Canterbury farming, irrigation and freshwater: who controls what before the 2026 election?

The key distinction for a mid-Canterbury irrigated farm is between the rules set by central government, the regional rules administered by Environment Canterbury (ECan), and the conditions attached to your individual water and land-use consents.

These are three different layers of decision-making. A change of national government can have a substantial effect on all three, but it cannot simply rewrite every existing farm consent or personally decide how much water your farm can take.

There is also an important development for your election decision: New Zealand's resource management system has undergone major legislative change in 2026. The Natural Environment Act and Planning Act received Royal assent on 30 September 2026. However, the transition is gradual, so the existing RMA framework and Canterbury rules remain relevant while the new system is implemented. Our response to central government reformsResource management reforms

Here's how to separate the powers.

1. What central government can change

Central government has considerable influence because Parliament makes the laws and ministers can establish national environmental direction and standards.

Issue affecting your farm	What a national government can change
Freshwater quality standards	National environmental limits, minimum standards and requirements for councils
Farming practices	National rules for winter grazing, stock exclusion, fertiliser use and farm plans
Irrigation and water allocation	The statutory framework, national allocation principles and requirements for regional councils
Farming costs	Compliance obligations, reporting requirements, consent processes and regulatory thresholds
Land-use intensification	National restrictions or permissions relating to dairy conversions, highly productive land and other activities
Resource consent system	The legislation, decision-making tests, appeal rights and duration of consents
Environmental protection	National requirements for rivers, wetlands, groundwater and ecosystems

In other words, a government elected in 2026 could change the regulatory environment in which Canterbury farmers operate, even without directly changing an individual farmer's consent.

Freshwater policy is particularly important

The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) provides national direction to regional councils.

It establishes requirements around:

• The health and wellbeing of freshwater.
• Ecosystem health.
• Human health and recreational use.
• Māori values, including mahinga kai.
• Maintaining or improving freshwater quality.

The government amended the freshwater framework in 2024 and again in December 2025, with the latter amendments taking effect on 15 January 2026. Resource management reformsNational Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

This matters because a future government could amend national freshwater direction again, changing what ECan must incorporate into its regional planning.

2. What happens at Environment Canterbury level

Environment Canterbury (ECan) is the regional authority responsible for implementing freshwater and land-use rules in Canterbury.

It has an important practical role: translating national legislation into regional rules, allocating and managing water resources, issuing consents and monitoring compliance.

Under the current transitional arrangements, ECan retains its regional responsibilities.

For your farm, its decisions can affect:

• Whether you can obtain a new irrigation water permit.
• How much surface water or groundwater you can take.
• Minimum river flows and restrictions during low-flow periods.
• Groundwater allocation and cumulative effects of water use.
• Nutrient-loss limits and farming land-use consents.
• Conditions relating to irrigation efficiency, monitoring and reporting.
• Whether changes to an existing farm operation require additional consent.

Canterbury's Land and Water Regional Plan

The Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan (LWRP) is particularly important.

It contains regional rules governing water quality, nutrient management and farming activities.

One important feature is that the rules differ between parts of Canterbury. ECan identifies different nutrient allocation zones and sub-regional rules, including specific requirements for central Canterbury.

For example, ECan's current guidance identifies situations where farming land-use consent is required because of:

• The size of the authorised irrigated area.
• The extent of winter grazing.
• The nutrient allocation zone.
• Increases in irrigated area.
• The environmental sensitivity of the receiving catchment.

Some irrigation schemes also hold global land-use consents that manage nutrient losses for participating farms. Farming land use consent

This means two farms with similar production systems can face different regulatory obligations depending on their location and consent arrangements.

A particularly relevant Canterbury issue: water allocation

There is an important legal distinction between having irrigation infrastructure and having a legal right to take water.

A water permit is a separate legal entitlement, subject to its own conditions.

ECan administers these permits under the regional planning framework. Its decisions can affect:

• The volume of water you are authorised to take.
• The rate at which you can take it.
• The period of the year when water can be taken.
• Restrictions during low flows.
• Monitoring and measurement obligations.
• Whether an existing permit can be changed or renewed.

There is also an important Supreme Court decision affecting Canterbury water allocation.

The Court confirmed that, under the Canterbury LWRP, taking water and using that water generally cannot be considered separately unless the plan specifically provides for it.

