Skip to main content.

Dunedin public meeting

14 February 2005

Questions/issues raised

  • A major issue missed in the document is the split control for various parts of the catchment by different agencies. There needs to be a single government department to manage the whole catchment. There is currently a lack of integration in water management.
  • Water can't be looked at in isolation from soils, biota etc. The RMA currently takes a mechanistic rather than a systems approach. People need to be working together.
  • Key issues: central vs. regional control. What is being proposed is central government taking over; this is a move away from the RMA. Federated Farmers has a philosophical problem with this. The essence of the RMA is regional control. Issues are best dealt with at the local scale with local input. The last thing the community needs is government laying down laws.
  • Huge differences exist in characteristics of regions and in uses of water and community expectations.
  • There is a perception that national standards mean central government is taking over. The role of local authorities in catchment management should not be diminished by national standards.
  • How would central government actually go about creating national standards?
  • Caution is needed when deciding which type of issues and standards are suitable for a top-down rather than a bottom-up approach.
  • There is no problem with the development of a coherent cross-government view in submissions, but it should stop short of government intervention. It should only have the same status as local submissions.
  • Are regional values superior to national values? The general public feeling is that they are not. There needs to be a way of deciding between values before you start to look at how to identify them.
  • Two views exist: 'Land is a resource' and 'land must be preserved' both extremes are wrong and need to come together for a more balanced approach.

National importance

  • To whom? There is a fear that national importance may be overridden by economics. There is also concern about the risk associated with identifying water bodies of national importance for particular values - there is a risk of getting it wrong.
  • The Otago Regional Council (ORC) water plan shows how important water is here and planning must be done on a regional basis not a national basis.
  • Concern over adding further national requirements to existing regional ones.
  • The RMA appears to be an extremely good tool. Issues can be adequately covered in the local region. However, some central government oversight could be added to aid implementation and to provide support to regional councils to improve performance.
  • A functional audit of regional councils should be carried out which compares their RMA.
  • Variation in cost and processing time of basic resource consents exists between councils; there is no consistency. Publicising non-performance is an effective way of dealing with this. Government should be more pro-active in pointing out where performance is an issue and providing guidance to improve performance. Central government involvement should focus on an audit process.
  • Issue of non-performance by Environment Canterbury. There are currently no penalties for poor performance e.g. non-compliance with statutory time-frames.
  • Some councils have a problem of inadequate resources, central government could have a role in providing funding where this is an issue.
  • Concern about the national approach.
  • The existing legislation is sufficient if backed up by a functional audit of regional councils, publicity and funding.
  • Local issue: Mining privileges are not contained within the document and don't expire till 2021. These need to be dealt with before then.
  • Better use and efficiency of water in urban communities is needed, for example, collection of rain water. Urban communities are a drain on rural resources.
  • The document focuses on allocation but not the bigger picture of waste water. There needs to be more efficient use of water. Water efficiency must be looked at.
  • Water harvesting
    • What's going to happen when water is taken from streams instead of building reservoirs? Water harvesting should be a national priority.
    • Keep water within the environment, there are huge benefits if you do so - wetlands, biodiversity and soil conservation.
    • Whose role is water harvesting?
    • Central government - monitoring, but for local issues there is concern about central government control. Central government should have a role at the broader level only.
    • Department of Conservation and capital cost are barriers to water harvesting facilities.
  • There is confusion over riparian management. It is not clear in the document whose role riparian management is but its importance must be recognised.
  • The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's report needs to be considered.
  • Central government should play a key role in co-ordination and information. National direction should be about facilitation and support and possibly about water quality standards.
  • There could be a default national direction which would apply where issues had not been addressed locally.
  • Central and local government need to come together to develop national direction eg, setting minimum flows - set timeframes and methods but not community outcomes. There is a need to take regional variability into account.
  • Concern about affordability for rural communities having to meet drinking water standards when people are happy with less. There needs to be regional rather than national solutions.
  • Central and local government have to come together in terms of infrastructure.
  • Central government's role is to provide checks and balances rather than making decisions and taking control.
  • How will things be affected by climate change?
  • Some rural water schemes are under attack as they are not meeting water standards.
  • There needs to be a water management team to visit regional council to check-up and enforce. Councils need to know where they are going and if they are failing, why?
  • There is a problem of insufficient scientific information. Central government could assist in resources for this.
  • Is expertise available locally? Expertise in land and water resource management has been lost at all levels of government. Central government needs to lead by example in its land management - should be more integration.
  • In terms of working together, the whole framework is wrong. There is no communication between science and policy. Working together is not possible unless everyone is aiming for the same thing. There is a need to develop a common vision across government.
  • Department of Conservation
    • Has a very narrow focus.
    • Are continually appealing against land-use resource consent applications.
  • An inherent conflict exists between agriculture and high quality water.
  • There is a need for inspection of point sources. Diffuse discharges are important too but point sources need to be sorted out first. This is not addressed adequately in the document.
  • There is a need to disseminate current scientific understanding about water quality to inform debate. Water quality can always be improved, you can always do better. To keep water quality perfect, we need to go back to where we came from, but this is not possible. The vast majority of the population have no idea about the importance of maintaining water quality.
  • Fence waterways - Fonterra has an accord to fence of waterways but it is not a binding agreement. Stock in rivers is a proximate cause of poor water quality; there is a need to look at the ultimate causes. There is a need to change the perception/behaviour of land owners in relation to waterways eg, in the United Kingdom rivers take priority over agriculture rather than the other way round.
  • The notion that New Zealanders have no appreciation of the importance of maintaining water quality is insulting.
  • Farmers have invested heavily in reducing discharges to streams e.g. dairy shed effluent. Other users, (industries) also have a responsibility to do the same.
  • Allocation is a market driven approach that is creating problems. It is possible to have tradability of permits without going to a hard market approach.
  • Singling out farmers is simplistic.
  • Putting an economic value on the uses of water will mean that that the highest value is attached to urban use - this will devastate rural areas.
  • A lack of enforcement of current requirements and holes in the current allocation system are problems.
  • There is a need to recognise that addressing problems takes time and land-owners must be worked with to find solutions.
  • Concern about protecting existing investment if reallocation of resources takes place.
  • Consider the "use it or lose it" approach to deal with over allocation.
  • There is a problem that even if the consent holder isn't complying with the conditions of their consent. Even though enforcement action can be taken, the consent can't be taken away.

Last updated: 25 November 2008