Skip to main content.

Gisborne local government meeting

2 February 2005

Comments on the consultation process

  • Why have separate meetings with local government, Maori and the public? Why not have combined meetings? Having separate meetings does not give local government the opportunity to talk together with other sectors of the community. The interests of Māori are similar to those of other sectors of the community in the Gisborne region.

Key water issues in the region

  • All consents are metered. Meters provide good information about how much water has been taken. Surface and groundwater resources are currently not over allocated for the District.
  • There is the possibility of hydro generation in the future.
  • More pastoral farmers may want water in the future.
  • The District is currently in a comfortable position.
  • There are problems with water quality rather than water quantity.
  • There is a need to have different standards for each region. A national standard would not be effective.
  • Need to make sure that the Council can plan for change. There have not been real pressures which have tested the existing system.
  • Heavily silted rivers still have conservation value.
  • Who has to pay for the pollution in rivers - high country or low country farmers?
  • There has been a reverse of the decline in aquifers since the late 1980s.
  • Ground water has iron issues, but is still seen as a valuable resource.
  • Only 12 per cent of the District is flat land. Many of the crops being grown do not need irrigation due to the type of soil. Soils on the Poverty Bay flats hold water.
  • The Gisborne region climate is not extreme.
  • There are five dairy farms in the District.

Questions/issues raised

  • Water quality issues were raised at the public meeting. There is sheep and cattle farming in the hill country area, which means that it is not always feasible to fence off all water ways in hill country areas.
  • At a national level how are recreational groups going to compete against commercial interests if you introduce a tender or auction system?
  • Corporate interests will have greater advantage over smaller farmers. The electricity market could end up owning all the water.
  • If you do not allow the resource to get over-allocated and then you will not need to set up markets. The Council currently tries to administer water consents at as low charge as possible.
  • What about the length of consent terms? The concept of existing use rights should be included. People are entitled to certainty.
  • Most water permits are 5 year terms.
  • Where do tradable consents fit into this?
  • Would be concerned if tradability was written off. Tradability can allow areas to manage their way through issues. Murray-Gouldburn in Australia is a good example in Australia. We should keep looking at these mechanisms and how they could be used.
  • We do not want government or councils to decide what the best use of resources is.
  • There is a conflict in document. On the one hand the document says that local government responsibilities are not going to change, but Action 9 could allow central government to require regional plans to be developed.
  • A tradable system could allow the best value to result in a financial value. What about the other values such as social and cultural.
  • Concern was raised about the current amendments to the RMA and the role for central government. The Minister is given powers to intervene without criteria. There is no opportunity for local government to contest the direction of ministerial decisions. What is the justification for these powers, such as to require councils to prepare land change plans, request for information, as set out in clause 6 of the Bill. Similar provisions in water proposals are not supported.
  • The cost to local authorities with small rating base is significant. There appears to be no opportunity to recoup costs for each of the proposals.
  • There appears to be a drift from local communities making decisions about local issues to central government having a greater role. There appears to be a threat of government regulation.
  • Views on National Policy Statements and National Environmental Standards - all districts are different so policy statements would have to reflect the local conditions to be effective.
  • Nationally important values could raise the level of awareness about important values.
  • There are specific issues around water quality in the District. How would a National Environmental Standard address these - how would this tool work?
  • Maori have different expectations for standards. Is there a point where we say we cannot meet these expectations? Hui with Maori might raise expectations about what can be done but the reality could be quite different.
  • Is the Canterbury situation a key driver for the Programme?
  • Would the water conservation order provisions be abolished? There is a conflict between communities determining their values for water and then having a Water Conservation Order placed on a particular water body.
  • Are the whole of government submissions like the input of the former Ministry of Works and Development?
  • The intention of the RMA to provide for local decision-making should be kept.
  • Are there opportunities to review the water conservation order provisions as well as water conservation orders on particular water bodies?
  • Action 5: Science-based information for calculating minimum flows would be useful. There is currently a lack of research in the District. There is a need for scientific research on low flows and in-stream values.
  • The "claw back" tool is a useful tool for the future even though water resources are not currently over allocated. Information on the implementation of the tools would be useful for the future such as the legal opinions.
  • Central government passes the bucks without the bucks.
  • Financial assistance for water users is not necessarily supported. The Council does not want to pick winners.
  • How would "permit holders required to return a fraction of water access" work?
  • There is merit in returning a fraction, but it needs to be identified how it is going to be used. If the returned amount is used as an efficiency measure, then returning excess is okay.
  • Issue 4: who should determine what the highest value of water is? The Council does have a role in terms of its sustainable management role.
  • Deciding on who gets the water is about deciding which the most important value is. The region has not yet had to make tough decisions about competing uses.
  • Is the subsidy idea across central government - is this a general feeling across government? Are we likely to get any subsidies?
  • A trading permit system relies on accurate information which is not always possible. A pilot registry system would be a useful resource for transfers.
  • There could be transfer between land owners and transfer between sections of rivers. It is possible to issue a water take for the whole section of a river for land owners across that area.
  • Under Action 9: are you requiring a regional RMA plan or would another type of regime or strategy be sufficient? Another option would be to set requirements for regional planning, which is not just confined to plans. Do regional councils have the power to deliver their functions, such as strategies, without going through the RMA processes?
  • Central government approving regional plans is not supported. Would this mean that the public process for plan making could be bypassed and approval could be obtained directly from central government?
  • Should wider public participation be included such as Māori?
  • Raising awareness of the issues is important. Central government should not assume that everyone gets their information from the internet.
  • It is also up to local and regional levels of government to provide information.
  • The Council is already experienced at informing the current water users but there is a gap for raising general public awareness. The Council does not have specific educational resources for this.
  • People who are involved with water are already quite aware of the issues. Most members of the public do not care. People expect local and central government to take care of the problems.
  • There could be a need for more education on the wastage of water - especially in urban areas. A generic programme on the value of water could be useful.
  • What would central government's role be in the pilot programmes identified in Action13?
  • Collaboration has to be issue driven and the issues have to be real. The problems need to be clearly identified.

Last updated: 25 November 2008