Requiring authority status for irrigation scheme operators

Requiring authority status for irrigation scheme operators
Thursday 13 July, 2017
Ministerial approval of private entities as requiring authorities under section 167 of the RMA is, after the initial rush following commencement of the Act in October 1991, comparatively infrequent these days. There was no corresponding Ministerial power in the former Town and Country Planning Act, so the emergence of private entities able to designate private land is a post-1991 phenomenon. Correspondingly, so too is the ability to designate private land for projects or works that are beyond the traditional ‘public works’ that we normally associate with designations.
A very recent Ministerial approval of a new requiring authority highlights the extent to which this phenomenon has progressed. Environment Minister Nick Smith approved Hunter Downs Water Limited (HDW) as a requiring authority on Monday 12 June 2017. HDW now has the ability to issue notices of requirement to designate land (as well as water and airspace) to protect and develop infrastructure required to operate the Hunter Downs Irrigation Scheme (Scheme) in South Canterbury. The Minister's press release records the significance of the Scheme in terms of the allocation and use of fresh water for irrigation:
“The [Scheme] will take water from the Waitaki River to irrigate land between Waimate and Timaru. [HDW] has previously obtained water-take consent from Environment Canterbury and a development grant from Crown Irrigation Investments Limited. [The Scheme]… has the potential to irrigate 40,000 hectares, bringing benefits to 200 farmers. The economic benefits to the region are estimated at an increase in output of $830 million per year, and 1840 jobs in South Canterbury.”
HDW is not the first irrigation scheme operator to be approved for requiring authority status, but this particular group of requiring authorities is still limited literally to just a handful of entities. HDW's path to requiring authority status had its origins in its ability to first satisfy the Minister that it met the definition of ‘network utility operator’ in section 166 of the RMA being, in this particular case, “a person who… undertakes or proposes to undertake the distribution of water for supply (including irrigation)”. The corresponding criteria to obtain Ministerial approval to become a requiring authority then focussed on:
- The appropriateness of HDW to be approved as a requiring authority for the purpose of carrying out the Scheme;
- HDW’s ability to carry out the statutory responsibilities of a requiring authority, including maintaining financial responsibility for the Scheme; and
- The likelihood that HDW will give proper regard to the interests of people affected and to the interests of the environment.
The emergence of private entities as requiring authorities in the fresh water allocation space could be a trend that is just starting to gather momentum given the increasing importance to secure access for and to protect long term infrastructure to achieve that allocation. This could result in the issue to district and city councils of a growing number notices of requirement to designate private land for this very specific purpose.
Related Articles

Councils challenge to transfer of water services rejected in High Court
Thursday 30 March, 2023

When the rubber hits the road - All aboard Aotearoa's challenge
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Declarations that an Enactment Inconsistent with Bill of Rights
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Proposed mandatory consideration of specific Māori representation
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

New Regime for Protected Disclosures (Whistleblower legislation)
Wednesday 29 June, 2022

Operative plans and proposed plans: what to do when there is a significant policy shift?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Notices of requirement are relevant for resource consent applications
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Avoidance policies reign in the wake of King Salmon, but what do they require?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Court gives guidance on consultation and decision-making process
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Cultural evidence and the continued draw of the overall judgment
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Fluoridation debate lifted from shoulders of local government
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Will new housing density rules increase contributions for developers?
Thursday 28 October, 2021

Judicial review of Hamilton City Council's development contributions policy
Tuesday 5 October, 2021

Lease of Wanaka Airport set aside due to insufficient consultation
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

What if an abatement notice requires you to breach the Resource Management Act?
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

“No ‘wine-ing’ covenants” declined for a subdivision consent in Gibbston Valley
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

From car parking fine to judicial review of a council’s code of conduct
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

Councils remain liable for compliance of contractors with the RMA
Thursday 18 March, 2021

Randerson Report released: New Direction for Resource Management
Wednesday 5 August, 2020

Could companies be liable to the public for the harm caused by their emissions?
Tuesday 10 March, 2020

Avoiding double penalties when sentencing a company and director
Thursday 23 April, 2020

Can an easement be granted over an esplanade reserve for a commercial activity?
Thursday 12 December, 2019

Draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2019 for consultation
Thursday 3 October, 2019

Local authority requiring monetary contributions on designations
Thursday 20 June, 2019

Bella Vista: MBIE Report highlights failure to perform statutory functions
Tuesday 9 April, 2019

Recent decision on "affected persons" highlights the importance of context
Wednesday 28 November, 2018

High Court finds Council liable in negligence for damage from fallen tree
Thursday 27 September, 2018

Court upholds sensible approach to local authority works on private property
Tuesday 24 July, 2018

Must Councils accept an assertion that a person is ‘suitably qualified'?
Friday 9 March, 2018