The practical consequence is that in fully allocated or over-allocated areas, obtaining permission for a new take or changing an existing water use can be difficult. Guidance for resource management practitioners

This is particularly significant for farmers considering changes in irrigation systems, land use or production.

3. A current Canterbury development worth watching: Plan Change 8

Important regional issue in 2026

ECan's proposed Plan Change 8 (PC8) is directly relevant to irrigation reliability and farm flexibility.

It proposes changes to Canterbury water management, including:

• Allowing certain changes to how existing water consents are used, subject to conditions.
• Supporting wetland construction for environmental and flood-management benefits.
• Changing rules affecting infrastructure that intercepts groundwater.

As at 30 October 2026:

• Public submissions have closed.
• ECan is preparing the summary of decisions requested.
• Hearings have not started.
• No final decision has been made.
• The proposed changes are not yet operative.

Existing regional rules therefore remain applicable. Plan Change 8 (PC8) – Proposed changes to water management in Canterbury

You can follow the process through ECan's Plan Change 8 information and documents.

This is a good example of an issue where regional decision-making matters independently of the national election. National legislation sets the framework, but the detailed Canterbury plan process has its own stages, submissions and hearings.

4. What is controlled by your individual consents?

This is arguably the most important distinction for a family farm.

Even if Parliament changes national environmental rules, your existing water permit and farming land-use consent do not automatically become whatever the new government wants them to be.

Your individual consents have their own:

• Expiry dates.
• Authorised water volumes.
• Conditions of use.
• Monitoring requirements.
• Restrictions on land use.
• Nutrient-loss requirements.
• Review and renewal provisions.

The precise legal effect of a change in national legislation depends on the wording of that legislation and the transitional provisions.

For example, a national government might change the rules for future irrigation applications without automatically cancelling existing water permits.

Equally, an existing permit does not guarantee that every future change to your farming operation will be approved.

What about consent expiry?

There is a significant development here.

ECan reported on 30 September 2026 that approximately 6,000 existing Canterbury resource consents are expected to have their durations extended as part of the transition to the new system.

However, the new expiry dates are not yet confirmed. ECan is waiting for further government direction and identifying the affected consents.

In the meantime, consent holders must continue to comply with their existing conditions. New resource management laws: what happens next for CanterburyOur response to central government reforms

For a farming business planning succession and investment, this is worth following closely.

A longer consent period can affect investment certainty, but it should not be confused with a guarantee of unlimited water availability or unchanged operating conditions.

5. What the new Natural Environment Act and Planning Act mean

The two new Acts are especially important because they establish the framework that will eventually replace the RMA.

The transition is not immediate.

The published transition timetable

1. September–October 2026

   New legislation enacted. Transitional arrangements begin. Existing regional plans and consent processes continue.

2. 2027

   First national policy direction expected by September. Early national standards begin to emerge.

3. 2028

   National environmental limit standards and regional spatial planning milestones.

4. 2029

   Regional councils are expected to notify proposed new natural environment plans and land-use plans.

5. 2030 onwards

   The new planning system is expected to become fully operational, with the RMA repealed on the designated transition date.

Based on the government's published transition timetable as at October 2026. Key milestones in the transition

One particularly important feature of the Natural Environment Act is its environmental limits framework.

It provides for:

• National environmental standards.
• Environmental limits for human health and ecosystem health.
• Regional natural environment plans.
• Regional councils managing natural resources within those limits.
• Action plans where environmental limits are breached or are at risk of being breached.

It also provides for national government to issue policy direction and standards that regional councils must implement.

In other words, the new legislation still gives central government substantial influence over the way ECan manages water, even though ECan retains important regional functions. Natural Environment Act 2026

For farmers, one important question will be how the new system balances environmental limits against the economic costs of complying with them.

That is a legitimate issue to examine when considering the policies of the parties contesting the election.

6. Where the main farming and water decisions sit

Here is a practical summary.

Decision	Main decision-maker
National freshwater quality standards	Central government
National rules on fertiliser and stock exclusion	Central government
National rules for freshwater farm plans	Central government
National irrigation and allocation framework	Parliament and central government
Canterbury regional water allocation rules	ECan, within national requirements
River minimum flows	ECan, within the applicable framework
Local groundwater management	ECan
Canterbury nutrient allocation rules	ECan, within national requirements
Individual water permits	ECan
Individual farming land-use consents	ECan
Compliance with your permit	ECan
Irrigation scheme infrastructure and scheme-level arrangements	Relevant irrigation scheme, subject to its legal permissions
Changes to the fundamental resource management legislation	Parliament

There is one further democratic distinction worth remembering: ECan is a regional council with its own elected representatives. Voting in the national general election does not directly elect ECan councillors.

