Skip to main content.

Christchurch local government meeting

14 February 2005

Questions/issues raised

Ministry for the Environment needs scientific authority to balance policy, standards, more streamlines across the country and more national cohesion.

  • Need a national water advisory council with scientific and policy function.
  • Industry finds inconsistency throughout the country - water is cheap in Canterbury.
  • User pays gets people thinking more.
  • Need water metering in Canterbury households.
  • How can we value the resource without metering?
  • There are local political pressures against metering. Central Government should push for compulsory metering. The pricing couldn't be centrally decided.
  • Major consents should be done by the environment court.
  • Need to paint the big picture at the national level.
  • Time and expense for planned development makes them out of date - consequence is resource consent process determining outcome.
  • Have consents decided by region only on points of law.
  • Appeals should only be on points of law.
  • National guidance would take the pressure off local political sensitivities.
  • Water bathing guidelines can be over the top.
  • Guidelines need to be practical, sensible and workable.
  • Guidelines must be developed in partnership, central and local government.
  • The current process is very expensive.
  • Urban water quality should be addressed.
  • Need to promote integrated catchment management.
  • Need to clarify property rights.
  • National interest shouldn't override local interests.
  • Need to empower the local community for better outcomes.
  • Need to look at the water holding ability of the landscape.
  • There is no mention of indigenous forestry or vegetation.
  • The long time frames are important.
  • Degradation of rivers in Christchurch need guidance to assess quality of waterways and set standards.
  • Could develop a survey tool - pilot study to assess waterways.
  • Water quality classes.
  • Need to ensure that short term rules don't impact on long term.
  • Private property rights are unclear and conflicting.
  • Everyone has to expect some change and give a bit.
  • 1 st come 1 st served is an issue.
  • There are equity issues associated with trading.
  • Stewardship is an issue.
  • Storage is a major issue.
  • How does this exercise fit with the waitaki allocation project.
  • Nervous about central government directing councils.
  • Water as a property right could be a good way to allocate it.
  • Government should have a greater role in storm water management and monitoring like New South Wales.
  • Need greater local involvement in setting national standards and the process for doing so.
  • What constitutes water use? How much is being used and what are the patterns of use?
  • There needs to be a model for the interface between central and local government and communities.
  • Economic instruments are a good way to achieve better use and allocation and better quality discharge - pay for use.
  • Metering would need to be well implemented.
  • Metering can trace leakage.
  • To achieve changes in behaviour need processes people can readily link into.
  • Efficient use is critical in large scale dairying use.
  • Storm water management is an issue.
  • Obtaining agreement between councils can be difficult - a coherent central government view would help but if local government disagreed then could result in lowest common denominator.
  • Would need to have checks around central government involvement.
  • A role for triple bottom line?
  • Look overseas for research, ie, Israel is doing research on water allocation/quality.
  • Central government could lead when the issue is politically too hard at a local level. Need adequate funding to make the direction happen.
  • Need to list water bodies of regional importance to be included alongside water bodies of national importance.
  • Central government should carry the risk for regional development projects such as irrigation. Need to recognise the intergenerational dimension.
  • There is a lack of coordinated science and government approach.
  • Have had central government initiatives/input in the past - why didn't they work?
  • There is a gap between the idea and the implementation especially regarding National Environmental Standards.
  • There is a diversity/clash of values to do with water issues.
  • Need an engagement of science in environmental decision making.
  • It is a big step to move from non-point discharge to tradable rights/allocation.
  • Action is the issue - need to build motivation.
  • You can't separate urban and rural.
  • Describing natural assets (asset management) are difficult - especially describing condition of freshwater values.
  • Sediment in waterways in Christchurch is a huge issue.
  • Need to take a total water cycle approach rather than the linear approach.
  • Nationally important water bodieDoes this lower the value of others?
  • National Policy Statement
  • Defined in Resource Management Act
    • Currently a vacuum
    • Prescription legislation useful if problem/issue same across the country
    • Enabling legislation possibly better for regional differences
    • Need to be flexible to change; reflective of regional differences
  • Impact of land use important, rather than specifying land uses allowable.
  • Allocation/tradability will need legislation changes - central government needs to work with local government on this.
  • Standards
    • Work well to get to a certain level
    • Ability to enact processes to achieve standard differs between different councils/communities
    • Need to identify consistent goals
    • Mandatory standards can have problems especially in small communities
    • Local government needs to be clear with community what they are trying to achieve
    • Needs local figures - these are hard for central government to deliver
  • Economic Instruments
    • Concern with existing right to take
    • Need controls on efficient use
    • 'Use it or lose it' regime needed
    • Need certainty for renewals
    • Tradability on groundwater would be more difficult - hard to define resource
    • Boundary conditions need to be defined before tradability is considered
    • Don't understand the system well enough in NZ yet
    • Need better structure about charging
    • Aim for more efficient use/reduced water use
  • Lot of scientific uncertainty.
  • Science feeds into decision making.
  • Water quality slide is of concern because some streams are improving - therefore it is not representative.
  • Ready to go in Ashburton - just need the funding.
  • There is real scope for PhD research around water issues to be run out of Lincoln and Canterbury universities.
  • Transfer if scientific information is important.
  • Tradable market for water allocation is a good idea - could be run like the fishing quota system. Needs to recognise existing users. Where would the money go?
  • Resource Management Act needs another layer - need someone to play an ombudsmen role. The environment court process is too cumbersome.
  • The process is lengthy especially regarding single issue submissions.
  • Need balance between the local and regional interests
  • Water management is not right yet.
  • Need a dispute resolution mechanism between different mandates. Raise flags early about significant issues and work through them.
  • Need to match value with the cost of process.
  • Document needs to clearly articulate aims and objectives.
  • Riverbeds
    • Can't manage water without managing the beds
    • Land owners shouldn't be disconnected from the management of them
    • Managed by Land Information New Zealand at the moment

Solutions

  • Need for national setting of standards/guidelines/approaches.
  • Need bottom lines.
  • Need a national water advisory council.
  • Promote integrated catchment management.
  • Clarify property rights.
  • Need processes for facilitating projects of national/regional significance i.e. fast track outside of normal processes, eg, Waitaki.
  • Future availability and reliability/quality of water for urban populations (i.e. sustainability) needs to be considered.
  • Central government should provide the framework only and room for local flexibility to make it work.
  • Central government should fund a study on groundwater for allocation - work with those who have the local knowledge.
  • Have a national system to have consistent approach/process to identify flow requirements.
  • Conflict in views from different government departments is not helpful - a coordinated view would be helpful.
  • Central government should assist/support/fund local initiatives e.g. Canterbury water study.
  • Actions need to be priced and timed.
  • Science needs to be clear on the issues and where to focus research.
  • International experience is critical - can't always depend on scientists to identify this.
  • Central government, local government, institutions and communities need to work together to understand the water systems, and agree on outcomes and actions - this includes education and communication.
  • Need a definition around priorities of use.
  • Central Government should be involved through National Policy Statements not National Environmental Standards.
  • Whole of Government submissions need to include a regional perspective.
  • Need guidance on how to implement solutions.
  • Need to share best practice - ie, Rotorua.
  • Whole of Government submissions are a good idea.
  • Need to make the mediation process work better earlier - can't do this in Wellington , central government should take advice from local level.
  • Water quality is not as bad as painted.
  • Economic tool box a good idea but needs more work.
  • Need access to good science.

Last updated: 25 November 2008