Zone Name:	Ashburton River	Current Status:	(Red)
Allocation Limit:	69.5 million m3/yr	Valid date:	23rd January 2004
Order of Approach:	First (15% of average annual rainfall)

Recharge Component

Method of Estimation

Background Notes

The Ashburton River provides recharge to shallow groundwater, which in turn discharges as spring-fed creeks. Management of the resource must encompass both surface and groundwater. The surface water is highly allocated, hence any applications for hydraulically connected groundwater will be subject to scrutiny with regards to cumulative effects, regardless of the allocation status (red/yellow/white) of the groundwater zone.

Other Available Information Sources

These reports may be used to provide a full description of groundwater resources in this area. They may include information that will be of use in a consent application, but are not necessarily a comprehensive list.

• Aitchison-Earl, P., Davey, G., Ettema, M., McKerchar, A., Scott, D., Smith, E., and Weeber, J. 'State of the Canterbury Region Water Resource October 2004' (pdf 3.83MB), U04/101
• Brown, L. J, 2000, 'Groundwaters of the Canterbury Region' Environment Canterbury Report R00/10.
• De Joux, R T (1992) Groundwater Resources of the Ashburton Catchment. Report prepared for the Canterbury Regional Council. R92(36).
• Aitchison-Earl, P, 1999, 'Springs of the Ashburton River Catchment' Environment Canterbury Unpublished Technical Report 100/25
• Environmental Consultancy Services, 1995, Groundwater Resource and Planning Issues within the Ashburton River Catchment U95/36
• Pattle Delamore Partners, 97, Preliminary Assessment of Stream Depletion Effects in the Ashburton River Catchment, U97/82

Allocation History

Effective Allocation

 7 December 2009

Effective Allocation (million m³): 68.25
Reason for Change: Consents update
Source: Consents database live-read
Proportion Allocated: 98%

 3 November 2009

Effective Allocation (million m³): 68.28
Reason for Change: Consents update
Source: Consents database live-read
Proportion Allocated: 98%

6 July 2009

Effective Allocation (million m³): 68.16
Reason for Change: Consents update
Source: Consents database live-read
Proportion Allocated: 98%

2 June 2009

Effective Allocation (million m³): 68.54
Reason for Change: Consents update
Source: Consents database live-read
Proportion Allocated: 99%

13 October 2008

Effective Allocation (million m³): 68.67
Reason for Change: Consents update
Source: Consents database live-read
Proportion Allocated: 100%

8 September 2008

Effective Allocation (million m³): 68.73
Reason for Change: Consents update
Source: Consents database live-read
Proportion Allocated: 100%

11 August 2008

Effective Allocation (million m³): 68.72
Reason for Change: Consents update
Source: Consents database live-read
Proportion Allocated: 100%

7 July 2008

Effective Allocation (million m³): 69.56
Reason for Change: Consents update
Source: Consents database live-read
Proportion Allocated: 100%

9 June 2008

Effective Allocation (million m³): 69.57
Reason for Change: Consents update
Source: Consents database live-read
Proportion Allocated: 100%

3 March 2008

Effective Allocation (million m³): 69.75
Reason for Change: Consents update
Source: Consents database live-read
Proportion Allocated: 100%

4 February 2008

Effective Allocation (million m³): 69.79
Reason for Change: Consents update
Source: Consents database live-read
Proportion Allocated: 100%

5 November 2007

Effective Allocation (million m³): 69.65
Reason for Change: Consents update
Source: Consents database live-read
Proportion Allocated: 100%

23 July 2007

Effective Allocation (million m³): 69.61
Reason for Change: Consents update
Source: Consents database live-read
Proportion Allocated: 100%

7 May 2007

Effective Allocation (million m³): 68.96
Reason for Change: Consents update
Source: Consents database live-read
Proportion Allocated: 99%

19 February 2007

Effective Allocation (million m³): 69.01
Reason for Change: Consents update
Source: Consents database live-read
Proportion Allocated: 99%

5 December 2006

Effective Allocation (million m³): 68.97
Reason for Change: Consents update
Source: Consents database live-read
Proportion Allocated: 99%

16 October 2006

Effective Allocation (million m³): 68.82
Reason for Change: Consents update
Source: Consents database
Proportion Allocated: 99%

18 September 2006

Effective Allocation (million m³): 68.72
Reason for Change: Consents update
Source: Consents database
Proportion Allocated: 99%

20 February 2006

Effective Allocation (million m³): 69.32
Reason for Change: Consents update
Source: Consents database
Proportion Allocated: 100%

29 June 2005

Effective Allocation (million m³): 64.56
Reason for Change: Effective allocation recalculated using a revised table of irrigation standards to address concerns with Schedule WQN9 of Chapter 5 NRRP, as approved by the Water Allocation Panel
Source: Consents database live-read on 29 June 2005
Proportion Allocated: 93.00%

14 January 2005

Effective Allocation (million m³): 56.79
Reason for Change: Consents update
Source: Consents database
Proportion Allocated: 81.71%

20 December 2004

Effective Allocation (million m³): 55.38
Reason for Change: Consents update
Source: Consents database
Proportion Allocated: 79.68%

29 October 2004

Effective Allocation (million m³): 52.05
Reason for Change: Consents update
Source: Consents database
Proportion Allocated: 74.89%

26 July 2004

Effective Allocation (million m³): 50.84
Reason for Change: Consents update
Source: Consents database
Proportion Allocated: 73.15%

11 June 2004

Effective Allocation (million m³): 47.68
Reason for Change: Consents update
Source: Consents database
Proportion Allocated: 68.60%

31 March 2004

Effective Allocation (million m³): 47.26
Reason for Change: Consents update
Source: Consents database
Proportion Allocated: 68.00%

23 January 2004

Effective Allocation (million m³): 47.2
Reason for Change: This is the first estimate made
Source: Report U04/02 (Table 6.2)
Proportion Allocated: 67.91%

Allocation Limit

23 January 2004

Allocation Limit (million m³): 69.5
Reason for Change: This is the first estimate made using the 1st Order Approach
Source: Report U04/02 (Table 6.2)