Skip to main content.

Palmerston North public meeting

7 February 2005

Questions/issues raised

  • Need effective tools for measuring water quality - the current tools are not indicating that water quality is declining.
  • Is water quality declining?
  • Trout are an indicator of water quality, if water quality is good there are plenty of trout.
  • It would be hard to set water priorities fairly - highlights issue that you don't know what is there.
  • The cost of consents and monitoring should be shared fairly. Currently with the water monitoring charge everyone is paying the same even though some people are using less.
  • National Environmental Standards are important in this area.
  • We are behind internationally with regard to National Environmental Standards.
  • Concerned about whole of government submission on resource consents.
  • Can't blame farmers for everything - it's farming, it's a result of farming ie, increased nutrients and sedimentation.
  • Need National Environmental Standards so that methodology is consistent, will need lead time to get agreement. At the moment hearings revolve around scientists disagreeing.
  • Transfer of water rights is a good thing - but how do you set it up? Rivers would be easier than aquifers. The Resource Management Act would put people off as it is too cumbersome.
  • Does owning the water make a difference?
  • There is a need for baseline research and funding is required for this.
  • Resource Management Act is good but it gets in the way, it creates an expensive lengthy process ie, for setting up research projects in streams.
  • Ecology should be noted as a water use.
  • Would be better to take water for part of the year - less water for longer time effects ecology.
  • A water market would make the value of water higher - this will be reflected down the line ie, farmers affected by the cost of water.
  • Interested in seeing how the Taupo project will work.
  • Hard to put a $ value on water - water is important by just being there, we don't pay to look at the river.
  • There is an advantage in punishing people for doing environmental damage.
  • Pricing water - people still fill up their cars with petrol despite the rise in price. Pricing would affect processing plants and urban people. Where does the critical money value kick in? The change in water prices might occur too quickly as well which would make decision making hard, people would need as long as possible within reasonable bounds of fairness.
  • If water quality is low then allocations are low.
  • It is a massive cost to farmers to fence.
  • Farmers are caretakers of the land and they try to ensure good use of water.
  • Allocations for stock use need to be secure.
  • Concerned about the allocation of underground water.
  • First in first served is a concern.
  • Are more stringent rules necessary?
  • The document doesn't address environmental issues.
  • Need goals and funding for action.
  • Need consistency between regional councils.
  • Small communities are overrun by big cities - they are passing on problems further downstream.
  • People are paying huge prices for coastal properties with expectations of water, sewerage facilities etc.
  • There has been no encouragement to put in composting toilets, rain water tanks or using water efficiently - need to focus on making it easier to develop/implement systems for better use.
  • Cost should be shared for river protection.
  • Huge amounts of water are being drained to supply areas which have little water.
  • We need a more exact measure of water, particularly groundwater.
  • Be cautious around the issue of tendering.
  • How do you value water? Who's value?
  • Need environmental bottom lines.
  • Regional councils should use other sources of power to reduce impacts of activities on water.
  • Should water still be free?
  • Need funding from central government.
  • Regional plans allow local community to develop local solutions to local problems - central government may not know best.
  • There are recharge issues with aquifers.
  • There is a role for integrated catchment management.
  • Use riparian management to filter contaminants.
  • Need education and funding around good land use for water quality - back to central government policy.
  • Move to Nuclear power?
  • Need incentives for energy conservation.
  • There is a role for dual water systems.

Ideas for change

  • What can we do better - how do we change our behaviour?
  • Nitrogen credits could be traded - this would require nitrogen budgeting.
  • Need incentives to change behaviour.
  • Need a green label on produce.
  • Central government should provide more guidance - need money for jobs and research.
  • Don't reinvent the wheel, especially regarding methodology.
  • Some things still need to be managed regionally but would fit within national guidelines.
  • Information sharing and data sharing should be encouraged - some is occurring but it needs to be standardised.
  • Need equity amongst all water users, both in stream and out stream.
  • Fish and Game need funding because they are managing the water.
  • Metering could be used to manage demand.
  • Need equity from a monitoring charge point of view - needs to be better than what it is at the moment. Don't get a say in the research that is carried out with the money.
  • Central government should provide direction on water quality standards.
  • Need best practise guidelines for water allocation - the process should be easy if it carried out within the guidelines.
  • Need certainty for consents.
  • Auctioning and tendering would need good infrastructure around it - new concept but not averse to it.
  • Have a polluter pays system.
  • Length of consents should be shorter.
  • Timeframes are short to come up with solutions for increasing water quality.
  • Farming community on the whole is cooperative with limiting effluent into freshwater.
  • Need to increase value of water.
  • Need to introduce a water metering system.
  • Need to be aware of city people's usage of water.
  • Need separate tanks for toilets etc.
  • Need to limit the amount of fertiliser and timing of fertiliser use.
  • Need to educate those using fertiliser.
  • Need to link consequences with actions.
  • Need management within consents.
  • Need government funding for a nationally driven strategy.
  • Should have bidding on environmental values.
  • Protect in-stream values.
  • Resource Management Act is about retaining local community input.
  • Need local community involvement through re-vegetation groups, land care groups, wetlands, and catchment management initiatives. Need funding assistance for these.
  • Need education around land use/integration - with good management for water quality.
  • More discussion is required around prioritising and trade-offs for water use.
  • Need support for local government.
  • Decision making skills in local government should be supported by science and research, provision of information, expertise and retention.
  • Need public education on water demand, sewage disposal and options for efficiency.

Last updated: 25 November 2008