You therefore have two separate democratic avenues for influencing water management: national parliamentary elections and regional council elections.

7. The farming rules worth examining before you vote

For your circumstances, I would separate the political debate into five practical questions.

A. Will irrigation water remain available?

Look at whether parties propose:

• Changes to regional water allocation.
• Greater certainty for existing water permit holders.
• Changes to water permit renewal periods.
• Different approaches to water storage and irrigation infrastructure.
• Changes to minimum river flows and groundwater limits.
• Different priorities between existing users and new applicants.

A party promising to make irrigation easier still needs to explain how it would deal with fully allocated catchments and competing demands for water.

B. What will happen to freshwater quality obligations?

Examine proposals concerning:

• Nutrient losses, particularly nitrogen.
• Synthetic nitrogen fertiliser restrictions.
• Stock exclusion from waterways.
• Winter grazing.
• Freshwater farm plans.
• River and groundwater quality targets.

The national government can change many of these requirements, although some obligations are administered through regional plans and individual consents.

C. Will farming compliance costs increase or decrease?

Look beyond general promises to reduce red tape.

Ask about:

• The cost of preparing and auditing farm plans.
• Water measurement and reporting.
• Nutrient modelling and monitoring.
• Consent application and renewal costs.
• The cost of meeting new environmental limits.
• Whether existing compliance investments will be recognised.

D. Will farmers have greater certainty over long-term investment?

This is particularly relevant when considering succession.

Ask whether proposed policies provide:

• Greater certainty around water permit duration.
• Predictable renewal criteria.
• Protection against unexpected regulatory changes.
• Clear rules for changing irrigation technology.
• Recognition of existing infrastructure and investment.

E. How will freshwater protection be balanced against agricultural productivity?

This is the underlying policy question.

Different governments can choose different national environmental limits, regulatory approaches and economic priorities.

However, the physical availability of water, the health of aquifers and rivers, and the cumulative effects of land use remain important constraints regardless of which party is in government.

8. What I would check on your own farm

Before making investment or succession decisions, it would be useful to have a clear picture of the following.

Farm document or information	Why it matters
Current irrigation water permit	Confirms authorised volumes, conditions and expiry
Groundwater or surface-water allocation zone	Helps establish local water availability
Farming land-use consent	Establishes nutrient and operating obligations
Farm environmental or freshwater farm plan	Records environmental management requirements
Irrigation scheme agreement	Establishes scheme-level obligations and arrangements
PC8 implications	Indicates potential future flexibility around existing water consents

The ECan farmers' hub provides information on farming consents and regional requirements.

9. The most useful questions to put to political parties

Rather than relying on general election slogans about supporting farmers or protecting the environment, these are questions that get to the practical consequences.

1. Will you retain, amend or replace the current national freshwater quality requirements?
2. What will you do to provide long-term certainty for existing irrigation water permits?
3. How will you address fully allocated groundwater and surface-water catchments in Canterbury?
4. Will farmers face different nutrient-loss requirements, and how will existing farm investments be treated?
5. How will you balance freshwater environmental limits with the economic viability of irrigated farming?
6. What role will Environment Canterbury retain in deciding regional water allocation?
7. Will you provide transitional protection for existing consents and investment while the new planning system is implemented?

These questions can help distinguish between a promise to reduce compliance costs and a policy that actually changes your farm's ability to access water.

My overall assessment of the decision-making structure

The important thing to take away is that the national election matters considerably, but it is not the only election or decision-making process that matters to your farm.

• Central government determines the broad legislation, national freshwater requirements, environmental standards and direction of the resource management system.
• Environment Canterbury translates those requirements into regional water and land-use management, including allocation decisions and regional consenting.
• Your individual consents and irrigation scheme arrangements determine many of the practical rights, restrictions and obligations affecting your particular operation.

For a family farm looking 20–30 years ahead, I would pay particular attention to three things: the security of existing water permits, the future treatment of nutrient losses, and whether the new national environmental limits will leave sufficient flexibility for productive irrigated agriculture.

