Skip to main content.

Napier local government meeting

31 January 2005

Regional update

  • Heretaunga Plains aquifer system - work is being undertaken to identify risks and threats to this water resource. Initial research shows the aquifer is at a very slow rate of decline.
  • AG mart work to look at water supply.
  • Water balance modeling is showing that water quality isn't a problem.
  • Northern areas - not aware of significant problems.
  • Reasonably well positioned - good tools for management.
  • Can have too much water - flooding issues.
  • Council held a strategic session recently and identified water as the most important issue.

Questions/issues raised

  • How much effort has been put into researching international best practice and mechanisms used in other countries?
  • The Californian and Israel models should be looked at.
  • Does the lack of research into other countries mean that other countries have not considered the same issues that we are dealing with in New Zealand?
  • Has the United Kingdom's system been looked at?
  • It's the role of central government to look at international experience
  • Can the Ministry for the Environment reassure us that the Quality Planning website will continue to be funded and operated by the Ministry for the Environment? The website should continue to be funded and administered by the Ministry for the Environment.
  • Need to start looking at selling water to the highest bidder. Systems for allocating scarce resources need to be considered.
  • Have to be careful about being driven by the market. Can look at the Australian model, but selling to the highest bidder doesn't necessarily mean that it is allocated to the highest value.
  • Concern about moving away from first in first served - could use frequent review to identify whether water is going to the highest priority use.
  • Is the presumption in the paper that the first in first served system is going to be replaced?
  • Existing consents will get preferential treatment under the Resource Management Act amendment.
  • It is hard to know what the best mechanisms will be until we know what the national priorities are.
  • Who sets these national priorities? A process for involving local government and stakeholders needed for developing a National Policy Statement.
  • Whole of government submissions were raised. Where would a submission like this be most helpful? Some government departments are good at advocating their priorities eg, Department of Conservation, but other departments often do not make submissions. Therefore, a balanced government view is not always provided. There is often a confusing message from government to regional government on what the national priorities are. If government cannot determine the national priorities, how can regional government be expected to make these calls? Whole of government submissions used to be done by Ministry of Works.
  • Consistent advice/direction from central government is needed.
  • Need to emphasise the importance of partnerships. Partnerships should be started at beginning of a process. Local government are equal partners. There should not be an "us and them" relationship. Partnerships are needed to work through the issues.
  • Central government needs to listen to local government.
  • Water bodies of national importance. What are you going to do with the list?
  • Heretaunga Plains is included in the irrigation report. Does this mean that you will interfere in the management of this water resource?
  • Confusion around the water bodies of national importance - will central government take more of a role in managing particular water bodies?
  • The discussion document implies that if we get it right there will be more water available. Central government needs to be clear that there isn't enough water to meet demands in some areas such as the East Coast.
  • Why weren't urban impacts on water quality included in the scope of the Programme?
  • The document does not address the tension between the demand for more water and the water quality problems that often result from intensive agricultural production. The connection is not clearly articulated. The discussion document does not offer solutions about how you deal with this tension. More complex bureaucratic processes won't necessarily address this tension.
  • Water is usually very inefficiently applied. Is there a Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry sustainable farming fund document which determines this?
  • The document is reactive to the Resource Management Act. Where does sustainable development fit into this? What about sustainable development versus sustainable management. For example, the first in first served system. How can regional councils address social and economic factors to make effective environmental decision-making within the RMA framework?
  • How do we cope for major change in land-use in the region?
  • Action 6: Develop special mechanisms for regional councils. Where do we draw the line in paying for resources? This council has good systems for re-allocating water around the catchment.
  • Would a water rental unit be payable to the Crown or to councils - who is it best left to? Where would the Crown come into the process?
  • Could open a can of worms if you start selling water, although it already happens informally.
  • Page 8 - flow chart - "manage within the constraints of uncertainty and cost". The cost to ratepayers needs to be taken into account with these proposals. Taxpayers should be expected to pay as well as ratepayers for the ideas that have been generated.
  • Regarding proposals that relate to better implementation of the RMA, support is needed for councils who have done well. Support and assistance shouldn't be provided only to the poor performing councils. Councils failing to do their job well should not be rewarded. Assistance from councils to less financially well off councils e.g. secondments, information sharing etc, is supported.
  • Highest value use is very subjective to determine. This proposal needs to be very carefully thought about because it would be very difficult to determine and to implement. It would be difficult for councils to determine the highest value use. Councils should not be left to determine this.
  • Some thought to measuring systems is needed if we have a more sophisticated allocation system, for example, more transfers. A whole set of systems for determining use, monitoring, who is taking the water etc. will be needed. There are issues around upgrading and retrofitting equipment that need to be considered.
  • There is a concern that as water becomes more valuable, there is more incentive for users to take all of the volume they are entitled to, or that which they are not entitled to. Councils need to be able to measure use. The compliance regime is resource hungry. Practicalities behind measuring water need to be considered.
  • Are the Ministries interested in researching water resources? There are probably many areas where there is plenty of water. There needs to be more research and exploration of potential water resources e.g. Canterbury region.
  • Is there any central government support for water harvesting? It can be difficult to get consent for this.
  • Page 15. Setting environmental bottom lines. The Action does not address the issue of "good science is difficult to obtain and is often expensive". The only reference to this issue is under Actions 2 and 5. Information systems are very expensive. There are huge compliance costs for councils and water users.
  • Central government needs to be very clear about what it wants and needs to think the process through right down to processes for collection of data.
  • Good of government to identify water under the Sustainable Water Programme of Action. Water is a critical resource and is finite. Good that it is in the public arena. There is a danger that the issue could become politicized and overly influenced by pressure groups. The Programme should be completed in the broadest interests - the less it is politicized the better.
  • Are Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Ministry for the Environment going to be upfront about the fact that to get clean water there will be less production coming from farms? There is a need to make trade-offs between values. The reality is that more use of water correlates with a decrease in water quality.
  • If we are going to have to force the contraction of dairying in certain areas and where there are large quantities of irrigation, there is a huge amount at stake for land-owners if a water right is stopped. Making u-turns on consents to protect a public resource is going to be costly. Investment in infrastructure will need to be recognised.
  • Some level of national guidance could be useful. The Crown should abide by its rules for consultation, such as the prescribed processes in the Resource Management Act.
  • A consistent methodology for determining minimum flows could be helpful because methods are often challenged. (National Environmental Standards feedback).
  • Regarding National Policy Statements, the more prescriptive they become, the more potential there is for conflict. The content of a National Policy Statement would need to be kept at a higher level to give confidence that central government is not cost dumping on local government again.

Last updated: 25 November 2008