Skip to main content.

Masterton public meeting

7 February 2005

Questions/issues raised

  • Allocation of groundwater as a resource, especially as a commercial resource, needs clarity and certainty for investors. Suggestion of a system similar to fishing quotas, the amount you can take each season based on the availability of the resource. In the fishing industry, quotas go to those with the lowest overhead costs/ unit of resource for increased efficiency.
  • National involvement is fine in terms of setting standards, but they shouldn't be interfering with local decision-making.
  • Should plantation forestry be seen as an abstractive use of water and need to bid for water?
  • Regional councils want to get rid of discharges, not trade them.
  • Concern about corporatisation of resources with tradable rights.
  • Common expiry dates on consents are not mentioned in the document.
  • New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement review shows that it hasn't been well implemented, would not want to see this repeated with a freshwater National Policy Statement.
  • Regional councils have not utilised their existing tools/rights. So why should they be given more?
  • Concern that this is all about central government trying to take ownership/control of water to generate revenue for central and/or local government.
  • Minimum standards should be required rather than looking at tools like trading.
  • Balances between values need to be found at the local level.
  • Council discharges into water are a problem and need to be dealt with as well as those by individuals.
  • Whole-of-government submissions are a good idea. It might be hard to achieve but it would be worth trying.
  • There is a need to deal with all catchment interactions that affect both water quality and quantity. This inter-relation isn't adequately identified in the document or recognised in the community - solutions need to focus on integrated catchment management. Communities need to make decisions based on Integrated Catchment Management.
  • It is possible to put a monetary value of all the different uses and values of water, the question is how you do it.
  • The issue is not ownership of water but ownership of access to water.
  • Not everyone can afford to pay for access to water.
  • There is no need for trading as regulation can achieve everything you need.
  • Minimum standards and "bottom lines" send a message to potential polluters that they may take the water quality right down to the lowest standard. Instead it should be about percentage change.
  • Support for an approach which supports local government as well as central government having responsibilities for water management.
  • There is a need for good communication between different government agencies.
  • Implementation/operationalisation of sustainable development/integrated water resource development is a real issue.
  • Funding support is important.
  • Central government should provide the assistance and guidance but local decision-making is important to allow regional councils to develop best practice that can be picked up elsewhere.
  • Central government has a role in setting parameters, standards and framework. Or can local communities do this?
  • The Lake Taupo project can be used as a good model for finding solutions - gather knowledge to find solutions and then apply this knowledge elsewhere.
  • Results of research need to be made freely available to everyone. There is a need for databases of basic information eg, how much water different towns use.
  • Any system for identifying nationally important values needs to be transparent and collaborative.
  • A "national values" approach is a way of overriding local views and decisions. Local rights should not be overridden by the "national interest".
  • "National interest" can be looked at in two ways - issue-based (eg, water quality) or value-based (eg, Waters of National Importance). There could be considerable debate over which approach to take.
  • Central government needs to get involved in storage.
  • There is a need to future-proof the situation by forecasting future demands so you can be proactive. This should be done by working together - eg, information exchange between government and farming sectors.
  • Should we be adapting natural cycles to farming needs, or adapting farming to natural cycles?
  • There needs to be a lot of work done to conserve water during peak periods; more community education is required at local and national levels.
  • Water meters and charging for water may result in greater efficiency.
  • There is a need to look at the costs involved as investments. Look at the long-term benefits and sustainable development. The document does not place enough emphasis on these.
  • There is a need to be diligent with existing laws and regulations rather than developing new tools.
  • Look at opportunities for water rather than problems.
  • The Resource Management Act stands in the way of making use of opportunities through the costs involved in making applications and the uncertainty of outcome.
  • In terms of structural arrangements look at the past/ National Water and Soil Conservation Authority model and what did and didn't work. The benefit of that model was that it provided good communication between agencies.

Last updated: 25 November 2008