Ruling expected today on land-clearance caseBy Lucy Ibbotson, on Friday 28 March 2014
Otago Daily Times
Should farming activities or protection of indigenous
vegetation take priority on a contentious piece of privately
owned land at Hawea Flat?
That is the question the Environment Court will answer today,
in a decision Judge John Hassan says is ''by no means an easy
one''.
The ruling could have significant implications for the
farming industry if an interim enforcement order issued
against farmer Dougal Innes earlier this month is upheld,
lawyer Graeme Todd submitted to the court in Queenstown
yesterday.
The order was obtained by the Royal Forest and Bird
Protection Society of New Zealand, which considers protecting
the indigenous vegetation on Mr Innes' land a matter of
''national importance''.
Mr Innes had already disced a large part of the site before
his farming activities were halted by the order, which he has
applied to the court to have cancelled.
In closing submissions, Forest and Bird lawyer Sally Gepp
said the consequences of Mr Innes not being able to cultivate
his land this year should not override a clear breach of the
district plan, the adverse effects already caused at the site
and the further effects which would occur if the order was
cancelled.
''Protection of significant indigenous vegetation is a matter
of national importance which all decision-makers must
recognise and provide for,'' Ms Gepp said.
The most appropriate forum for considering Mr Innes' proposed
farming activity was a resource consent process where all
parties could have a view on the matter through notification.
''[Mr Innes] is required to seek consent for indigenous
vegetation clearance like any other person.''
It was ''not an ex-appropriation of his rights'', but rather
a normal and legal application of the district plan.
Mr Todd, who is acting for neighbouring landowner and
interested party James Cooper, said the significant question
if the interim order was upheld was: which landowner in the
district would be next?
''If farmers are required to spend thousands of dollars
applying for resource consents for every act of clearance of
their land and if their ability to cultivate and farm their
land is curtailed by a standard that they are not allowed to
clear pasture even if a few indigenous species are present on
a site, this has significant implications for the farming
industry not only in this region but in other regions.''
Mr Innes' lawyer, Jan Caunter, said Mr Innes had ''asked all
of the right questions and sought advice from all the right
places'' on matters relevant to buying the property and which
might have affected his ability to use it.
''He sought LIM reports which did not alert him to the
presence of indigenous vegetation on the site. It did,
however, alert him to activities that had previously been
approved on the site, which were in many respects similar to
what he wished to do,'' Ms Caunter said.
''[He] received what essentially amounted to 'yes, you can go
ahead'.''
Federated Farmers lawyer Richard Gardner said because the
land had been used for primary production purposes for a long
time and cultivated on occasion for those purposes, Mr Innes'
claims to existing use rights were ''well founded''.
''There is no basis upon which the interim enforcement order
can be sustained ... Mr Innes and the other farmers in the
Queenstown Lakes district who are concerned about the
implications of the interim enforcement order should be left
to go about their lawful farming activities,'' Mr Gardner
said.
Further consideration was given to a compromise, as mooted by
Mr Todd on Wednesday.
Judge Hassan asked three ecologists - who were appearing for
the council, Mr Innes and Forest and Bird - their view on an
appropriate width for a possible buffer zone on the southern
boundary of Mr Innes' property, to protect indigenous
vegetation on neighbouring land owned by Contact Energy.
Their opinions ranged from 20m to 200m.
Friday, March 28, 2014
Ruling Expected Today ...
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Land Compromise Raised
Land compromise raised
By Lucy Ibbotson, on Thursday 27 March 2014
Otago Daily Times
The possibility of a ''compromise situation'' benefiting both
sides of a land dispute was raised in the Environment Court
sitting in Queenstown yesterday.
Detailed scientific evidence was given by three ecologists on
day three of a hearing to consider Dougal Innes' application
to cancel an interim enforcement order stopping him from
farming his land at Hawea Flat.
The order was obtained by the Royal Forest and Bird Society
of New Zealand, which has concerns about the potential loss
of important indigenous vegetation on the site, which has
already been largely cleared and disced by Mr Innes.
Arrowtown ecological consultant Glenn Davis appeared for the
Queenstown Lakes District Council, having surveyed Mr Innes'
land as part of an ongoing council project to identify areas
of significant indigenous vegetation throughout the district.
During cross-examination by lawyer Graeme Todd - representing
neighbouring landowner James Cooper, an interested party in
the proceedings - Mr Davis was asked what he believed should
happen with the land and whether it should be ''locked up''
in the future from further development.