The challenge is to understand not just what a party says it will change, but which level of government actually has the power to deliver that change.

One useful next step: I can put together a neutral comparison of the 2026 election policies of National, Labour, NZ First, ACT, the Greens and other relevant parties, specifically on Canterbury irrigation, freshwater quality, farming costs and water allocation, distinguishing published commitments from campaign statements.

Canterbury farming and freshwater rules: who actually has the power?

For an irrigated farm in mid-Canterbury, one of the most important distinctions to understand before the 2026 general election is this:

The Government in Wellington sets much of the national framework, but Environment Canterbury (ECan) makes many of the regional water-management decisions, and your individual resource consents determine what your farm is actually allowed to do.

That means a change of national government can have significant consequences for irrigation reliability, nutrient limits, compliance costs and freshwater protection. But a change in government does not automatically change your water consent or give you a different allocation of water.

It helps to look at the system in three layers: national law, Canterbury regional rules, and individual farm consents.

1. What central government can change

The national government has substantial authority over freshwater and farming, even though it does not administer every farm consent.

The main national levers are:

National lever	What it can mean for your farm
Primary legislation	Change the legal framework for water allocation, land use, consenting and environmental protection.
National Policy Statements	Set national priorities and requirements for freshwater, biodiversity and highly productive land.
National Environmental Standards	Set nationwide rules for activities such as discharges, wetlands, stock exclusion and intensive farming.
Funding and infrastructure	Support or restrict investment in water storage, irrigation schemes and environmental projects.
National freshwater targets	Change the environmental outcomes regional councils must work towards.
Consent legislation	Change consent duration, renewal processes, conditions and the way applications are assessed.

A significant development: the RMA replacement

As at 30 October 2026, New Zealand has moved beyond simply discussing replacement of the Resource Management Act.

The Planning Act and Natural Environment Act received Royal assent on 30 September 2026. They are intended to replace the RMA through a staged transition.

This is important because the new legislation can reshape:

• How regional plans are prepared.
• How environmental limits are set.
• How farming and infrastructure activities are consented.
• How national environmental standards interact with regional rules.
• How much discretion regional councils have.

However, the change is not an overnight reset. ECan confirms that existing consents, compliance and planning processes remain in place during the transition. The old and new systems will operate alongside each other for a period of years. Resource management reformsOur response to central government reforms

The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

This is particularly relevant to irrigated Canterbury farming.

The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) establishes national direction for regional councils.

It deals with matters including:

• Freshwater quality and ecological health.
• Nutrient pollution, including nitrogen and phosphorus.
• Water allocation and environmental flows.
• Wetlands and streams.
• Fish habitat and passage.
• Māori values and Te Mana o te Wai.
• The protection of freshwater for human health and recreation.

The Government amended the NPS-FM in December 2025, with the amendments taking effect on 15 January 2026. The consolidated instrument is therefore important when assessing the rules currently applying in Canterbury. National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

What a new government could do: amend or replace national freshwater policy, change environmental bottom lines, alter the way nutrient pollution is regulated, and change the obligations imposed on regional councils.

That can have substantial consequences for farming costs and water availability.

But it is important to distinguish changing national policy from changing a particular farm's consent.

2. What Environment Canterbury controls

This is where the distinction becomes particularly important for a farm around Ashburton.

ECan is the regional authority responsible for managing Canterbury's freshwater resources under the applicable legislation and regional planning framework.

Its responsibilities include:

• Allocating water through resource consents.
• Setting and administering minimum river-flow requirements.
• Imposing restrictions on water takes during low-flow periods.
• Managing groundwater abstraction and its effects on rivers.
• Setting regional nutrient-management and farming land-use rules.
• Monitoring water quality and enforcing consent conditions.
• Processing consent applications, variations and reviews.

The principal regional planning instrument is the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan (CLWRP). It is operative and incorporates several plan changes. Canterbury Land and Water Regional PlanIrrigation restrictions

What this means for mid-Canterbury

There are three particularly important areas.

A. Irrigation water availability

ECan administers the conditions attached to water permits, including minimum flows and restrictions on abstraction.

For example, when a river falls below the trigger level specified in your consent, you might have to:

• Reduce your water take.
• Reduce it in stages as flows fall.
• Stop taking water altogether.
• Participate in a water-user rostering arrangement.

