Skip to main content.

Nelson local government meeting

9 February 2005

Fresh water issues in Tasman

  • Tasman District has a water management history driven by catchments.
  • The issues in each catchments are different. The Golden Bay catchment for example, the Takaka valley south is a large national park, dominated by rivers, with most locked up by the conservation estate. There is degradation in lowland areas, and not huge demand for water. Water is used in terms of wells and bores.
  • The Eastern hills of Takaka get dry. The river naturally goes dry. There is growth in coastal townships.
  • Groundwater in Takaka is abundant and of high quality.
  • There are water quantity and allocation issues in other areas of the district. High production and irrigation. Water bodies are fully allocated in many areas.
  • Work is being undertaken to understand water resources for improved management.
  • Motueka plains - most have adequate water, some salt water intrusion problems. Some surplus water.
  • There is potential for irrigation in some upper catchments.
  • The Moutere catchment is tightly controlled because it is a fully allocated resource. Waimea plains - data shows that in a drought conditions there is not as much water as originally thought.
  • There is a Water Conservation Order on the Buller river.
  • Water quantity is not a significant problem regarding the Buller system, but there are run-off problems.

Fresh water issues in Nelson city

  • Urban growth is the major issue. The Council is attempting to change to low impact storm water design. There is support within the developer community for this.

Marlborough issues

  • Water issues revolve around growth in viticulture.
  • There is growth in demand for water.
  • Little information about water resources and no provisions in plans to cope with demand.
  • The water quality issues are around intensive land-use. There is work being undertaken in the Rai catchment on stream crossings.
  • The focus for the council is on the review of water allocation provisions. The current provisions have been unable to keep pace with demand for water. It is difficult to deal with applications for water without plan provisions and policy.

Questions/issues raised

  • A proposed freshwater plan change was notified in October last year. Examples of water quality standards and water allocation regimes were researched, but no consistency of approaches was found. The ANZECC guidelines and first in first served system were eventually used. Meaningful standards would have been helpful for development of the plan.

Landcare Research

  • It is not a case of forcing people to be consistent. Having best practice available would be useful covering issues such as how to set allocation limits, how to maintain security of supply, and how to develop priority regimes.
  • What is the capacity of central government to continue the conversation about more central government involvement? Past issues raised haven't necessarily been progressed. Long term commitment by central government is needed.

Tasman District Council Chair

  • There is high regard for water management in Tasman District. Central government needs to involveirrigators and industry who use waterin the Programme. There is often not enough involvement from these sectors. These sectors also need to be included in the plan and policy change/development process.
  • The air quality standard has not left a good impression of National Environmental Standards. However, it would be useful to have more oversight and support especially for councils with few resources and for councils where water is not a large issue.
  • Local solutions for local problems are what is needed. The values for water in the regions and the issues need to be known to develop local based solutions. Water plans should be based on water allocation. Tasman Plan is an example of this. Best practice should be based on this. There is a need to determine how much water can be allocated.
  • If the process is worked through well and the issues are identified, and there is agreement around the country, and National Policy Statements or National Environmental Standards could be effective.

Nelson City Council

  • The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment report on land-use impacts on water quality raises the need for a minimum water quality standard nationally.
  • There is a need to make the distinction between point-source and non-point source contamination for any standard.

Marlborough District Council

  • There are risks in defining methods in a National Environmental Standards, for example local solutions cannot always be applied in other areas of the catchment. There is a need to maintain flexibility.

Tasman District Council

  • There is a level of nervousness about having aNational Environmental Standard on a national scale. The provisions in plans might need to be strengthened, and requirements in plans would be to be tailored to the regions. Want to avoid arguments over numbers. Best practice is a better option.

Councillor

  • Need to have local solutions for local problems.
  • Education is the key. There is not enough emphasis in the document on the role of education. Education should start in schools with children where they can be educated on the value of water. People do not have incentives to use water efficiently.
  • Aquatic weeds are not mentioned in the document. This is a key issue in some regions. Government should be involved in developing a proactive campaign at a national level for eradication of aquatic weeds.
  • There is already a lot of educational material available. There is a need to complete a stocktake of what has already been produced.
  • Water supply representative
  • Government involvement is not supported. Drinking water standards have not been helpful. The quality of different water bodies cannot be compared.
  • Public drinking water supplies are a small portion of total water available. Councils often get blamed for taking too much water. Efficiency of use is a problem. There is a need for a system for improving use.

Tasman District Council

  • Jurisdictional situation clarifying end use and rights of water permit holders. Tasman District Council has taken a strong interpretation of section 5 and 30. Want clarification of jurisdiction of water end use allocation.
  • Need information about nationally important water bodies and a clear policy statement about nationally important values. Water Conservation Orders might not be worth the long term effort. An inquiry is needed into how values can be mediated through local processes.
  • The council needs procedural allocation powers such as comparative assessment. This would provide councils with the ability to decide which applications are processed against others. This tool is needed especially in times when there is high demand.
  • Funding is needed for long- term community investment in water development.