''I would like to see some effort made to at least restore
some of the land or maintain at least some of the disturbed
land,'' Mr Davis replied.
Mr Todd said maintaining the interim enforcement order would
have ''catastrophic implications'' for Mr Innes, as it would
prevent him from gaining any income from the land.
He asked if Mr Davis had therefore considered a ''compromise
situation'', where the order would be uplifted and some other
means of protection applied.
Mr Davis said he had thought of other options, including
leaving aside some of the land that had already been
disturbed to provide for a ''sequence of vegetation''
spanning the site from the Clutha River to the upper
terraces.
''In doing so, there would need to be some reduction in the
area that Mr Innes has available for farming.''
Based on his observations, Mr Davis told the court further
physical disturbance of the site would exacerbate the
''significant damage'' that had already occurred, but sowing
and irrigating the land, as intended by Mr Innes, would
''fundamentally alter'' the whole site and the important
plant communities found there.
The hearing continues in Queenstown today before Judge John
Hassan and commissioners John Mills and Ian Buchanan. A
decision is expected to be issued verbally by the court today
or tomorrow.
The case is attracting a large amount of interest, with
members of the farming community present each day in the
public gallery and the district's Mayor, Vanessa van Uden,
and Waitaki MP Jacqui Dean in attendance yesterday.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Tensions At Hearing
Tensions at hearing
By Lucy Ibbotson, on Wednesday 26th March 2014
Otago Daily Times
The Queenstown Lakes District Council's level of culpability
came under the spotlight yesterday in a land debate pitting
farmers against conservationists.
Representatives from both sides packed the public gallery on
day two of an Environment Court hearing in Queenstown
considering the cancellation of an interim enforcement order
against Hawea Flat farmer Dougal Innes.
The order was obtained earlier this month by the Royal Forest
and Bird Society of New Zealand to prevent Mr Innes carrying
out further native vegetation clearance and discing work on
his land next to the Clutha River, which is considered to be
ecologically important.
During a break in proceedings, tensions were evident between
some of the Upper Clutha farmers and Forest and Bird members.
The council's planning and development general manager, Marc
Bretherton, said field notes prepared by the QLDC's
ecological consultant identifying the site's conservation
values had mistakenly not been provided to the council when
Mr Innes sought advice on whether his proposed farming
operation would require resource consent.
Mr Bretherton and council planner Ian Greaves subsequently
advised Mr Innes it appeared there would be no breach of the
district plan.
''Based on the information that council held, there was
nothing telling me that he needed a resource consent,'' Mr
Bretherton said.
''Certainly, if we'd had possession of that [ecological]
information, that would have better informed our
understanding of the site ... and we would have been better
able to advise Mr Innes.''
Mr Innes was advised obtaining further information himself
would ''assist him in determining categorically whether
resource consent was or was not required'', Mr Bretherton
said.
Mr Greaves said he did not tell Mr Innes to seek additional
advice from an ecologist.
However, as it was Mr Innes' obligation to ensure he complied
with the district plan rule on indigenous vegetation
clearance, it would have been prudent to do so, he said.
''So every time a farmer wants to clear his or her land and
they're not sure whether they've got any indigenous
vegetation on it, they're going to have to secure the
assistance of an ecologist?'' Mr Innes' lawyer, Jan Caunter,
asked, to which Mr Greaves replied, ''Yes.''
Both Mr Bretherton and Mr Greaves agreed with commissioner
John Mills there was nothing to indicate Mr Innes was
''anything but straightforward'' and had acted on the best
information available to him.
Earlier, Mr Mills asked Forest and Bird field officer Jen
Miller for her view of the council's response to Mr Innes'
inquiries.
''To be frank, if I was Mr Innes I would feel less than
satisfied. I think it was not really giving him any direction
either way ... Perhaps the council might have been more
helpful to him in terms of the information they had
available,'' Ms Miller said.
Wanaka landscape architect Anne Steven, appearing for Forest
and Bird, acknowledged it was ''somewhat unreasonable'' to
expect Mr Innes, as a private rural landowner, to be aware of
the ecological information relating to the land.
Mr Innes also took the stand.
''I've invested our entire savings in this property . . . and
I didn't intend to be in this position we are now,'' he told
the court.
Asked by Forest and Bird lawyer Sally Gepp whether he would
keep cultivating the land if the interim enforcement order
was cancelled, Mr Innes responded: ''I intend to farm the
property, so yes, that's the reason I purchased it.''
