A call for a five year ban on new irrigation schemes has been rejected by irrigators.

Irrigators are unimpressed with a tourism council calling for a five-year ban on new irrigation schemes.

The plea by Tourism Export Council (TEC) chief executive Lesley Immink and another group to halt future irrigation development has won no favour with Irrigation New Zealand.

Irrigation New Zealand chief executive Andrew Curtis said the irrigation ban had come "out of the blue" and he had spoken to Immink about them and the work irrigators were doing to improve water quality.

"I don't think they had a good understanding at what is going on and what is required of farmers and this highlights that if they don't understand then the public doesn't understand what is happening in the wider sector to address a few problems. It's just a shame they made a throwaway comment."

He said the council's tourism leaders appeared to be a bit disconnected with some of the wider processes working on freshwater such as the Land and Water Forum and the Government's freshwater reforms at national level as well as local government planning.

"The main reasons [we don't want a ban] is quite a lot of the environmental issues will be resolved [by new schemes]."

The capturing of surface water from rivers which would be stored over winter and used in low flow periods would recharge groundwater and help reduce nitrate concentrations and leaching. Getting better at using and storing water would help improve "legacy" water quality concerns from more intensive farming.

Curtis said the tourism council appeared to be worried about the image of tourism after listening to environmental lobby groups and their negative pitches against New Zealand agriculture.

Tourism council leaders have been invited to the irrigation industry's conference next month to hear about initiatives being undertaken to improve its environmental footprint.

The tourism council and the Environmental Defence Society were reported by Radio New Zealand as saying the government's decision to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into irrigation was a gamble during a dairy downturn and the growth in intensive farming was a disaster for rivers and streams.

Immink was reported as being surprised by the amount of money the government was putting into irrigation with no apparent drive to improve water quality.

She was concerned about the international implications for tourism if a visiting family got sick from polluted waterways, while Environmental Defence Society chief executive Gary Taylor questioned whether public money should be used for irrigation as it appeared to be more of a gamble than an investment during dairying's difficulties.

Irrigators have replied that irrigation also supported viticulture, horticulture, cropping and sheep and beef farming with dairying accounting for about half of the irrigated area.

Curtis said there was no point going at loggerheads with the tourism industry over irrigation and an opportunity had arisen to work more closely with tourism interests.

He said tourists benefited from small cafes and other businesses which were supported by the extra income gained from irrigation.

Irrigated farms provided a $2.7 billion contribution to New Zealand economy in a 2012 estimate.

The tourism sector concerns were made after the government announced $1.6 million worth of funding for three irrigation schemes and previous irrigation investments it had made.