The trigger levels and restriction groups depend on the relevant waterway and consent. ECan publishes the applicable restrictions. Irrigation restrictions

B. Groundwater and surface-water connections

A bore does not necessarily provide an independent or guaranteed source of water.

If groundwater abstraction affects a nearby river, ECan can account for that connection when setting minimum-flow conditions.

This matters across the Canterbury Plains, where groundwater and surface water can be hydraulically connected.

C. Nutrient management and farming land use

ECan's regional rules determine when farming activities require resource consent and what conditions apply.

For central Canterbury, the relevant rules can differ substantially depending on the catchment and the property's location.

For example, ECan identifies particular requirements for:

• The Hinds/Hekeao Plains.
• Selwyn Plan Change 1 areas.
• Nutrient allocation zones.
• Areas where water-quality outcomes have not been met.

In the Hinds/Hekeao Plains, ECan identifies a farming land-use consent trigger for properties larger than five hectares where the nitrogen-loss calculation exceeds 15 kg/ha/year.

In the Selwyn PC1 area, a similar 15 kg/ha/year threshold is relevant, alongside additional geographical triggers.

These are regional rules, not a single nationwide nitrogen limit. Farming land use consent

A particularly relevant example: the Ashburton River

Actual Canterbury example

ECan has already reviewed water consents in the Hakatere/Ashburton River catchment.

Its review covered 87 consents involving surface-water takes or groundwater takes that deplete streams.

The outcome was:

Outcome	Number
Consents granted with new minimum-flow conditions	74
Reviews declined	10
Consents surrendered	3
Total	87

This demonstrates that water reliability is not determined solely by national policy.

ECan can review existing consents and introduce new minimum-flow conditions under the applicable legal powers.

The review was intended to protect waterway values while providing for the environment, community and consent holders. Ashburton water consents review

This is an important example to consider when assessing political promises about securing irrigation water.

A government might change national water policy, but that does not automatically reverse an ECan consent review or restore water that is no longer available under your permit.

3. What remains specific to your farm and its consents?

There is a third layer that can be just as important as national and regional policy.

Your individual resource consents establish the legal permissions and obligations attached to your operation.

For an irrigated farm, I would pay particular attention to these matters:

Farm issue	Where the decision sits
Permitted water take and volume	Individual water consent, within regional and national rules
Maximum abstraction rate	Individual water consent
Minimum-flow trigger	Individual consent and applicable regional framework
Groundwater restrictions	Individual consent and ECan's regional framework
Consent expiry	Individual consent and applicable legislation
Nitrogen-loss conditions	Farming land-use consent and applicable regional rules
Monitoring and reporting	Consent conditions and applicable regulations
Winter grazing restrictions	National and regional rules, and potentially individual consent conditions
Irrigation scheme obligations	Scheme-wide consent and scheme rules, where applicable

One detail worth checking is whether your irrigation scheme holds a global land-use consent covering its members.

ECan specifically identifies this arrangement as relevant to farming land-use consent requirements. Farming land use consent

Why consent expiry matters

A resource consent is not the same as permanent ownership of a water allocation.

Its duration, conditions, renewal requirements and the legal framework applying when it expires all matter.

A future government can change the legislation governing renewal and consenting. However, that does not mean that an existing permit automatically changes whenever a new government takes office.

If your farm relies heavily on irrigation, the expiry date and renewal provisions should be treated as important business-planning information.

4. Who controls the rules that affect farm costs?

It is useful to separate the different types of costs because they can be influenced by different levels of government.

Cost or risk	Main influence
Irrigation infrastructure investment	Central government, ECan, irrigation schemes and private investors
Water storage funding	Central government and infrastructure providers
Water permit application and monitoring	ECan and national legislation
Nitrogen mitigation and farm compliance	National standards, ECan rules and consent conditions
Farm environmental reporting	National regulations and regional requirements
Electricity for irrigation	Electricity market and infrastructure policy
Regional council rates	ECan and its funding decisions
Farm investment certainty	National law, regional plans and individual consent duration

Water storage is a good example of a national policy choice

National government can influence whether large-scale irrigation storage projects are financially viable through:

• Concessional loans.
• Infrastructure grants.
• National water-storage strategies.
• Streamlined consenting.
• National standards for off-stream water storage.