Mr Innes' planner, Duncan White, told the court the
attendance of many farmers at the hearing reflected concerns
in the farming community about the wider implications of the
interim enforcement order against Mr Innes.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
"We Have A Rule In The Plan ..."
We have a rule in the plan
By Lucy Ibbotson, on Tuesday 25 March 2014
Otago Daily Times
A young family facing ''financial ruin'' must be given the
same consideration as the protection of ecological values on
Hawea Flat land, it was submitted in the Environment Court in
Queenstown yesterday.
A hearing is being held this week to consider cancellation of
an interim enforcement order requiring farmer Dougal Innes to
stop clearance of native vegetation on land he has a purchase
agreement on above the Clutha River at Hawea Flat.
Mr Innes has already cleared a large amount of vegetation and
carried out discing on the land, which has been assessed by
government departments as having high conservation values.
The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand
deemed Mr Innes' actions illegal and successfully applied to
the Environment Court for the interim enforcement order.
It was served on Mr Innes, as respondent, and the Queenstown
Lakes District Council earlier this month, around the same
time the council issued an abatement notice on Mr Innes.
However, in written legal submissions, Mr Innes' lawyer Jan
Caunter said her client had consulted the council and was at
no stage advised he needed resource consent.
''If we had somebody who had flagrantly breached the
[district] plan that would be quite different. But that is
not what has occurred here,'' Ms Caunter told the court.
''... It is submitted that the information provided to Mr
Innes by the council and the implication that no resource
consent was required is relevant to the court's assessment.''
The court needed to consider not only the potential for
damage to any indigenous vegetation on the site, but the
impact on Mr Innes of not being able to complete the
cultivation work, which would leave him with ''no reasonable
use of his land'', Ms Caunter said.
''Mr Innes and his young family are facing financial ruin if
the land is protected from further development,'' her written
summary of background facts stated.
Forest and Bird lawyer Peter Anderson said the effects on the
environment of cancelling the interim enforcement order were
a ''critical'' consideration and should be the focus, rather
than the effects on the parties.
He said if there was a strong case for an enforcement order
and if there was likely to be significant irreparable adverse
effects if the interim order was cancelled, there would need
to be a ''highly compelling reason'' for its cancellation.
Ms Caunter said given the ''significant'' level of
disagreement among the lawyers, planners and ecologists
involved in the case on how the district plan rules relating
to indigenous vegetation should be interpreted, it would be
especially difficult for a layperson such as Mr Innes to
accurately interpret them.
''There are lots of different ways of looking at the rule and
that in itself is causing me great concern, that we have a
rule in the plan that nobody understands.''
Judge John Hassan instructed ecologists acting for Mr Innes,
Forest and Bird and the council to jointly respond to a
series of questions aimed at providing clarity on the
definition of indigenous vegetation. They will report back to
the court today.
The hearing is expected to continue until Thursday, when the
court will issue a verbal decision on whether the interim
enforcement order is to be confirmed or cancelled.
Dairy farmer James Cooper, a neighbour of the site, and
Federated Farmers are interested parties in the court
process.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
Land Had "Very High Natural Values"
Land had 'very high natural values'
By Mark Price, on Saturday 8 March 2014
Otago Daily Times
Thirty years ago, the Labour government of the day sent
groups of scientists off on a mission. They were asked to
find the parts of the landscape that still reflected the way
New Zealand was before people began making changes. One of
the Recommended Areas for Protection (RAPs) they came up with
was a 590ha area of land above the Clutha River at South
Hawea Flat, near Wanaka. Last month that RAP went under the
plough. Mark Price reports.
On the road between Luggate and Hawea Flat your eye is
drawn west to the majestic snow-capped mountains of Mt
Aspiring National Park.
The flat land in the foreground barely registers.
But this land - 590ha of half-cultivated dry grass and
tussock along Kane Rd - has suddenly become a battleground
between conservationists and farmers.
Two weeks ago, a tractor towing a chunky set of discs started turning over the topsoil.
By the time the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society obtained an Environment Court enforcement order on Monday, the agricultural contractor had already left the field.
However, the order means the farmer cannot seed, water or fertilise the land until the matter has been settled in court.
Conservationists know the land in question as South Hawea Flat, Lindis RAP (A12) - RAP standing for Recommended Area for Protection.
Correspondence between Forest and Bird and the Queenstown Lakes District Council over the farmer's cultivation has focused on the rarity of the land's native plants.
