Skip to main content.

Napier public meeting

31 January 2005

Questions/issues raised

  • Is the Ministry of Health involved in the Water Programme of Action?
  • Condition of the Tuki Tuki River and closing of the Clyde river because of bad water quality needs to be considered. What is going on in the rest of the country to clean up water quality, eg, Lake Taupo? We need to have a vision for the future for 20 years time. What action is being taken to clean up these rivers? We're not moving forward.
  • There are problems with untreated sewage going straight into lakes and rivers. There's a need to look at water bodies in the region. Some progress has been made on cleaning up these waterways
  • It is going to be difficult to sort out competing uses. Big business might have more resources to push their values over other values.
  • Can look at radio frequency spectrum as a model for auctioning, to manage competing resources.
  • Reluctant to accept a monetary value being attached to water. As soon as you put monetary value on water the highest bidder will win. There is a risk that if business goes through tough times, the water right might have to be auctioned off. Water rights should be attached to land.
  • Source of Mangatanoke River - family interest in river. Swam in river as a boy. Water quality is important for swimming, drinking, and industry.
  • At the moment there are clear lines of responsibility in the Hawkes Bay region. There is concern about central government getting involved. More central government involvement could blur lines of responsibility. If the regional council is doing a good job central government should not interfere.
  • There is a need to point out certain points more clearly in the document such as charging for water on page 20.
  • A standard could cut down on court costs. Why haven't we got a water quality standard for across the country? A national standard could get rid of debate over methods for setting minimum flows.
  • What about the urban water quality? The presentation gave the impression that urban issues will not be considered because it is too hard.
  • Page 20 implies that there is scope for taking over certainty for water availability. When making investment decisions certainty is needed. It seems that there is scope to undermine certainty. How do you manage water but provide for certainty of investment in longer term industry?
  • What happens to the base level of each river? There must be a stage where rivers have reached their base level. Are there rivers in New Zealand which have reached their base level?
  • Is this a problem nation-wide or just in some regions?
  • Water conservation practices are not something that the New Zealand public has a fondness for. Water conservation needs to be promoted. Now is the time for issue to be addressed. New Zealand has one of the highest water uses per capita in the world.
  • Is this a Canterbury document or is it applicable nation-wide?
  • The Government needs to be commended for tackling the issues and bringing them to debate. Allocation and quality issues are relevant to all parts of the country. This is an opportune moment to determine how well we are managing our water resources. In particular water quality, where we need to address this issue. There is a need for a reality check on where we are and the challenges and questions of where this document is going. Will be letting government know about this. Members of the public need to ask themselves how well they value freshwater. There is a danger that the issues will be over-politicised.
  • The Resource Management Act was passed in 1991. Ministry for the Environment has a role to assist councils. What is beyond consultation for this Programme? Councils have been waiting for 13 years for a National Policy Statement. There is a need for some clear goals and guidance for local government. Does the government have a political mandate to go beyond consultation?
  • Councils were left to implement the Resource Management Act in 1991. Implementation has been a frustrating experience. It would have been good if Ministry for the Environment had provided some guidance on the Act when it was enacted. There is a need for feedback on a National Policy Statement and National Environmental Standard and the roles of central and regional government. Some councils are doing well, while others are struggling. Some councils would struggle to implement some of the proposed actions. Consideration needs to be given to where central government and regional government is best placed to act.
  • A National Policy Statement or National Environmental Standard should not be too prescriptive. The community's rights to do things as they want should not be taken away. But there is some place for overarching principles on what is more important to the nation eg, energy or irrigation in Canterbury. We want public participation in developing these tools. The air quality National Environmental Standard is not a good example. The same problems could happen in the water quality area. A well accepted methodology for water allocation would be helpful for application across the country.
  • Water allocation issues are about balance. Each region has to make its own decisions about different values and interests eg, energy, tourism, recreation. A balanced approach is taken in the Hawkes Bay region. The local community should determine a balance at the regional level. The regions can make their own tradeoffs.
  • There appears to be little interaction with long term community plans.
  • There is no reference to storage in the document.
  • Options for storage have been looked at in the region. Some studies have been undertaken at the regional level and the smaller on-farm level.
  • What is the difference between owning river water and rain water used by the forestry sector?
  • We need to look at the broader picture. There's a possibility of a bigger population. The Minister of immigration should be involved. Water harvesting and water retention options should be looked at. There should be better recycling systems in urban areas. Wise water use is important. Broad thinking is important.
  • Regional and local government puts a lot of resources into education. Could government give financial assistance for some programmes to save reinventing the wheel? A national level of environmental education is needed. More effort is required in secondary schools on educating students on environmental issues.
  • It is easy to tackle the easy things, and is easy to target water users. There needs to be a balanced approach - education for urban and rural users.
  • 1960s government gave concession to industry when resources were getting scarce. We could look at using subsidies. Government assistance could apply to some aspects of water efficiency.
  • 0800 Smokey campaign is a good example of a successful education and awareness campaign.
  • What's being done about run-off in the high country? There is a problem with forestry being cleared and sediment coming down the rivers. Local rivers are getting affected by run-off from the higher country. Buffer zones can help, but what is being done long-term? This problem will be the source of future conflicts.
  • Water allocation is the easier of the issues to deal with. Water quality is the hard issue to deal with. Councils are choosing not to use the Resource Management Act tools. Need ideas about solutions for resolving diffuse discharges.
  • The cumulative effects need to be addressed. These are what create bigger problems.
  • Is the rainfall in New Zealand being distributed differently now from 20 years ago?
  • We can all lift our game. There are lots of areas that can be improved. People planting trees, fencing off wetlands etc. it's happening all around the community. There is a fine balance between support and interference. Central government needs to be aware of the good work that is going on around the country. Pg. 23 Action 11 - allocating to priority uses, is a bold action. It seems unreasonable to ask regional councils to back winners. Action 11 is not a good idea.
  • We have to improve our water quality and cannot afford to fail.

Last updated: 25 November 2008