Skip to main content.

Nelson public meeting

9 February 2005

Questions/issues raised

Water user

  • How involved does central government want to be at the local level? Central government has a role but people are cautious about central government getting into the nuts and bolts of local issues. Central government could add another layer of bureaucracy and councils and rate payers will have to pay for it. Central government has a role in providing support for augmentation projects and other capital projects. Central government could fund more research into options that are working and systems that are not working so well.

Farmer

  • What is the scope of the project? Does it include cities, rural areas, urban areas? What about streams flowing through cities, are they included?

Forest and Bird

  • Urban streams in this area are used as drains rather than streams. There is nothing in the discussion document about protecting the natural heritage values or the life-supporting capacity of water bodies in the discussion document.
  • There are already tools in place to protect water bodies and to manage quantity and quality issues, but some water bodies are over allocated. The tools are clearly not working. There should be more of an ecological focus in the Programme.
  • It appears that we want to reform the old catchment boards with departmental representatives. Should we be considering looking at a central water control agency? There would be some difficulties with this.
  • Who is doing the research on Lake Taupo water quality?
  • Is this a devious process for introducing a permit system for application of fertilizers based on nitrogen content? If this system starts in the Waikato region then it could become widespread in other parts of the country. Don't want a system introduced for permits under the Resource Management Act (RMA) for fertilizer application. Local government should maintain their role for plans and consents at the local level.
  • If Tasman District Council finds nitrogen contamination is too high then it is required to take some action.

Orchardist

  • Action 4 - Increase central government participation in regional planning: will this simplify going through the RMA process, given the length of time taken to develop plans? Is this another layer of bureaucracy?
  • Central government might be able to do something about speeding up the process for making plans. Perhaps by simplifying the RMA.

Fish and Game

  • What are the respective roles of central and regional government? We need to address this to make improvements. Who is responsible for what? What role does central government have? There is no underlying philosophy in the Programme about who does what.
  • Maybe the old systems were better? Some of the old structures may have been effective. If the functions of regional councils are off the agenda then how can we resolve these issues?
  • What is the national interest - this has not been articulated.
  • Whole of government submissions could hide the clear roles of government departments. It is a good idea to have separate departments lodging submissions. Community can see what the issues are for conservation, energy, recreation etc.
  • How will the national interest be arrived at? How would any organisation be able to assess what is best in the national interest?
  • The effect of the global market could result in privatisation of water. A stock take of our water resources could be the start of a process to privatise water. Valuation of water resources and Government involvement in world trade negotiations could commit transnational companies to operate under conditions which might override central government regulation. Is central government working towards a market model for water? We want to have democratic control of water through local or central government. If water is owned by transnational companies they might not have to comply with our domestic regulations such as the RMA. Water must remain in public ownership.
  • Our water quality should be improved. How are we going to improve it, by whom and when? Action on this issue needs to be nationally coordinated by central government. Good water quality has to be for all of New Zealand and not just the rural sector. There has to be a holistic approach and by catchment. Will central government follow through with support for the implementation of standards and regulations? Different interpretations of national instruments around the country could result in legal challenges.
  • Dissemination of good practice is important. Regional government should be encouraged to provide advice to all water users on water efficiency. Regional councils should be encouraged to monitor the soil moisture levels to determine how much water needs to be applied. Excess water available could then be allocated to other users.
  • The Programme should be nationally led and funded. This would allow people across all of New Zealand to pay for it, and not just ratepayers. Too many policies have been left with local government to fund. Guidance is also needed.
  • There is a limited amount of water available in Tasman. Central government should take a role in providing for growth and water.
  • But growth should only be committed to where resources are available. Some areas should not be developed.

Irrigation New Zealand

  • Congratulations on the work that has been done. Issue 5 - not sufficient water for all our needs, is incorrect. There is more than enough water for current and future needs. The reality is that in flood times most of the water ends up out at sea. There are problem with over allocated resources. The Canterbury Strategic Water Study identified that it is a matter of management rather than the amount of the resource. We need to improve the management of water. One option is to call in permits and to bring allocation back to sustainable limits, but this would not be supported. People regard their resource consents as a property right. Investment in storage could be undertaken, but this won't happen if it is left for individual farmers to do. It is a long term infrastructural investment which cannot be funded with short term funding. Central government must show leadership in this area. Currently 4 per cent of land-use is irrigated, which generates 900 million dollars GDP. The prosperity in New Zealand could be increased for everyone by creating irrigation systems. Environmental issues would be addressed by putting more water back into the rivers.
  • AG mart funding and Sustainable Farming Fund money has been used for studies on water resources.
  • Very little work has been undertaken on augmenting water to develop the district. Some funding has been obtained to complete a feasibility study for providing storage for 830,000 cubic metres.
  • Tradability of water permits has to be encouraged within catchments. The water available must be used efficiently and effectively.
  • Storage of water is a long term investment. Needs national government funding.

Federated Farmers

  • Funding and dissemination of information - people rely on improving water quality through information. Lack of information on improving water quality in terms of the causes of the problem and how it can be cleaned up. Central government needs to put more resources into providing information. The Taupo situation does not apply across the country. There is a need for catchment specific solutions. Central government should support this. There is a need to look at the impacts from urban and industrial areas as well. Rural run-off is not the only cause of poor water quality.

Cawthorn Institute

  • Where are plans going with the water bodies of national importance projects? Are the Water Conservation Order provisions likely to be reviewed? Identifying water bodies of national importance is a subjective thing to do. Small streams could be missed from the lists.

Fish and Game

  • There are 21 water bodies identified as important for recreation and irrigation - where does that leave us?
  • Improved information is needed to keep up with the rates of change in water use and water quality. It is difficult to respond to the issues in a timely way. How can we speed up improving management of the issues?
  • Are many people being affected by water quality? Is it a matter of national importance? There is a lot of hype about water quality.
  • The effect of pine plantations on water supply for irrigation is a concern. Something should be done about forestry and water quality. More information is needed on this issue. Some information has already been collected on the effects of pine plantations, and this information should be made available.
  • We need to look forward to the future of New Zealand which will be dependent on agriculture. We need to look at it from a positive point of view. How can we enhance agriculture, while looking after the resource and the environment?
  • Disappointed that there are no clear goals and timelines in the discussion document. There is a need for solutions which do not rely on tradeoffs. All the values of sustainable development (social, economic, environmental and cultural) need to be enhanced.
  • We need economic growth but not at environmental cost.
  • Micro solutions are needed as well as macro solutions. Solutions should come from councils at the resource consent level.
  • People would build dams if funding was available.
  • We have to move away from making the RMA the hurdle that it has become. The RMA seems to make it difficult for people to do things. Under the previous system local authorities were helpful. Would be good to have same attitude back into resource consents processing. The Central Plains irrigation scheme is costing $2 million to get resource consent. The process should not cost this much.
  • National guidelines would have been helpful when the RMA came into effect. This would have saved a lot of problems with implementation of the Act. A National Policy Statement and National Environmental Standards would reduce confusion.

Last updated: 25 November 2008