Skip to main content.

Dunedin local government meeting

February 14 2005

Group 1 questions/issues raised

  • The document covers issues that confront the Otago region
  • Issues in the community focus on profit and don't always take into account the needs of the community.
  • Who owns the water? Contact Energy or the public?
  • Concern about water allocation
  • The first-in-first-served approach allocates to commercial uses, leaving nothing for the community. There is a need to provide for community values as well as economic values. The New Zealand community should own the water not the shareholders of Contact Energy.
  • Clarification: consent holders do not own the water but just have the use of it.
  • The concept of "national importance" is worrying, for example, if the Waitaki is identified as nationally important for hydro power generation.
  • The background reports (with the exception of the biodiversity report) to the discussion document are useless and can't be used to make decisions.
  • There is a need to look at in-stream values above nationally important values. In-stream values must be addressed before allocating to abstractive uses.
  • Waters of national importance need to be identified so communities know where they are.
  • Local decision-making with central government providing guidance.
  • Science is missing.
  • There is a need for a combined top-down, bottom-up approach. All the actions in the document are top-down and patronising.
  • Cumulative loss is of concern.
  • A National Policy Statement could set default minimum flows, in the form of a method rather than a prescribed level and must take into account the individual catchment characteristics.
  • Over-allocation is an issue and often people don't use their full allocation - this is inefficient.
  • A moratorium could be put in place as a tool to prevent degradation.
  • Government money could be used to buyback resources.
  • Why weren't these issues managed in the 1970's?
  • A National Policy Statement would be a good start but must be written carefully. It could be used to reinforce the local role in decision-making.
  • Central government could provide funding for local government.
  • Supportive of the whole-of-government approach but it would require agencies to develop a joint, non-conflicting mission statement.
  • Practical knowledge is missing from the top-down approach; the community knows best.
  • Regional councils should be able to call for government assistance to deal with difficult issues.
  • The first-come-first-served approach is flawed
  • In Otago there is currently a mechanism in place to trade water rights.
  • Water harvesting
    • Central government should have a role in storage infrastructure.
    • A separate national group could be put in place to oversee infrastructure and provide funding.
    • There is a need for policy which supports water harvesting as the RMA stands in the way.
  • There is a need to factor in uncertainties.

Group 2 questions/issues raised

  • It is important for the "national perspective" to have a National Policy Statement to:
    • Address issues about water storage e.g Perth - grey water, rapid run-off, capacity, reserve.
    • Acknowledge we are short of water.
    • Acknowledge that rating issues important and need to take care that costs are not 'loaded' but are affordable and realistic.
  • Water storage is missing from the document.
  • Big issue: improvements to existing infrastructure - irrigation, water distribution systems, storage.
  • K-line 'collection' - small storage, contour, out of season.
  • Efficiency will impact on existing irrigation. If farmers make more efficient use of water they can irrigate more but still use the same amount of water. However, there will be no run-off so down stream and ecological values may suffer.
  • Irrigation efficiency - extended area commanded, less land irrigated.
  • Potable water in rural communities for domestic needs, fire fighting, service schemes or storage.
  • Concern that if a river is allocated to its full capacity there will be increased pressure when new people arrive.
  • Quality
    • Water supplies focussed on 'end' users.
    • Human health is at risk because of activities on land - salt intrusion.
    • Roof water collection - storage
  • Allocation to the highest value - who decides? Does the market decide?
  • Tradability - dependent on crop variations.
  • The Otago Regional Council Water Plan hides facts.
  • There is a need to integrate thinking and planning around water uses. Domestic, stock, irrigation and biodiversity should all be integrated. There is a need for a holistic view.
  • Take and use - should be two different consents, not combined into one.
  • Lead in time to permit renewals is essential - generational changes, education.
  • Government inputs into Resource Management Act issues - only Department of Conservation to date. No government department looking at social and economic aspects.
  • Whole-of-government input but community based decisions with local government input.
  • Good scientific base required
    • Understanding okay
    • Validation not sound
  • Minimum flows - why not community values? - Wider perspective - not all the same size/values.
  • Communities (rural and urban) need to be educated about making choices and the value of water.
  • Important to understand the long term council community plans
  • Subdivisions require a potable water supply. Roof storage and water supply are not always reliable.
  • Awareness of state of water quality is important - there should be public notification of beach/river bathing water quality.
  • Urban areas need to better understand their demands on potable water requirements on rural communities - cost of having 'quantity' or 'quality' of water in rivers.
  • Tradability across borders would be difficult.
  • Tender system.
  • Cost of establishment and lack of tenure security will not work. Certainty is important especially where long term investments are involved.
  • National water planning standards - be careful not to introduce issues such as rural water standards - small numbers and cost - impracticable. Government should provide funding for compensation of mining privileges.
  • Ranking national rivers requires extreme care - focus on one reduces values of others. Tough decisions will need to be made - irrigation, hydro or whatever is in the 'national good'.

Monitoring

  • Otago has good working 'water plan' - opportunity for others to learn and use as an example.
  • Government input needs to take an overview approach - funding and resources need to be available. Who is responsible for funding?

Group 3 questions/issues raised

  • The District Council would really like to be able to monitor abstraction rates. Water needs to be monitored as a national resource. However, there is a funding issue, particularly in low populated parts of the country where there is a low rating base.
  • Sustainable management of fresh water resources needs to be undertaken on a catchment-by-catchment basis.
  • The Kakanui catchment was seen as a good pilot project where all water-users, are metered voluntarily. The community accepted this approach as they recognise that there is a problem in the catchment. However, it may not be so readily accepted in areas where people do not perceive there to be a problem with water quantity.
  • Concern over areas where there are increases in subdivisions in relation to potable water supply and sewage treatment.
  • The only way to prove that there are issues with water quality/ quantity is with the provision of factual data. There are currently gaps in monitoring and in research. These need central government funding and/ or joint ventures with local government.
  • The use of water harvesting such as on-site farm storage, should be encouraged. However, currently there are not the resources to undertake such projects.
  • It is difficult to get water management in Central Otago sorted out until the issues relating to mining privileges are dealt with. This needs central government intervention.
  • Concern over public health issues relating to drinking water from groundwater resources, which are affected by intensive agriculture.
  • There is a need to monitor and determine what the water quality is.
  • Who pays for the test drills of boreholes; should the user pay?
  • There are gaps in knowledge and research on the water quality and quantity of aquifers. In Otago information is known about some of the larger aquifers but not the others.
  • National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research collects water information, working for private bodies, but this information is not available for the public. It is felt that there is a conflict of interest.
  • Many of the options that the discussion document outlines are already available through the Resource Management Act.
  • You cannot treat the whole country as equal: there are different environmental conditions and resource implications in different regions.
  • Submissions by central government are useful.
  • There needs to be central government direction on tools for conserving water in urban areas. In particular this relates to metering water supply, which will meet with political resistance.
  • Tradable rights to discharge would be a bad idea - loosening the polluter pays principle and allowing for the right to pollute.
  • There should be no duplication between central and local government as this will lead to increase in costs to the rate payer. Whatever is implemented should minimise costs to end users.
  • There is a need for shared expertise throughout the country as not every council can employ specialists.
  • Joint ventures between central and local government are required to tackle many of the problems.

Last updated: 25 November 2008