Skip to main content.

Christchurch public meeting

14 February 2005

Questions/issues raised

  • Everybody needs certainty.
  • There is concern about certainty and the reliability of ground water and quality.
  • Concerned about the impact of dairying on water quality for tree, horticulture and domestic use.
  • Want to be able to better use water/grey water for house and property - there needs to be education around reusing and recycling.
  • Need to improve irrigation technology.
  • Need to develop technology that allows sustainable trading system.
  • Environmental standards should be set by the community.
  • There is a clash between district/city and regional councils, anti-forestry councils.
  • Forestry will improve quality (good for coastal areas).
  • Main problem from agriculture is non-point discharge - concerns about nitrates.
  • Dairying is okay if it is in the right place.
  • Why is water free? Water is valuable and should be paid for by both urban and rural users.
  • Downstream users need better technology and the storage options.
  • Trading could improve the situation? Might result in costs for recreation.
  • Dairying is not the only problem - we're not clean and green.
  • Trading could be used to manage pollution.
  • Integrated land use would help, could put limits on land use e.g., regulation to avoid inappropriate land use.
  • Integrated Research on Aquifer Protection programme should be supported.
  • Separate the value of water from the value of land.
  • Soil erosion is prevented by vegetation cover on steep land - identify where trees are required, education and encourage riparian planting.
  • Want environmental standards and trading.
  • Want a closer relationship between local and central government for many issues including water - need to avoid duplication.
  • How do you define the highest water value?
  • Concerned about trading - water will end up going to the highest bidder, what are the tradeoffs? Needs to be transparent.
  • Most major rivers should be required to meet world health standards.
  • How do you prioritise and identify between different users? What are the criteria? How do you assess local vs. national criterion?
  • People will think more about water if they have to pay for it.
  • Water quality decisions should be made by the community.
  • Some areas will not be able to meet water quality standards for economic reasons.
  • National utility value could be set and locals could administer it.
  • People are not using their full allocation.
  • How do you set up trading/charging process for water? - existing vs. new users.
  • How can regional planning be a tool for water allocation?
  • There is conflict between local area impacted by needs of other (Aucklanders).
  • Too much stress on a resource is counter productive.
  • Persons who utilise the resource should be responsible for water quality and irrigation.
  • Concern that water is wasted through irrigation - technology is improving in this area.
  • MfE could facilitate the sharing of best practices.
  • More leadership is needed to assist locals in understanding options/issues.
  • Could have a department for water resources.
  • We don't hear in public about iwi issues and don't have the opportunity to debate.
  • There are urban water issues too.
  • Aquifers are not being replenished like they used to be.
  • Water is our lifeblood.
  • Urgency is required to stop degradation of water quality.
  • Need input from communities about what they want.
  • There is concern about how we cater for all of the values.
  • Want to know more about Government's position - where are they coming from?
  • Need to implement storage proposals.
  • The process needs to be open and well informed about the total system.
  • The current tools are not serving the community very well - people don't recognise that water resources are finite.
  • There is an inconsistency between catchments - a central body could help provide an overview.
  • Don't reinvent the wheel - look overseas.
  • Have Water Conservation Orders done what they were supposed to? They need to be monitored. They allow for the national interest to outweigh local interest.
  • The Canterbury Plains issue is just like the Tragedy of Commons in England - poor policy led to negative outcomes.
  • Integrated catchment management work is good - need to know this for water allocation.
  • Some organisations are taking the initiative.
  • National Policy Statements are a good idea.
  • Regional Governments need to work together.
  • It is hard to get public consensus amongst communities regarding values.
  • People need to be more efficient in their water use.
  • Economic drivers will impact on water use.
  • Conservation values are constantly being lost.
  • Need more information on comparing applications.
  • Worried about auctioning.
  • Education is needed.
  • There is a fear of bureaucracy - don't want government intervention apart from funding.
  • Need consistency of definitions of bottom lines.
  • First in first served is not good - criteria is needed for balance, they need to seek good effects as well as adverse effects.
  • No discussion in document about the value of wilderness or landscapes or biodiversity.
  • The document has no goals, no objectives, no target, no timeframes, no direction and no accountability.
  • The RMA review is confrontational/adversarial but is capable of providing outcomes.
  • Precautionary approach to allocation is required.
  • Metering of water may be important.
  • Need to take a holistic approach to all demands on water.
  • Water user groups can improve water use efficiency.
  • Councillors need to be accredited - too many decisions are going to the Environment Court .
  • Move to volumetric limitations for allocation.
  • RMA works well for allocation of infinite resources, not finite resources.
  • Need to work together - stakeholder reference group has been effective.
  • Devolve research to the most appropriate level, the understanding is at the local level.
  • Waterbodies of national importance has potential.

Solutions

  • Central Government should actively facilitate processes with Local Government.
  • Need a national strategy for prioritisation.
  • Stop the pollution of currently unpolluted water.
  • Identify nationally important water ways.
  • Need a framework for transferability/tradability.
  • Need a framework for initial allocation.
  • Need research eg,groundwater, biodiversity - must be independent and transparent.
  • Need good information about the resource.
  • Don't want clawbacks of water.
  • Have a different consent duration depending on the state of the resource and the knowledge of the resource.
  • Place a limit on the use of fertiliser on particular soil types.
  • Use water harvesting to capture high flows.
  • Need greater accountability of local government representatives and officials.
  • Map and identify land use, soil types aquifers.
  • Use regional councils to undertake the Assessment of Environmental Effects investigation.
  • Need a National Policy Statement or National Environment Statement for nitrates.
  • Need water storage.
  • Central Government need to set national priorities.
  • Users should pay for water.
  • Central Government needs to ensure that there is good reliable research information available - use sustainable farming fund model.
  • Priority uses should not be set by bureaucrats - let the market do it. The starting point should be existing consents; we need to protect the existing investment. This needs legislation, funding, and detail at the regional level.
  • Efficiency should be dealt with at consent renewal stage.
  • Need catchment scale plans - a central government 'one pager' could feed into this.
  • Need to encourage best practice.
  • Need national goals ie, rivers should be safe to swim in.
  • National Environmental Standards - prescribe the outcomes, give some time to meet, then strict regulation.
  • Waterbodies of national importance would work if all values are considered and there is some flexibility.
  • Central Government need to take a more active role ie, need to make regional councils do things, assisting science, dialogue, consultation, collective use, understanding.
  • Central Government funding - charges direct and indirect beneficiaries. Should not be a subsidy but should recognise that benefits arise to all.

Last updated: 25 November 2008