Skip to main content.

Invercargill local government meeting

14 February 2005

Regional issues

  • Surface water quality declines from the west to the east, which coincides with intensification of land-use.
  • Most point source problems have been addressed. Most water quality problems relate to non-point source pollution from the agricultural sector.
  • Contaminants nitrogen and phosphate, and faecal contamination
  • Completed a State of the Environment report 2000, nitrogen exceeded the guidelines 10 or 11 times for surface water quality
  • Phosphorous is generally below guideline levels
  • Faecal contamination mostly exceeds the New Zealand bathing water guidelines
  • Nitrogen is increasing
  • Phosphorus is reasonably static
  • Based on 10 years monitoring
  • Water quality has remained static across many monitoring sites across the Southland region. Trends in Southland are the same as those occurring across New Zealand.
  • Nitrogen is the predominant contaminant for groundwater. This is largely the result of non-point source pollution from agriculture.
  • Quantity: surface water allocation is low. There is not a lot of large out of stream allocation in the region.
  • Over the last five years there has generally been an increase in demand for groundwater, especially where there is intensification in drier areas.
  • Water management framework is an integrated framework involving surface and groundwater. Variation to the Water Plan regarding groundwater is currently notified at moment. Surface water is the priority over the next few months.
  • Surface water allocation framework is underpinned by strong environmental bottom lines.
  • The first in first served system is a concern for the Council.
  • Non-point source contamination is a major problem. There is a need to find the right tools and use not just regulation and/or a National Policy Statement.

