5. Allocation of Public Resources Volume One For this reason, the policy limits the rate of take of water for storage purposes to the authorised daily take for irrigation purposes. This still provides the consent holder with flexibility to decide how water will be used on any given day, but also ensures that the abstraction would have no greater effect on existing users than the daily take solely for irrigation purposes. [R] Policy 5.8.4 – The annual volume of water taken for storage shall not exceed a volume equivalent to the authorised rate of take for irrigation purposes for two irrigation seasons for the property or prpeties to be served by t he stored water. or This policy ensures that water taken for storage is not excessive relative to the use(s) to which it is eventually to be put. Excessive storage of water may frustrate the attempts of other users to access water by fully allocating the C class or through interference effects caused by the rate of take from the source waterbody. The policy provides a threshold for appropriate storage that reflects that the stored water should be sufficient to provide for irrigation needs for two seasons. This is reasonable in Marlborough’s dry climate where consecutive dry summers have historically occurred. The policy assists to give effect to Policy B4 of the NPSFM. [R] Pol icy 5.8.5 – All water placed in storage should be accurately accounted for. Although storage is not as such a ‘use’ of water (as water is stored for pending and subsequent use), it is still important to account for water taken from freshwater bodies for storage purposes as it represents a permanent removal of water from the freshwater resource. This policy does not establish a set methodology for accounting in these circumstances, as there has been, and will continue to be, a wide diversity of distribution systems developed by individual water users in response to the circumstances that exist on their property. The appropriate accounting system will be developed on a case-by-case basis through the resource consent process, but as a minimum requirement must accurately account for water taken from the freshwater resource that would not otherwise be accounted for through the metering requirements established by Policy 5.7.4. Dedicated metering would be one form of measurement, but other methods may also be appropriate. Issue 5I – There is the potential for a new water user to get access to water on a more reliable basis than allocations already made, resulting in inequitable outcomes. Freshwater in Marlborough has become a scarce resource in many freshwater management units as resource limits are approached (if not already reached). This results in competition for available water. Policy 5.3.6 identifies that the first in, first served method of allocation is efficient and effective for dealing with this competition prior to allocation limits being reached for the first time. Once the water resource is fully allocated, there are limited circumstances under which that allocated water could become available for re-allocation. For example, an existing consent to take and use water may lapse, be only partially exercised, or be surrendered. Water users have identified as a concern the ability for existing or potential users to gain access to that water through the first in, first served method of allocation. Water that becomes available will have an inherent reliability depending on when that water was first allocated relative to other subsequent allocations. If the application is granted, the successful applicant may gain access to water under more favourable circumstances than other users granted water later than the original permit was granted. This is considered an inequitable outcome and one that could see the competition for water resulting in community conflict. 5 – 28