Skip to main content.

Invercargill public meeting

14 February 2005

Questions/issues raised

  • Coastal processes and marine issues should be taken into account. When we take water out of the rivers it directly has an impact on the marine environment. We need to deal directly with the impact on marine ecology. Only half of the issues will have been dealt with if we do not look at marine issues. Land-use impacts on coastal environment need to be considered. Marine officials should be added to this conversation.
  • The optimum point is getting back to how water bodies were before human settlement. We should regard this as our baseline. We are reducing our choices by degrading water bodies. We can redress some of our mistakes made 50 years ago. A market model is not the answer.
  • Triple bottom line accounting is important. The Ministry for the Environment's sustainable industry group and triple bottom line reporting need more funding.
  • The word develop should be removed from sustainable development
  • Is it equitable to compare consent applications? What about existing rights? These have to be protected too.
  • What is the rationale behind auctioning or tendering resource consents? Those who have the money to pay for the use of water will be rewarded.
  • It is commendable that the action plan is being developed. Unhealthy tensions will develop between users if we don't do something. First in first served is not working. A non-political allocation process is important. The use of market mechanisms could be an option. Will get best economic use when you charge for the resource. Short term tradable leases could also be used. The volume of each catchment needs to be defined. New Zealand has to decide whether to have economic development or economic constraint.
  • The first served in first served system has some limitations. Water is a finite resource in Southland. Some people will eventually miss out on an opportunity to have water. There needs to be improvements made to the system.
  • What is the bureaucracy needed for the Programme? Will increased resources be needed to implement the Programme? Are there any models from overseas that might work in New Zealand, for example, which demonstrate the interaction between central and local government? Will there be a national body such as the Environment Protection Agency model?
  • Central government is passing the obligations without the money for implementation.
  • The urban population paying about 43 per cent of rates and is getting a small return.
  • What about support for the community to lodge submissions? The community often needs help to write submissions and has to write submissions in their own time. Processes that are more friendly for the public are needed.
  • We should be talking about all water in the catchment, which includes groundwater. Permits are clear about what can be discharged and the amount to be abstracted. There is going to be a lot of cleaning up needed especially where there are tile drains.
  • Some soil types are unsuited to particular types of land use. Groundwater can end up getting polluted.
  • Needs to be provision for cutting back at the time of consent renewal.
  • Soil types and hazards should be stated on land titles so that when a property is sold renewal may not be granted on particular types of land. This would provide an opportunity to take a look at the environmental impacts.
  • We are working with a lack of knowledge on the impacts and the amount of the resource available.
  • Need to look at information available and make the best decision at the time. Conditions and impacts can still be revisited.
  • Why should farmers be held accountable for getting the best available information? Everyone should have to have financial input into the solutions and bear the costs of those solutions.
  • Tradable rights could result in the wealthy only able to buy water.
  • It is the Department of Conservation's job to protect waterways. Why are anglers paying for water conservation orders? The water belongs to all New Zealanders. Use should be controlled so other interests are not hindered. Some regional water plans are toothless. Plans often sound good but there is not enough action taken. There is no enforcement for non-compliance with consents. Councils should decide what the best use of the water is.
  • Education should come into the equation sooner.
  • These issues were talked about 40 years ago. People are more aware these days but people need to be shown it is no longer viable to conduct some practices. Some environmental impacts can be turned around to help individuals save money. We should not need to keep educating each generation.
  • Sewage would be a good start in cleaning up.
  • "Pure New Zealand" is a fallacy.
  • Central government gives a subsidy to treat sewage, but Invercargill does not qualify for the subsidy because it is a city.
  • Central government needs to fund monitoring of environment impacts. Consents must be monitored. Under a trading system you could lose the ability to monitor environmental impacts. Monitoring is a key part of the process. It can facilitate providing a reasonable environmental outcome while still maintaining a reasonable level of use.