Questions/issues raised

  • There is a 35 year groundwater lag. Surface water bodies must a have bigger lag. How do you predict that improving over time?
  • There are equity issues regarding the first in first served system and preference being given to existing consent holders under the proposed changes to the Resource Management Act. There are 10 year consents for groundwater irrigation. The issue is how to deal with equity issues. How do you replace first in first served? What are the other options/tools? Auctions could be an option. There is a need for more tools because first in first served is not working.
  • There is a problem with the first in first served system. It would be better to give people enough water to irrigate during dry times of the year and to have water shared more equitably around.
  • Water should not be traded. There is a risk that in times of economic downturn wealthy users will take up all rights, for example, the electricity sector. Water can be more economic in irrigation rather than energy. One option would be to allocate water to a property and the water stays with the property.
  • Water should have a value, but it should not be auctioned. Water rights would end up in hands of those with the most money. Water is a public resource being allocated for private good. A water right increases the value of land and the capacity to reach high levels of production. Auctioning might not result in the best outcome for the community.
  • Meeting a National Environmental Standard could be contentious if there is no community buy-in. There could be implementation costs imposed on the community.
  • Has to be a value to the resource and this needs to be accounted for in the management of the resource.
  • National Environmental Standards need to be able to be changed if they are wrong. Some flexibility is needed. The arbitrary nature of setting them is problematic.
  • We already have a lot of standards etc in place and monitoring for water. We don't want to re-invent the wheel.
  • The National Environmental Standard process tends to cut across community desires and solutions. Often the community has already arrived at an understanding before national direction is developed.
  • Local solutions could already be working well. For example, with regard to iwi, the Ngai Tahu settlement Act obligations are already in place. National requirements would not be useful. In the Council's Water State of the Environment Report, iwi issues were never identified separately in the document because iwi recognise that other members of the public members share the same concerns.
  • A National Policy Statement should be kept at the higher level, to act as more of a guidance document. High level rather than prescriptive would be effective.
  • What are you going to propose if you don't put numbers in a National Environmental Standard? What could the methods be?
  • There is no acknowledgement in the discussion document that freshwater is a finite resource. Water is not an infinite resource. We cannot keep allocating.
  • Market mechanisms and non-point source pollution. Information is needed on how to manage non-point source pollution using mechanisms such as nitrogen caps and trading. To what extent do you think they would be applicable in the New Zealand context?
  • Is government looking at research in a collaborative way on a national basis on specific problems? Research into recycling of water, rain water collection etc would be useful. Could have a national strategy for the recycling of water.
  • There is a strong need for independent research on nutrients. So much research is driven by industry. Farmers need independent research into solutions.
  • Research is a huge cost to ratepayers. The value of research needs to be incorporated into the Programme.
  • The document is short on the research side, for example, on research into improvements in technical efficiency of use, especially for irrigation. More work could be undertaken to investigate technical efficiency. Not enough emphasis placed on this.
  • Funding for research should be coming from those getting the direct benefit.
  • Will funding be going into research on water allocation and use specifically, or will it be like the Sustainable Farming Fund? There needs to be a separate fund concentrated on water allocation. The Sustainable Farming Fund is a competitive fund and water issues can get lost between categories. Research on water should be stand alone.
  • There is already a lot of research being undertaken. Some of the solutions have already been determined. The gaps in information are around integrated solutions and whole of catchment solutions. The problem is that there are not effective ways of bringing the information together. Central government currently does not facilitate the exchange of information on water. Are the institutional arrangements for facilitation of information dissemination being looked at? What about a one stop shop for water or at least information on water? Research and policy networks for information coordination are needed.
  • Need to look at practices used by other councils. National coordination is needed to facilitate the exchange of ideas and practices.
  • The Resource Management Act review is going on at the moment and it seems like some of the things proposed in the discussion document are going to be undertaken. What is the status of the water discussion document? Has the government already made its mind up about what is going to be done?
  • The clause that requires existing economic investment to be considered in the Resource Management Act is concerning. This is reinforcing the first in first served system because recognition of economic investment is allowing those already with consents to obtain water first.
  • Councils have the ability to review conditions of consents and the efficient use of the resource under the Resource Management Act already. Doesn't the Council still have the power to claw back water for over allocated resources?
  • Action 4: government involvement at submission phase. Central government used to get involved at the start of the plan development process which was useful. This service has been withdrawn. A lack of central government support has been a problem. Information, guidance and advice should be available to councils at the start of the planning process not just at the submission phase.
  • Whole of government submissions would be useful. They would be better than having an end of process sign-off like Coastal Plan process.
  • Why not allocate water up front with land in a way that does not have environmental effects? There could be scientific work undertaken to determine how much is available in a particular area. Grant property rights for water that are attached to the land, with no tradable right. This would be better for the environment.
  • Urban supply needs to be taken into account. Urban supply sometimes needs to cross catchments. The above solution would not necessarily work for urban supply. The quality of water might not be suitable for use if you allocate to each property.
  • The action points are heavy on quantity but not quality. The word "quality" is only contained in about two of the actions.
  • Would a National Policy Statement give direction to water not allocated for environmental and future opportunities? Will it include percentages or be just an abstract statement? Minimum flows do not always take into account environmental values and future water takes.
  • The cross-function issues related to land-use impacts on water quality need to be considered - in particular, allowing land-use to take place, but making sure impacts to water quality are taken care of. The gap is at the policy and planning level, and at the consent level.
  • One solution to address the gaps would be to develop joint plans between territorial local authorities and regional councils under section 80 of RMA. This provision has never been used.
  • Issue 8 "Development of water infrastructure" in the discussion document; Does this mean water harvesting?
  • The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment report on land-use impacts on water quality states that there are inappropriate land-uses in some areas. There is a call for local government to define which land-use is appropriate in certain areas. How does concept fit with the option of defining a national policy statement for water?
  • There must be better ways of using water for greater economic value.
  • Suggestions about determining the most economic use of the water are worrying. This would mean having to speculate where growth is.
  • If you put a value on the water, the best utilisation of the water would flow from that.
  • Would putting a monetary value on water be fair? What about the recreation, social values? Perhaps it is not just about the monetary value?
  • Energy efficiencies need to be taken into account, for example the energy needed to pipe water. Trading off values has to take place at some point.

Last updated: 25 November 2008