1. RDR Ltd Oral Submission
Paul Hodgson
22 April 2018

2. Introduction
Background
History
No more good will

3. 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”

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. Fish barrier performance requirements
100 % exclusion

8. 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.

9. 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

10. Recommendations for the hearing to accept
Adopt them

11. ?