  • There is often a conflict between rural and urban views concerning water allocation. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment report on land-use impacts to water indicated that the two groups are linked. What influence will the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment report have on the Programme in terms of the recommendations, tools, and solutions? What about the impacts of the urban community on demands for water?
  • Central government could take a lead in prioritising of stakeholders. Central government could take a role in determining who should have a say.
  • Identifying priority stakeholders is not widely supported.
  • Inter-generational issues need to be considered, especially regarding tradable permits. Water rights could remain with some families only. We should avoid a Murray-Darling Basin situation and should consider land-use appropriate for the soils. These choices used to be made. We need to look at sustainable farming without artificial inputs. Education is important.
  • One of highest users of water in the Southland region are golf courses.
  • The rules in regional plans are a moving target. All bores in the Southland region are metered. 76 per cent of water used for irrigation goes back to the aquifers.
  • In some areas of Southland there are not a lot of dairy farms.
  • Central government should stay out of local government planning, but direction might be needed to create consistency.
  • Councils need some guidance to prevent developing unrealistic plans and rules.
  • Plans are mostly developed by consultants with particular views. Central government needs to give consultants some direction through national guidance.
  • Irrigation technology is poorly developed. Many users are not aware of how to be more efficient.
  • Tradable leases could result in corporate ownership of water. Natural assets should not be managed in this way.
  • A dollar value cannot capture all the values. Environmental values could be lost sight of.
  • How much money is behind the committee? Will there be funding for storage facilities? Central government should provide some funding for storage.
  • Storage is happening at an on-farm basis, especially in Canterbury. Water can evaporate before it reaches a storage facility.
  • Central government support would speed the pace for further development of storage.
  • Water in urban areas goes down drains. There needs to be better recycling and storage facilities for water in urban areas. There are opportunities for water recycling.
  • Government is good at coming up with plans but it needs to subsidise farmers to develop dams so that the whole country benefits from their production.
  • Users often do not know how much water they are using. Permit holders are supposed to report on well levels. There should be a basic requirement that water use is metered. It is difficult to monitor groundwater conditions. Most of the Southland aquifers are shallow - about 20 metres. There is a collective responsibility to monitor water resources and their quality.
  • A more integrated approach between district and regional councils is needed to address the links between land-use activities and freshwater. One option is to identify protected catchment areas, for example, riparian areas. The cumulative effects of land-use activities need to be taken into account.
  • There is a problem for deciding how much water should be left in the rivers. Tools like Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) should be given resources for development. Consistency of methods is needed as well as improved knowledge of tools. .
  • Action 3: Water bodies of national importance - what are the next steps for this work?
  • Is the Programme tied in with the access project?
  • Tradable leases could be allocated annually. Leases would not be traded to multinationals. Trading would occur within the aquifer. The annual recharge of aquifer and surface water volumes would be metered. Daily assessment of use would be needed. 100 per cent of the available water would never be allocated. There would always be margins built into the system.
  • People are confusing a property right with a use right. We are not talking about property rights because the Crown owns the water. One model could be if a regional council sets an allocation limit and users decide how to distribute water.
  • Trading already takes place on an informal basis between dairy farmers.
  • Water use right is often seen as a property right issue. Informal water trades are a possibility.
  • Priority could be given to those undertaking activities with less environmental impacts, for example hydroponics. Some activities would result in less groundwater pollution.
  • The document did not show the relationship between the Crown and Māori. There needs to be a good relationship between Māori and the Crown. Central government needs to take a leadership role with building relationships with Māori and other groups. People need to be informed and to have knowledge of the issues.
  • Eutrophication problems began 40 years ago. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment mentioned in the land-use impacts on water quality report that there is a lack of soil science. We are losing the input of vital ideas and knowledge. Funding of soil science is contestable. There is a need for different kinds of expertise and knowledge across all of the sectors.
  • Is there a possibility that water conservation orders might be replaced with another mechanism?

Last updated: 25 November 2008