – for both habitat & supply reliability

[MALF = mean annual low flow = common “low” flow statistic]

slide-7
SLIDE 7

What do default limits achieve? –for habitat protection?

  • 14 native freshwater fish species present in

the Whaitua

  • Analysed 8 species broadly & 2 indicator

species in detail

  • 98% of low flow habitat for tuna (long-fin eels)
  • 89% of low flow habitat for trout
  • Other native fish between these ( >90%)
slide-8
SLIDE 8

What do default limits achieve? –for reliability of supply?

  • 10-14% of the time consented water takes

must reduce to take less than full amount (i.e. “partial restrictions)

  • 6-9% of time water takes must cease
  • This reliability of supply is comparable or

better than elsewhere in region

slide-9
SLIDE 9
  • Recognise there is a trade-off between these.
  • Need value judgement decision on the balance.
  • Higher minimum flows & smaller allocation

limits give more habitat, but less use.

  • Do the default limits (90/30) strike a fairly

protective balance?

Habitat prot. Vs Supply for use

slide-10
SLIDE 10

How do the limits work?

… lets work through an example… Ask Questions!!!

slide-11
SLIDE 11

e.g., Pauatahunui Stream

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Managing within limits

  • Establish numerical limits in all catchments
  • Establish how much water is taken

(consents and permitted)

  • Ensure water takes cease at minimum

flows

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Recap

  • Default minimum flows (90% MALF)
  • Default allocation limits (30% MALF)
  • Good habitat prot. (98% tuna; 89% trout; other >90%)
  • Modest reliability of supply for use
  • Decision on 90/30 balance OK, or other?
slide-14
SLIDE 14
slide-15
SLIDE 15

CONSENTED WATER TAKES

OTHER PERMITTED ACTIVITY WATER USE STOCK DRINKING WATER & DOMESTIC USE

ALLOCATION LIMIT

THE WATER ALLOCATION BUCKET

slide-16
SLIDE 16

29 litres per second PERMITTED ACTIVITY WATER USE 47.5 l/s

STOCK DRINKING WATER & DOMESTIC USE 3.5 l/s

Pautahanui Stream water allocation bucket

CONSENTED WATER TAKES 27.5 l/s CONSENTED WATER TAKES

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Permitted activity options

  • Simple
  • Comparable to other councils and

elsewhere in region

  • Reduce the permitted activity block to

5 m3 per day

  • Cutoff at minimum flow