Skip to main content.

Stratford local government meeting

9 February 2005

Questions/issues raised

  • Relatively unique in Taranaki - have a lot of water and have good scientific information on water quality.
  • Uneasy about a raft of changes which result in frustration, cost - need transparency, clarity and buy-in from the community.
  • There is an issue with first in first served - hard to look forward 40 years regarding water and land use - this makes allocation hard.
  • These are useful discussions for New Zealand to be having.
  • Difficult for people to develop solutions if the problems are not properly defined - especially when the tools are regulatory based.
  • The problems are not defined properly - need to be specific about the extent, trend and spatial distribution. Don't see credible analysis being done at the moment.
  • You are consulting with only a small percentage of the New Zealand population - need to make sure that when you're presenting views you represent them for what they are. This is related to problem definition.
  • Work is being done on what's happening in each region - forward thinking is occurring.
  • Tools are there - need to use them professionally, imaginatively with support from the community.
  • Water quality is a huge issue - big pressures, Taranaki have recently spent a lot of money on this. They made the decision to fix it and got on with it.
  • One size fits all is not a good approach
    • The regulatory cost is high with this sort of thinking
    • Don't want to bear the brunt of problems that don't exist here
  • Riparian planting is working really well in Taranaki - don't want it messed around with.
  • Solutions have to be targeted - we need stuff that works.
  • Central government involvement
    • Be careful regarding water quality and impacts of land. Had success in Taranaki dealing with landowners
    • Relationships are important - heavy handed approach will cause problems
  • Allocation
    • Issue with how you judge best use
    • Tools are there
    • Need certainty
  • Efficiency of use - water is free at the moment. If a charge is put on it efficiency would increase.
  • Not all regional councils are failing.
  • People need to trust each other with the available science.
  • Ministry for the Environment has created false impressions and expectations with Maoridom - need to fund it in a strategic way that doesn't create problems for regional councils. Strong links with Māori have been established in Taranaki.
  • There are good examples of water management in Taranaki.
  • Taranaki values - of the top 10 things valued by the community, 4 were environmental and water was the number one. They community didn't feel that more work needed to be done on the environmental issues though.
  • There is a growing awareness of the sustainability concept. This awareness has extended to resource users, eg, farmers. Policy people and Non-Government Organisation's haven't connected with this yet.
  • We don't have to convince people - it is more about how much and how fast things have to move.
  • There is a lack of appreciation of mainstreaming of environmental values in the document. This impacts on tools that should be used.
  • Taranaki is underpinned by regulation - this is needed in areas where there is not awareness. It has moved past this now into working together.
  • Bottom up stuff is important strategically.
  • You need to connect with key resource user at a property scale.
  • Property changing hands doesn't impact on the outcomes - all people understand because of mainstreaming.
  • National Policy Statements will offer little.
  • National Environmental Standards are fraught - too blunt. It would be useful to have capability and research done to provide a tool box of methodologies that could be region specific.
  • Minimum flow work would be helpful.
  • Department of Conservation is the only ones doing their job regarding submissions. There needs to be an integrated government view when appropriate. Central government has to front up. At the moment social and economic departments are absent. It would be valuable at consent and plan level.
  • The practice issue is at central government level.
  • New Zealand Planning Institute is not focused at the regional level - would work more effectively if it was, like Resource Manager's Group.
  • There is value in pilot programmes.
  • GA 38 - Application for funds is a good idea, work that happened would then be distributed to key stakeholders.
  • There will be a distortion of priorities with bureaucratic administration systems.
  • Need targeted funding.
  • The issue needs to be quantified before you can think about economic instruments - they won't work everywhere.
  • Market instruments could be used when the resource is fully allocated. This idea has been discussed before but has never taken off.
  • Tradable consents and permits may have merit - there are no legislative impediments to it occurring now. The market will drive it.
  • We don't benefit enough from water science.
  • Efficient use of water is a big issue - pricing mechanisms would be the best way to deal with this. New Zealand has a long way to go in this regard.
  • Central government should help less wealthy councils upgrade infrastructure.
  • Need to put a condition in hydro consents that allows for water to be taken off them for other users.
  • National legislation may be required in one off situations, i.e. catchment and river specific.
  • Look for smart ways to allocate water.
  • Look to overseas experience - learn lessons from that.
  • Need to understand Hydrology.
  • Use an enforcement regime that is based on tools available.

Last updated: 25 November 2008