Skip to main content.

Alexandra public meeting

February 15 2005

Questions/issues raised:

  • Locals are staggered by the discussion that has gone on about problems.
  • There seems to be an assumption that central government needs to be involved with central policy. Locals know regional issues best. It has been assumed that there is a need for a top-down approach. It is not the best approach as it is costly and ineffective. Central policies for water don't necessarily work because there are big differences between areas.
  • Concern about taking away existing rights.
  • Where water is used for productive uses, it should be determined whether this is the best use for water at this time. People should be able to work out the best way to manage this eg, increase efficiency.
  • There is an assumption that Maori know all about irrigation and water use. This is not the case; they know less and hold up the process. If you give Maori an enhanced position, what about irrigators? Do they get special treatment too?
  • Legal issues also exist. Water is so important to future operations.
  • To assume water use is stuck in the dark ages is not correct.
  • The process is not clear. What happens after submissions are processed and the minister has been reported to? Submissions should not only be referred to government but also to the community for comment.
  • Concern that the imposition of a National Policy Statement will destroy the credibility of processes that have been gone through in relation to the Regional Policy Statement and the Regional Water Plan, and confidence in the RMA.
  • In areas where major problems exist such as the Waitaki, there is still no regional water plan. If central government requires councils that have not done planning to do it, this would be a better way to deal with issues than central government bringing in more controls.
  • In the Waitahuna catchment, problems exist as a result of the Otago Water Plan. The water plan has had a negative effect because the minimum flows have been set and TrustPower has applied to take water down to the minimum flow. This will lower flows and have negative impacts. It will also cost the district a lot of money to fight the resource consent application.
  • Suggestion that the problem is in how the minimum flows are set.
  • Before setting plans you must get full input from local people.
  • Systems for resource consent are working. The Otago Regional Council process is very sturdy. The cost of consent application is substantial for water-users.
  • Key issue: Decisions are best made at the local level by those involved and affected and know the region best.
  • The problem is with the implementation of the process not with the process itself. This isn't a national issue, as it only occurs in some areas and there doesn't need to be another layer of control.
  • Everything happens in a piecemeal way. Some people haven't got it quite right but it is not a national issue, in Central Otago it has worked quite well. If central government gets involved it will mess up what already works.
  • Concern that nobody realises how little is left in the Manuherakia scheme.
  • The Otago Regional Council is one of the most autocratic bodies. They are unhelpful and obstructive. They are a law unto themselves!
  • Water management is an evolving process. Passing the management of irrigation schemes from government to users has resulted in much more effective management of water. Water trading is developing; there is a need to let things continue to evolve.
  • Territorial Local Authorities (TLA) are invisible stakeholders.TLAs do not appear in the discussion document but should. They are major players in water management. The principle benefit of TLA involvement is that it allows for wise, informed decisions to be made about land-use. We don't have the tools to make the right decisions. We are now faced with non-traditional land-use and have to make good decisions. Changes in land use and demand have created new issues and TLAs need to be involved at a high level.
  • Is the first-in-first-served approach capable of determining the best use of water? There are no tools to address this question.
  • Without water, intensive horticulture would not be possible. Irrigation is essential. There needs to be certainty before making investments. Security of water is essential to landowners.
  • Security of water in the future looks tenuous. A lot of people are going to fight over different uses. There needs to be more working together between regional councils, irrigators and conservationists. There is nothing to gain from a competitive situation.
  • Create local solutions. Local communities can sort problems out better than central government.
  • There is a lack of expertise in New Zealand in the field of irrigation water use. There is a need for guidance on the best uses of water in communities. At the moment guidance and expertise is coming from the commercial sector, they are not qualified to give the best advice on the sustainable use of water. Farmers invest lots of money in irrigation. But this may not be the best use of water or the most efficient system.
  • Regulators also don't always have enough expertise to make good decisions about regulation.
  • Formulating minimum flows and ground water reserves is a problem area. Central government could help with funding in this area.
  • Priority of water rights - an ability to trade to a higher priority right. One barrier to trading is the difficulty of trading between different parts of the catchment.
  • Do not want to see a central government "blanket approach". Each waterway should be considered on its merits. Guidelines not rulings should come from central government.
  • Education is important, there needs to be awareness of issues such as urban water wastage and lowering of water tables by bores. There needs to be national input to raise awareness and concerns, possibly a national education campaign.
  • Water conservation should be dealt with in the same way as electricity conservation in order to manage it better. People value electricity because they pay for it; there is a need to value water more.
  • The adversarial nature of the resource consent process and the ability for parties to oppose just because they can is without logic at times. This is particularly a problem when a government department is opposing something. Central and regional government should get together and sort out their differences.
  • In some districts there is no distinction between rural and urban water - it all comes from the same aquifer. As such it is important that they are managed together.
  • Disband regional councils and hand the responsibility for water management back to district councils who are closer to the community.
  • Otago Regional Council doesn't have a clue what happens here in Central Otago.
  • There are risks involved if decisions are made locally without understanding local and national values. These must also be clearly articulated. It is not difficult to identify national values; the difficulty is in working out how to deal with these at the local level.
  • Central government involvement in water issues should be through science and funding rather than allocation.
  • If water quality is to be measured according to national standards, it could create difficulties as it will not account for regional differences. In addition, most rural households are on independent water schemes - it would be hard to regulate this.
  • What sort of national water quality monitoring programme exists at present?
  • What is happening to Central Otago water quality? Is it declining? Wouldn't it be a good idea for central government to be involved in water quality monitoring?
  • Some waterways have deteriorated and others not. Monitoring is inconsistent.
  • Monitoring is expensive and the high cost is passed on to ratepayers. Huge amounts of data are generated and analysis of this data is expensive. Central government should get involved in monitoring water quality, flows and ecology to find out where there are and are not problems. Monitoring needs to occur along the whole river, not just at the bottom end. It is a problem that monitoring has devolved to the private sector (CRIs) and has become less available. Funding might be an appropriate role for central government.
  • There needs to be more flexibility in the system. What about climate change? There is a need to have the flexibility at the local level to deal with this.
  • Central government should get involved in water harvesting. So much water is just going past us.
  • The lack of detailed knowledge of what is going on and how water systems work is a problem at the regional level. This could be worse if decisions are made at national level.
  • The imposition of drinking water standards on water supplies would be an issue. It would be expensive to upgrade systems when water is mostly used for stock use and for washing down sheds. The community don't want blanket controls.
  • Should there be a priority use for water? Set priority uses for water at a national level.
  • Have a tool to capture good models of ways to do things from some regional councils so they can be used by others.
  • Economics, costs and benefits are all important. The economic benefits of proposals need to be tested.
  • National initiative is needed to add value to local regimes. This requires an assessment of what is happening at local level and assistance where it is needed, rather than the "one size fits all" approach.
  • Has there been any comparison of the effectiveness of unitary and regional/territorial authorities?
  • Central Government should have a monitoring and mentoring role.

Last updated: 25 November 2008