The end of 2025 brought news of a huge amount of proposed change in the resource management space – too much to cover in one article.  The article I drafted last month focussed on the overhaul of the RMA and discussed the replacement laws and what they may mean for farmers. In that article I also provided brief commentary about the Resource Management (Duration of Consents) Amendment Act. This automatically extends the consent expiry date on many consents to two years after the end of the transition period for the new planning system. Based on current expectations, this means most expiring consents will be extended to around 2031. This has widely been seen as positive for farmers and for many this will be the cause of great celebration!

However, we need to be careful about whether to accept the extension of all consents. There will be situations where this will not be the best policy and Aqualinc have already received instructions from some clients that have considered the options and decided to continue with their consent replacement.

For example, there will be situations where some longer-term certainty will be required relating to key activities, such as irrigation. Farmers, banks and investors all need certainty. Because of this, some expiring consents will still need to be renewed under the “old system”.  This is highly likely to be the case if the property is being offered for sale.

There are also some risks associated with waiting that need to be considered. Because many of the water resources in Canterbury are considered by the Regional Council to be over-allocated, it is reasonable to expect that gaining access to these resources may get more difficult, or that conditions on access may become more restrictive. It is possible that rules and controls might become tighter than they are now.

Also, because of the dynamic nature of our water resources, there is potential for a new planning regime to allocate water dynamically, with the aim of achieving a better match between the amount of water allocated and the sustainable yield of the resource at a point in time. What this may mean is that when water resources are low, the taking and use of water would need to be restricted in different ways to what consent-holders are currently accustomed to.  Some consent holders will already be aware of Adaptively Managed consents, and it is possible (if not likely) that at some stage all water take consents will be managed in an agile or adaptive fashion, for example the availability of groundwater changing from year to year.

If such an allocation regime is imposed, there will be implications upon the reliability of supply. As such, there may be some advantages of continuing to use consents that have a fixed allocation for as long as possible. At least this provides certainty for the duration of the consent and may help prevent having to be the first to have to use a new regime, avoiding any potential teething troubles associated with initial implementation.

Not being forced to renew consents that are expiring is a positive step, however, there are dangers associated with this option in some situations. It will be worth considering whether to take the extension pathway, or to replace expiring consents using the current, well-understood process. The best option will vary from one farm to another and will depend on a number of factors.

If you have consents that will expire in the next few years, or if you want more information about what to consider, then contact your trusted resource management advisor.