Skip to main content.

Greymouth public meeting

15 February 2005

Questions/issues raised

  • A national policy statement might not be applicable to all regions especially the West coast. The economy of the West Coast could be affected because it might not be applicable to the area.
  • Regulation in a national policy statement could have adverse effects.
  • Best practice information and dissemination of that information is important. This could mean that a national policy statement is not needed.
  • The small rating base of the region means it is often difficult to obtain expert information. Regions with less resources will have difficulty implementing national policies. More expertise is needed. Implementation of policies requires thought, time and expertise.
  • National direction and central government involvement could be problematic because there are vast differences between the regions. A national policy statement might not be able to address these differences.
  • What information do we have to determine how water quality has declined? Do we have information about the contributing factors?
  • The problems of quality and allocation are not unique to New Zealand. Has the government looked at the lessons learned from other countries?
  • How much is industrial pollution contributing to poor water quality?
  • Education has a key role in improving practices.
  • Rural and urban water issues should not be separated.
  • The number of dairy farms on the West Coast has doubled in the last ten years.
  • Point source discharges have been addressed.
  • The Regional Council has limited funds for state of the environment monitoring. There are also limited funds to disseminate best practice. Central government should provide finance for these issues.
  • The transfer of aquatic weeds to water bodies is concerning. Is the Programme going to address this problem? Currently there is no checking of boats entering water bodies.
  • There is currently not enough monitoring of discharge consents and diffuse impacts from land-use activities. More compliance monitoring and enforcement is needed. The regional council has limited funds and resources to undertake more monitoring so there is a need for more funding for compliance staff and auditing of councils to see whether consent conditions are being complied with.
  • How will the national policies impact on rate payers - who will pay?
  • Neighbours are the most effective enforcers, and peer pressure amongst the dairy industry. This has resulted in improvements.
  • Providing solutions on how to fix problems is important. More monitoring, research and information on best practices would be helpful and more likely to be taken on board rather than enforcement. There needs to be access to effective solutions.
  • Will the education and awareness mentioned in the discussion document involve working with farmers and water users directly?
  • Action 3: What criteria are going to be in place to determine what water bodies have a national value? What will make a water body of national value?
  • What is going to happen to the draft lists - what is the current thinking?
  • Who is setting the priorities and at what level will they be set, at the community, regional or national level? Even if the priorities are set at the national level, it becomes difficult for regions and communities to maintain those outcomes. There should be funding for regions and communities to implement national outcomes.
  • A catchment based approach would be sensible to cater for smaller water bodies.
  • There needs to be an integrated catchment management approach to incorporate the lagoons and wetlands.
  • Funding for implementation needs to be dispersed around the whole country - not just Auckland, or large centres.
  • This issue looks similar to the forestry issue, where some areas are being protected for the use and enjoyment of people from other areas.
  • Would there be tighter controls for the use of water from a river feeding into a water body of national importance?
  • The whole catchment should be taken into account as a unit rather than separate water bodies within catchments.
  • What is the toolbox for councils managing land-use changes? What is the thinking behind this?
  • Education might be a better option rather than regulation and market tools.
  • Regulatory approaches would require more monitoring and assessment, therefore more costs to councils.
  • Tourism impacts are important too.
  • What is the target for water quality? Do you want to revert to the quality of 1950? There is a need to balance the pressures on the environment and development. If so, is the target realistic? What are the assumptions behind the ideas?
  • Is the end point outcomes or effects? Could this work be overridden by any changes that come out of the review of the RMA?
  • Dissemination of best practice is one of the most effective ways of getting behaviour change.
  • Are there site visits to water bodies, and is there education about what practices could be implemented to prevent water pollution when resource consents are issued? There is a need to make sure that the information is available when people apply for a resource consent.
  • How does the Programme address the problem of wetland clearance on private land?
  • The mining sector is learning about the benefits of retaining or creating wetland features.
  • Would government end up requiring wetlands to be protected on private land? This would impact on private property rights.
  • Wetlands should be managed at the local/regional level.

Last updated: 25 November 2008