RDR Ltd Oral Submission Paul Hodgson 22 April 2018

Introduction Background History No more good will

Rangitata River WCO Set environmental and intrinsic values that need to be met More importantly, it was the agreement between all parties so why is it being revisited? Set a water allocation band The “really good guys”

Fish barrier systems Fish barriers are designed to keep fish in the rivers A fish screen is only 1 part of the fish barrier system For best practice to be achieved the fish screen should be located at the interface between the river and the irrigation intake, as this eliminates the need for a fish bypass

Fish barrier requirements to be met All fish should have unimpeded fish passage up and down all waterways All fish should remain in the river Any fish that are removed from the river need to be returned to a main stem of the same river unharmed Any fish harmed or not returned need to be replaced

How to test fish barrier Sorry, no mixed veges Live fish All fish traps to be calibrated Efficiency calculated as live fish trapped at end of bypass divided by number of fish released Angler involvement throughout

Fish barrier performance requirements 100 % exclusion

What are the opportunity costs Who gains? Who should cover the risk of consent conditions? Who should pay to fix and when? There needs to be a social bond to cover the consequences of expert evidence and a monitoring program instigated.

General Consent terms are too long and should be 15 years 5 year time period to install fish barrier is too long and should be 12 months The hearings need to consider the cumulative effect of all the water takes to date, as well as the new application

Recommendations for the hearing to accept Adopt them

?