Nelson City Council

  • Issue 8 and Issue 5 - Investment in storage should be considered. Security of supply is also important. Consent terms of 15 years are a problem for Nelson City Council if consents cannot be renewed at existing levels. Solutions for this have not been articulated in the document.
  • There are often high competing values on water ways. The public often want equal values secured but this is unhelpful for planning. National guidance which determines priority values would be helpful, for example, for securing public water supplies.
  • Using information generated nationally and using methods at a regional level would be useful. Trade-offs could also be made at the national level.
  • There is concern about how market mechanisms could work. Would this type of system result in private ownership of water?
  • The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment report states that management of diffuse discharges is not a matter of setting a national water quality standard. Local solutions and changes in practices are needed.
  • Holding a water right is not far from holding a property right. Consents are likely to be renewed unless they are assessed against other applications. A resource rental system could mean that permit holders might give up their right to take water more quickly.
  • How do you work out which is the highest value use? There may be conflicting end-uses and values. Do councils need to look at specifying highest value end-uses? Some values are not economic.
  • The debate is about efficient use of water and who has the security of supply? What is the security of supply and how to manage the tension between councils dictating security and users holding it in permits.
  • First come first served can work in situations where resources are not over allocated. Central government has a role in developing an RMA process for managing over-allocated resources. There is a menu of tools which could be used.
  • A perfect allocation system is unattainable. Management of water in Tasman District is working pretty well, but there are still areas that are regarded as over allocated on paper but are not necessarily over allocated in reality. There needs to be more work undertaken to determine whether water bodes are over allocated.
  • For a National Environmental Standard on water quality, you would need to determine the base you are working from There have been improvements in water quality over the yearsin some catchments, for example, a lot of dairy farms now discharge to land. Each catchment has its own issues which means that one overall standard will not work. A National Environmental Standard would have to be based on things seriously harmful to human health.

Tasman District Council

  • The large rivers have good water quality. The problems are in small creeks and streams. Ministry for the Environment can build tools for moving from discharge consents to risk mapping and making this information available to the farming community. There are problems with septic tanks which could be improved through maintenance and use. Waterway design guides could be useful as well as systems for predicting where fish are. Monitoring processes should also be looked at from the national level.
  • Pest fish and pest plants are a problem in the Tasman District.
  • Fora to discuss issues and disseminate ideas would be useful.

Nelson City Council

  • Astock take of available educational resources would be useful and a programme focused on empowering local government to deliver programmes. National resources could be in the form of templates that could be adapted for local issues. For national scale programmes there needs to be enough lead in time to incorporate local programmes.
  • Public awareness should be a tool incorporated into the other actions.
  • In Nelson, pest issues have been left to local government to manage without national resources.
  • The natural habitat values of water bodies should not be forgotten.
  • There is a watchdog role for centralgovernment to step in where there are problems in regions. Differences between the regimes for different regions are significant and this should be part of the watchdog role.
  • Regional councils need to be encouraged to strengthen their professional and political networks. Central government should support this process e.g. councilor training.
  • Central government has an overview role to ensure that councils are doing their job adequately.
  • Is it politically too difficult for central government to take this role?
  • Councils do not necessarily want to have to report to central government. Councils already have to cope with the costs of other central government policy.
  • Central government investment in water research is not coordinated, for example, research undertaken by Crown Research Institutes. Not a lot of the research addresses the issues raised in the discussion document. Research needs to be more aligned with the issues. Ministry for the Environment needs to review Foundation for Research, Science and Technology funding criteria and become involved in the Foundation's review of funding. It is difficult to understand why key government stakeholders are not involved in the review and setting guidelines for funding. There are few auditing powers for end user research.
  • Water management is lacking in terms of an integrated catchment management approach. Integrated management should be included in best practice information.
  • The responsibility for professional development for water management has rested at regional council level. There should be funding for development of the professions. Central government should not assume that the devolved system will work all the time. Peer networks could be developed and maintained.
  • Ministry for the Environment could facilitate fora for dissemination of expertise and best practice around councils.
  • Some specific scientific fora may be captured by specific areas, rather than the broader water issues. There are also funding issues about attending conferences.
  • Better capacity building in the water resource management area is needed. Nationally - expertise is lacking. Central government organisations need to have expertise in technical areas to report to Ministers.
  • There should be some capacity for peer review or audit outside of regional councils in terms of assessment of practice. There is a lack of capacity in the Ministry for the Environment to help enhance the level of practice in regions. One option could be to have a crew of practitioners placed on secondment around the regions to gain an understanding of the issues in the regions. Another option would be to have a roving practitioner around the councils.
  • Audit panels for regional plans could be useful. Common experts from around the country could be assembled as an auditing panel.
  • The importance of Māori values needs to be incorporated into the national values project. Is there a commitment for movement towards co-management regimes and to encourage a greater role for Māori to engage in regional decision making?
  • Biodiversity funding for achieving better water quality on private land is a good example of advice being provided locally. The positive results of this fund should be considered.
  • What is the process for resolving competing values, or options for progressing the Water Bodies of National Importance work?
  • Is there going to be a list for the uses of water, or for the priority uses of water? Human consumption should be put at the top of a list.

Nelson City Council

  • Currently no priorities are stated, for example, water for stock consumption versus water for human consumption.

Tasman District Council

  • If a low flow management regime is put in place, some sort of priority use is provided.
  • Is climate change an issue considered under the Programme? Should it be listed as an issue? Perhaps it is relevant to issues 5 and 8 in the discussion document?
  • The cost implications for councils in terms of implementing the proposed actions need to be considered.

Last updated: 25 November 2008