But the man who helped establish Lindis RAP (A12) and other RAPs in the Upper Clutha emphasises there is more to the issue.
Now retired from the Department of Conservation and living in Gisborne, Dr Chris Ward told the Otago Daily Times last week Lindis RAP (A12) was recommended for protection 30 years ago because it represented a landscape that was in danger of disappearing entirely.
''The essence of the value of places like this is not simply the rare species.
''It's actually about having the whole system of the landform and the ecological and geological history of the land and the soils and the vegetation that goes with the whole system.
''It reflects a large proportion of the character of the Upper Clutha.''
Dr Ward said when they started looking for places still in their native state, they already had ''very little to start with''.
''The whole context was to identify the best of what remained and then seek its protection rather than see everything degraded to minuscule remnants. These areas - whatever their degree of modification - they still had very high natural values.''
Dr Ward said Lindis RAP (A12) combined the high terrace of Hawea Flat and the drop-off to a set of low terraces leading to the Clutha River.
''The whole point of it was that it was very much undeveloped in the pastoral sense and had large amounts of its indigenous character - though obviously highly modified through grazing and fire.''
The report he helped produce noted the area's ''excellent terrace sequence''.
''The total extent of the RAP, although considerable, is little more than 1% of the original extent of terrace landforms dominated by fescue tussockland and shrubland in the Upper Clutha, and barely sufficient to give an adequate visual impression of the earlier landscape.''
While its vegetation had been ''strongly modified'' by grazing and fire, the report described what remained as ''substantially native communities''.
The report suggested the reasons the land had not been developed further were because the soils were ''among the poorest of the flatlands'' and irrigation water was relatively inaccessible.
Reflecting on the many RAPs he helped identify in the 1980s, Dr Ward said there had been ''more grief than satisfaction'' over how they had fared.
While some had been formally protected, many had not.
''It's the old problem that every success in conservation is temporary and every loss is permanent.''
''When an area is protected, or a decision is made not to destroy something, it can be seen as a victory or a gain for conservation. But it's always temporary because these things can be reversed.
Dr Ward said the cultivation of Lindis RAP (A12) was another of the losses in a world system with a bias against conservation.
''What's left of the natural scheme of things is always being whittled away, and every generation seems to take another chunk of it.
''I'm sure there will be people who will say there was an awful lot of this [Upper Clutha land]. But if every generation takes 60% of what's remaining and leaves 40%, thinking that's being generous, then that becomes two-thirds of five-eighths of [not much].''
Revealing his geological background, Dr Ward said a ''key part'' of the value of an area like Lindis RAP (A12) was its soil.
''The discs turning over the soil have already done irreversible damage. You can't undo that.
''The actual soil profile ... is a reflection of the geological and human history up until now.
''Getting to the guts of natural character is recognising that an undisturbed soil is a key part.''
RAPs were a product of the Protected Natural Areas Programme (PNAP) that began in 1983.
The programme was intended to protect native landscape features and provide the government with a basis for negotiation with landowners about formal protection.
It was controversial at the time, with some landowners refusing survey parties access, believing they could lose the parts of their properties identified as RAPs.
Philip Woollaston, associate minister for the environment (1987-88) and minister of conservation (1989-90) told the ODT the surveying ''tapered off'' after the 1980s, for economic reasons.
''It was never formally abandoned but just withered on the branch because of cost-cutting.''
Some RAPs got protection via the tenure review process, and by other means, but Lindis RAP (A12) was not one of those.
A report done for the QLDC in February last year by ecologist Rebecca Lawrence did, however, recommend part of the RAP be ''taken forward'' for further consideration as ''significant indigenous vegetation and fauna habitat''.
That would put Lindis RAP (A12) in the district plan and would require the landowner to gain resource consent before carrying out the type of work that has now been done.
Protected areas Recommended Areas of Protection (RAPs):
The land known as South Hawea Flat, Lindis RAP (A12) is one of 19 RAPs in section 4 of a 1980s document called the Lindis, Pisa and Dunstan Ecological Districts Survey Report for Protected Natural Areas.
The others are:
Double Peak, Chain Hills, Dip Creek (two), Morven Hills, Grandview Creek, Hospital Creek, Lagoon Creek, East Camp Creek, West Camp Creek, Long Gully, Long Gully Terrace, Upper Smiths Creek, North Lindis Pass, Mid Breast Creek, Grandview Tops, West Chain Hills, Lindis Crossing.
