A major Mid Canterbury irrigator will continue to operate as normal after a high court appeal against it was dismissed.

Justice Cameron Mander found in his decision that the consent had been incorrectly granted to Mayfield Hinds Valetta Limited (MHV).

But recent changes to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) meant that the consent now complied with legislation.

In 2014, The Rangitata Diversion Race was granted a discharge consent for contaminants from farm use.

The connected irrigation schemes then sought out their own consents, which provided a nitrogen discharge allowance that covered all the farms in their area.

This meant MHV’s farmers wouldn’t need to apply for individual discharge permission, and would meet water quality requirements set by the scheme.

At the High Court hearing in May, The Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) said grounds for revoking MHV’s consent ranged from a lack of public consultation to environmental harm.

The consent was granted in an unusual way: it allowed MHV to degrade water quality now, on the condition that they would improve it over time and "remedy non-compliance.”

“... the consent [was] likely not only to give rise to the continuation of significant adverse effects on aquatic life, but contribute to those continuing adverse effects.”

ELI also argued logic from the irrigation case they won last year against Ashburton Lyndhurst Irrigation Limited (ALIL) could be applied to this case.

But according to Mander, “the legislative landscape has changed.”

ELI claimed specifically that section 107 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) was not properly applied when granting MHV’s discharge consent.

That changed when the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2024 came into effect last October.

“It [provided] a further exception [to] the prohibition on a consent authority granting a discharge.”

Essentially, both MHV and ALIL’s consents were now compliant with the legislation.

“Parliament has legislated for the very outcome of this challenge to the consent authority’s decision,’ Mander’s decision read.

“I decline to quash the consent or remit it back to the Council for reconsideration.”

“MHV Water Limited is pleased with the result of the High Court's decision,” a company press release read.

“This will enable MHV to continue working to reduce nutrient discharges from its shareholding farms while also supporting and implementing a range of environmental projects and initiatives that will improve water quality and biodiversity in the catchment.”

“We are alarmed that water quality protections are being weakened at every turn,” ELI senior researcher Anna Sintenie said.

“We need laws that protect the long-term health of these ecosystems and our communities.

“These reactive changes to the RMA mean short term profit for a few, but a long-term loss for everyone.”

ELI are investigating possible grounds for appeal at present.

By Anisha Satya