Skip to main content.

Hamilton public meeting

1 February 2005

Questions/issues raised

  • All of the councils have hugely differing values by which they define over-allocation. They need consistency in guidelines between regional councils. They also need consistency in approach. In addition, Environment Waikato has never validated their approach which started as a 'rule of thumb' 25 years ago. If there is no consistency you are repeating yourself time and time again.
  • There is a tremendous disparity between scientific knowledge and the way it is applied within councils.
  • There is a need to have consistency in methodologies for determining standards. There has been no overview of catchment management. Decisions need to be made based on understanding the needs of particular catchments "rather than a one size fits all approach".
  • There should be a focus on managing change rather than seeing things as problems. Look at the opportunities - central government needs to work closely with communities to do this. There needs to be more policies around opportunities. The first-in-first-served does not recognise opportunities.
  • There is a need to identify priorities from the beginning. Some things are too important to compromise on.
  • Wetland management
    • There is a need for research to understand systems and so that they can be planned for. Wetlands have not been managed since the introduction of the Resource Management Act. People don't understand where to start and finish. There are no distinct boundaries. Not enough emphasis is given to wetlands in the document.
  • There is a role for central government in supporting long-term research to get better systems about how systems work. It is important to have good long-term data to understand what is happening. Regional councils and central government have roles in ensuring this.
  • Issue three in the discussion document - setting environmental bottom lines and allocation limits is costly and contentious - is important.
  • There needs to be consistent archiving so that data is not lost for future analysis.
  • Concern about the impacts of dairy conversion.
  • Not enough emphasis given to nitrate discharges. A lack of nitrogen budgets on farms results in wastage of nitrogen which is applied when it is not needed.
  • The document lacks teeth.
  • Concern about time-frames to get actions in the document implemented. Supportive of the proposed actions but how long will it take for regional and district councils to pick up on these things.
  • There needs to be a better way of dealing with cumulative effects.
  • Highly opposed to central government taking control of local government, Resource Management Act, and resource consents.
  • Concern about corporatisation of water and the extension of property rights tied to water. These steps have already been taken in the Resource Management Act and foreshore/seabed and aquaculture put emphasis on allocation of resources and cementing that allocation long-term. This runs counter to proposals in the document for more consultation/involvement with communities.
  • Discharges are not looked at broadly enough, especially discharges from activities other than dairy farming. There is also a need to look at urban and industrial discharges and runoff from cities. Urban issues are not included in the document.
  • The range of tools proposed has the capacity to address fundamental issues. In particular, a National Policy Statement to identify important values and ways in which to identify and provide for these.
  • There is a need to provide more guidance on best practice, backed by research to come up with good solutions.
  • There is a need to look at where the cost of cleaning up important assets should lie (local/regional/national).
  • Broader dissemination of best practice is required. Not only to the industrial and farming sectors but also to the sectors that support these e.g.financial sector.
  • Would like to see direction provided sooner rather than later.
  • There needs to be a way that councils can control inappropriate and unsustainable land use.
  • There needs to be national guidelines to prevent more of the sort of problems that are emerging at Rotorua through unsustainable land management.
  • There needs to be a national vision for New Zealand in the future to provide framework for decisions and planning at the local level (both top-down and bottom-up).
  • The issue of resourcing for people to become involved in consultation.
  • There is a need to have links into the Long Term Community Council Planning process.
  • National direction should focus on finding practical solutions and undertaking the research needed to find these.
  • Can a similar system to fishing quotas be applied to water allocation?
  • If national standards are set, who pays to make sure these standards are met locally?
  • Central government involvement - Supportive of consistent methodology at national level but implementation must be at the regional level.
  • Development of whole-of-government positions is supported by most but some want to hear views of different parts of government, rather than just the most powerful voice.
  • A best practice approach is important. There does not seem to be any best practice standards for water.
  • In terms of education and spreading information, messages often don't get through to farmers and land users. The same information must be delivered to all key industry groups.
  • There is potential for central government to be involved in consultation as stakeholders rather than having a role in running processes and making decisions.
  • Opposed to central government control. There should be a national policy statement for a broad overview, but local values should be able to be imposed above this.
  • There is concern about the focus of the Resource Management Act review proposals on limiting Māori participation to iwi. Maori agencies are continually under-resourced.
  • There is a need to look at the mauri of waterways and ecosystems.
  • In terms of working together, there is a danger that in trying to achieve a consensus, diversity will not be heard.
  • There is a need to ensure that people from organisations have mandate from organisations - accountability of all organisations involved is important.
  • Level of involvement - central government to provide vision but local implementation must occur. Wary about loss of local control.
  • Water rights for community uses have gone by the time the commercial/industrial users have taken what they want.
  • Concern about the time it will take for implementation of actions.
  • Concern about land/water interface and land use control. This is an urban as well as a rural issue.
  • One size will not fit all; unique regional values must be recognised.
  • There is not enough emphasis on diffuse discharges.
  • Research and monitoring and access to the data collected is very important.
  • Concern about a whole range of values.
  • Māori concern about direction of the foreshore/ Resource Management Act review - corporatisation of resources/property rights.
  • Concern about allocation mechanisms.
  • The costs involved in planning must be recognised.
  • The consultation process is not effective, not sure what would be but it is an issue that must be addressed. Stakeholders must be encouraged to participate in the consultation process; it can be costly for interested parties to participate, many do not have the resources to participate.

Last updated: 25 November 2008