The report also lists RAPs in the Pisa and Dunstan areas.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Irrigation Prospectus Withdrawn
Irrigation prospectus withdrawn
By Lynda van Kempen, on Saturday 29 June 2013
Otago Daily Times
Tarras Water Ltd has withdrawn its second consecutive
prospectus after failing to find a dry shareholder for its
proposed $36.5 million Tarras irrigation scheme and may have
to ''concede defeat''.
The company received a double setback this week when the
Otago Regional Council decided against investing $3.5 million
in the scheme. It had the option to take up 30% of the
''dry'' shares, covering properties which chose not to
irrigate.
Because of the regional council's decision, the Central Otago
District Council's support for the scheme also lapsed. It had
agreed to guarantee a bank loan of up to 20% of the capital
cost of the scheme, but only if the regional council
invested.
The proposal was to draw water from the Clutha River to
irrigate 5999ha of Tarras land. The scheme aimed to ease
demand on the Lindis River. The regional council said the
company had not met council-imposed conditions and the risk
of not being able to on-sell the dry shares meant the
investment was too risky.
Earlier this month, the company withdrew its first
prospectus, after failing to meet its 70% threshold for
''wet'' shareholders. It issued another prospectus with a 65%
threshold for wet shareholders. Yesterday was the closing
date for the latest share offer but it withdrew the
prospectus yesterday afternoon.
''Despite its best efforts, Tarras Water Ltd has been unable
to secure interest from a party prepared to be a dry
shareholder within the current prospectus time frame,'' a
statement from the company's board said.
The company had signalled in the prospectus it needed support
through a dry shareholder, applying for redeemable preference
shares, ''to allow the proposed scheme to be built to
optimise its potential''.
It had explored all the options in terms of dry shareholders,
including considering seeking support from the Crown
Irrigation Fund, but the fund would not be functional until
next month, company secretary John Morrison said.
''Therefore, the TWL board wishes to advise that as at the
closing date for the prospectus, no shares can be allotted as
terms and conditions of this prospectus will not be met.''
Asked yesterday whether the board was ''conceding defeat'',
Mr Morrison said: ''I guess we're conceding, on this
particular scheme.''
The board would be meeting soon to ''take stock of where
we're at'' and consider its options, he said.
The board's statement said ''mindful of its responsibilities
to the Tarras district, the board will now consider its
options, including any subscription cheques or deposits held
by TWL being returned to their owner''.
Mr Morrison declined to elaborate on other options being
considered by the board.
Friday, June 28, 2013
Central Otago Water Scheme Rejected
Central Otago water scheme rejected
Friday 28 June 2013Radio New Zealand
The Otago Regional Council has rejected a request to put money into a Central Otago water scheme and the decision may end the $39 million project.
The Tarras Water Scheme would irrigate farmland in the Ardgour Valley, taking water from the Clutha River to supply 40 properties covering about 6000 hectares in the district which lies between Cromwell and Wanaka.
But council chief executive Stephen Woodhead said on Thursday that the backers of the scheme have failed to meet several council-imposed conditions.
Mr Woodhead said the council was asked to contribute $3.5 million by way of dry shares. But there was a risk they would not be able to sell those shares in the future to recoup costs.
The council also said it couldn't ignore the depth of feeling in parts of the community about the wisdom of the regional council investing ratepayer money in an irrigation scheme or its impact on rates.
A spokesperson for Tarras Water said he is unable to comment until the share offer on the scheme closes on Friday.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Call To Reject Irrigation Scheme
Call to reject irrigation scheme
By Rebecca Fox on Tuesday 25 June 2013
Otago Daily Times
Investing in Tarras Water Ltd's proposed irrigation
scheme is too risky for the Otago Regional Council, its staff
say.
They are recommending the council not invest in the $36.5
million scheme. The option was to take up 30% of ''dry''
shares (covering properties which choose not to irrigate) to
irrigate 5999ha in Tarras.
Councillors will make a final decision on the $3.35 million
investment, which had already cost the council about
$250,000, at a meeting in Dunedin tomorrow.
It will end a six-month debate which included the council
controversially overturning a hearing panel recommendation
not to give it the option of investing in the scheme.
The council since had struggled to get the information it
needed from the company to make an investment decision.
In the meantime, Tarras Water had issued two prospectuses,
the second changing the form of the scheme and reducing the
''wet'' share (landowners who take up the option to irrigate)
take-up from 70% to 65%.
In a report to be considered by the council, corporate
services director Wayne Scott said it was very disappointing
Tarras Water had made ''fundamental'' changes to the scheme
without any contact with the council.
