Skip to main content.

Palmerston North local government meeting

7 February 2005

Questions/issues raised

  • Document needs an executive summary.
  • There is a lack of framework for non-point source discharges.
    • Who pays?
    • Guidance is required
  • Tools for non-compliance limited/weak between infringement notice and prosecution (be good to have higher fines).
  • Nobody should be able to pollute a river/stream - monitoring and legislation required, need bigger penalties.
  • Need a clear steer on priority use/certainty for existing investment.
  • Some benefit in national direction and risks with central decision making.
  • Incentives around water conservation and reduction of discharges are needed.
  • Horizons Manawatu have started using some of the tools described in the document.
  • Could redirect funding for local government to treat discharges.
  • There is conflict between clean green and polluted rivers.
  • Non-point source discharges are getting worse, there is a lack of tools, research is there but direction is required.
  • Coordination of best practice of water conservation approaches is needed.
  • Need funding to deal with ageing infrastructure.
  • Communities should have the first call on water supply.
  • There is a fear of privatisation of water amongst the community.
  • There needs to be standards for water quality which must be rigorous and enforced.
  • There needs to be prioritisation of competing uses but how do you do this?
  • National Policy Statement would be more helpful than a National Environmental Standard.
  • Funding is needed.
  • Need to be aware of economic development needs for the region when thinking about allocating water - there are trade-offs.
  • Land based water systems are an option.
  • Land use impacts on water quality.
  • A value needs to be put on water - may result in behaviour change, i.e. not waste so much water.
  • Trading of water rights is an option - look to overseas examples.
  • Mass irrigation of land is of concern.
  • Future allocations should be tendered.
  • Water storage should be an option.
  • Nervous about central government involvement.
  • Don't need to reinvent the wheel - look at what's being done overseas.
  • Need certainty for consent holders.
  • Tools are needed for setting minimum flows.
  • Local districts need funding and support to improve water bodies of national significance.
  • Actions:
  • Incentives/direction for rainwater tanks (link to building consent) for toilet/gardens etc.
  • Greywater for gardens - utilise sewage for trees.
  • Subsidise land based sewage treatment.
  • Develop framework for National Environmental Standards, but local government needs to be involved in setting the framework. Funding needs to be provided also.
  • Funding would be great.
  • There should be a water quality fund.
  • There should be school based education programmes run with community groups.
  • Could establish a levy based on water volume.
  • Avoid privatisation of water.
  • Require metering.
  • Need to be clear on who will be involved in each action.
  • Priorities must override the tendering process.
  • Land use has to be attended to.
  • Pricing element is needed.
  • Water allocation is the key priority.
  • Central government funding is needed for community projects, e.g. Riparian planting.
  • Councils need to stick to their core business - Regional councils should retain decision making.
  • There needs to be a water efficiency central agency like Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority.
  • Community water supplies should be permitted activities.
  • "Use it or lose it" in consents.

Last updated: 25 November 2008