For example, the National Party's published water-security policy identifies a proposed $300 million concessional loan programme, a national water infrastructure pipeline and a proposed national irrigation standard.

These are examples of a party's policy commitments, not evidence that every proposed project has funding or approval. Securing water and fertiliser to back NZ farmers

Other governments could choose different approaches, including different environmental safeguards, funding priorities or restrictions on water infrastructure.

The important distinction is that funding a storage project does not automatically grant farmers the right to take and use the stored water. Relevant consents and environmental requirements still apply.

5. What should you look at when comparing election policies?

Rather than focusing only on whether a party says it supports farmers or freshwater protection, I would examine the actual policy mechanisms.

Here are six questions that relate directly to the long-term viability of an irrigated Canterbury farm.

Question to ask	Why it matters
1. What happens to existing irrigation consents?	Determines the security of existing water rights and renewal expectations.
2. What environmental limits will apply to rivers and aquifers?	Determines how much water may be available for abstraction.
3. How will nitrogen losses be managed?	Influences fertiliser decisions, stocking rates, land use and compliance costs.
4. Who sets regional freshwater rules?	Determines how much discretion ECan retains and how consistent rules are nationally.
5. Will water storage and irrigation infrastructure receive funding?	Affects future water reliability and capital costs.
6. How will freshwater monitoring and enforcement work?	Affects both environmental outcomes and farm compliance expenses.

There are legitimate competing considerations here.

• Greater environmental protection can require additional investment and changes to farm practices, but can also protect the long-term productivity of freshwater resources.
• Greater flexibility for farmers can reduce some immediate compliance costs, but the environmental consequences depend on the limits and safeguards that remain.
• More central government direction can produce greater national consistency, but may provide less scope for Canterbury-specific decisions.
• More regional discretion can accommodate local catchment conditions, but can also produce differences between regions.

These are policy trade-offs rather than automatic consequences of any particular party's name.

6. Where I would concentrate on the Ashburton area

For your circumstances, I would pay particular attention to four documents and processes.

1. Ashburton water consents review

Understand the minimum-flow conditions applying to your water source and whether your abstraction is affected by stream depletion.

ECan – Ashburton water consents review

2. Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan

Check the nutrient allocation zone, regional rules and any specific plan changes affecting your property.

ECan – Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan

3. Hinds/Hekeao Plains farming requirements

Particularly important if your property is within this area, given the nitrogen-loss consent threshold.

ECan – Farming land-use consent requirements

4. National freshwater legislation

Understand the freshwater requirements that central government can change and the transition to the new resource management system.

Ministry – National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

Also see the Natural Environment Act 2026.

7. The most important distinction for your 2026 vote

Here is the overall division of responsibility:

Central government

Sets the national framework

Can change environmental legislation, national freshwater standards, consent rules, water infrastructure funding and the powers given to regional councils.

Environment Canterbury

Manages Canterbury's regional water system

Sets and administers regional rules, allocates water through consents, manages minimum flows and restrictions, and enforces environmental conditions.

Individual farm and scheme consents

Determine actual operating permissions

Establish authorised water takes, conditions, nutrient requirements, monitoring obligations and expiry dates.

There is also an important democratic consideration: ECan's regional councillors are elected separately from central government. So your influence over Canterbury water management is not limited to your vote in the general election.

8. My suggested next step: examine your actual water security

The most useful exercise would be to connect the national political debate to the legal position of your own farm.

If I were assessing an irrigated mid-Canterbury farming business for the next generation, I would want to know:

1. Where the farm sits in the relevant ECan water allocation zone.
2. Whether irrigation comes from a river, groundwater, or both.
3. The volume and rate authorised under the water permits.
4. Minimum-flow and restriction conditions.
5. The expiry dates of the permits.
6. The nitrogen-loss baseline and any farming land-use consent conditions.
7. Whether an irrigation scheme's global consent covers the farm.

One question to start with: Is your irrigation water primarily from a groundwater bore, a direct river take, or an irrigation scheme such as the Rangitata Diversion Race?

With that information, I can make the analysis much more specific to your situation, including which decisions Wellington can change, which remain with ECan, and which existing rights and obligations are attached to your farm.

The ultimate question is not simply which government is more supportive of farming. It is which combination of national rules, regional water management and consent security will allow your farm to remain productive while protecting the freshwater resource that future generations will also depend on.

---

Worked for 45s

Searching the web

Searched 3 websites