''The reissued prospectus moves further from common ground.''
It also meant conditions the ORC had set in its long-term
plan amendment to allow investment were not met by Tarras
Water.
A significant risk was the uncertainty around the council's
ability to on-sell the shares not taken up by landholders, he
said.
The new prospectus raised doubts over landowners having to
buy shares from the council or taking up their full
allocation.
This risk was greater than first assessed and the council was
aware of at least one 100ha property in the area where owners
had installed their own irrigation scheme.
''It is our view that the identified dry shareholder
investment does not appear entirely robust,'' Mr Scott said.
As a result, the council could be left holding dry shares
which would offer no return.
The council had sought independent advice, including a
financial and investment risk report from Ernst and Young, an
engineering review from Beca and advice on its possible
liabilities under the Securities Act.
While Beca reported the scheme was sound, Ernst and Young
advised the scheme was not designed to deliver a commercial
return to shareholders.
It also noted the largest 10 landholders represented 83% of
the scheme area and four of those owned 55%, and the debt
repayment period had been extended to 47 years, longer than
the water permit term of 35 years.
While a return on the council's investment is planned, it
would not be a normal rate of return considering the
associated risks, according to the Ernst and Young report.
The council's support had been based on it being a community
scheme providing water for domestic, stock and fire-fighting
use, Mr Scott said.
As Tarras Water had reduced the scheme's size, it appeared to
be for irrigation only.
The public, through the long-term amendment and annual plan
processes, had shown its opposition to the council funding
the scheme and many who once supported it no longer did
because of the loss of community services.
If the regional council accepted its staff recommendation, it
could put the Central Otago District Council's bank loan
agreement with Tarras Water - up to $8 million, or 20% of the
capital cost of the scheme - into question as it was
conditional on ORC support.
It would also mean the regional council's general rate
increase would only be 2.97%, not the 5.34% proposed if it
went ahead with the Tarras investment.
Tarras Water Ltd chairman Peter Jolly was on holiday in Fiji
and could not be contacted yesterday for comment. Company
secretary John Morrison, who was in Melbourne, declined to
comment as he had not seen the council report, and said
nobody from the company would be able to comment at this
stage.
Tarras scheme • Take water from Clutha River to irrigate land in Tarras.
• Initially proposed to cover 7630ha - now 5999ha.
• Was to include water for firefighting, town and domestic supply - now it will not.
• Cost $36.5m.70% take up of ''wet'' shares amended to 65% after investment fell short.
• ORC to take up 30% of dry shares worth $3.5m.
• CODC to guarantee bank loan if ORC gives its support.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Tarras Irrigation Gets $180k Boost
Tarras irrigation gets $180k boost
By Mark Hotton, on Thursday 5th May 2011
The Southaland Times
A share offer has raised about $180,000 to pay for the final design stages of a multimillion-dollar irrigation scheme for Tarras that is expected to bring significant economic benefit to the district.
The community project plans to pump water from the Clutha River to the area and irrigate about 8000ha of farm land, with economic benefits of about $56 million annually and more than 100 jobs forecast.
The offer of 7630 shares, each $34, closed this year.
Tarras Water director Peter Jolly said about 70 per cent of the shares had been taken up, and negotiations were under way with a third party interested in the rest. A decision was also expected soon on an application lodged with the Community Irrigation Fund.
While they could proceed to the design stage without the additional 30 per cent being taken up, securing that and money from the fund would give them extra grunt to do more preliminary work, Mr Jolly said.
"That would give us a good pot to get more detailed engineering and survey work done, put the whole thing out to tender, and come up with a cost for building the scheme."
The more investigative work that could be carried out in regards to geo-technical and engineering detail before they went to tender, the fewer variables there would be when they came back with a price, Mr Jolly said.
That would give shareholders a clear idea on how much the scheme would cost. A second share offer would be needed to raise funds for the construction, estimated to be about $36 million.
"It's all looking very positive. We're very lucky that the community support has been outstanding, including the councils, Fish and Game and DOC. It has been a big community effort," he said.
"We're not doing this for ourselves, we're doing it for future generations. If we can leave a legacy for future generations and make Tarras a vibrant place again, to me we will have achieved something."
Resource consent for the scheme was granted in January 2010, with a five-year window to activate the water permit. The plan is to deliver water in spring 2013, via an underground network, to farms for irrigation, communal domestic use, stock water and firefighting needs.
