Skip to main content.

Gisborne public meeting

1 February 2005

Questions/issues raised

  • Are you happy with the attendance at this meeting? Have you advertised the meeting wisely. One suggestion is to get email addresses from the attendees for future meetings. Does the number of attendees justify the cost to taxpayers? The meeting schedule should have been advertised in the Dominion and the Herald.
  • There is not got a good representation of rural land use at the meeting.
  • All water permit users were contacted in the region by Gisborne District Council.
  • Why set procedures at the regional level for national environmental standards - couldn't you have just a base-line standard for all regions?
  • Could you give an example of a procedure in a standard?
  • Why is the issue being brought forward now? Is the RMA not working? Is it incompetent?
  • How is the 80 million dollars going to be spent for Lake Taupo?
  • Setting a national environmental standard could be complicated. There could be cross boundary issues for water bodies in more than one catchment. It could take a long time to develop this. Many values would have to be taken into account.
  • What were the key drivers that produced the document? What relevance does the document have to the Gisborne region?
  • It's good that the Programme is happening. There is raw sewage being discharged into the bay. Diffuse discharges pollute the rivers which flow out to sea. There are problems in Gisborne. Farmers in Gisborne aren't wealthy like dairy farmers.
  • The wealth in Gisborne comes from the rural area. Water is vital to the income of the area. Gisborne is a major area where the community relies on the rural sector. Development in rural areas isn't taking the future into consideration. The 35 year consent term is too long - and once it's granted it can't be reversed. Allocation is going to be a problem. Where will the water come from if the town doubles in size?
  • Will there be problems if you change from first in first served? What about equity issues and the rights of current users?
  • Is the effects-based purpose of the RMA behind some of the ideas?
  • 35 year consent terms should be shortened to 5 years with review.
  • A 35 year consent term might not be too long. The problem is that we are inefficiently using the water. We waste water. We need to be more efficiently using the water.
  • How much does a 35 year consent cost? Administration costs are charged by the Council only. The Council does require a water meter to determine how much is being used.
  • Meters and charging for water could be an option so that the water goes to the highest value use.
  • Could look at putting in infrastructure for storage such as dams.
  • There should be an incentive for people to take water from the most available resource - you could get so many credits for less impacts to a particular water body.
  • Where the discussion document says "consents could be required for instream uses" - page 20 Action 6. It would be interesting to see how section 5 would be interpreted and which uses/values would take precedence.
  • Action 3: Are there any rivers in the Gisborne District which have been identified as nationally important?
  • Concerned that the proposals would be dumped in the region with little guidance e.g. water bodies of national importance.
  • Water metering is a good idea. All regional councils should require water meters. Councils need to know how much water is available for planning.
  • What would whole of government submissions mean? Perhaps government departments would get together and have a common voice.
  • Why is the Department of Conservation not here tonight?
  • Are the costs involved in implementing the Programme going to be addressed? Some councils do not have the resources to carry out all or some of the proposals. The proposals will need sufficient funding and a recognition of the capabilities of the regions to be able to do this. Past history has shown that resources have not been given to small, less well off regions.
  • Perhaps we should be looking at changing the rating system - but we might not have the rating base to draw from.

Last updated: 25 November 2008