Skip to main content.

Taupo public meeting

9 February 2005

Questions/issues raised

  • Why has this group come to Taupo at this time? You haven't even got to base one. The RMA was passed in 1991 and included provisions for National Policy Statements (NPS) and National Conservation Orders. Why has it taken till now to get you people here? State-owned enterprises have had ten years to renegotiate water rights. Has this process been held off till renegotiations take place?
  • Why does the government feel the need to get involved at this stage? Is the government not happy with the job that regional councils are doing?
  • A problem of the RMA is that it focuses on remedying and mitigating effects and is unable to get to the actual problem.
  • Effects may not be felt for many years - for longer than RMA 10 year time-frames e.g. time for effects of nutrients to become apparent in Lake Taupo .
  • Strong inconsistencies in water management exist between regions. There is a lack of tools available.
  • The problem with market mechanisms is that large companies will have the advantage over diffuse 'stakeholders'. Non-consumptive users (the community) will be disadvantaged by a lack of resources.
  • The discussion document is about the use of water but there is no focus on the in-stream and conservation value of water.
  • Waters of National Importance reports, especially the recreation and tourism reports are non-sensical. There is no standard process for comparing/ weighting different values - this could be done by focus group rather than a numerical approach.
  • There are inconsistencies in the way regions deal with hydro-power generation issues across the country e.g. Southland has strict controls while Waikato doesn't.
  • Market force (competitive power pricing) has had a major impact on lake levels - don't want more. There is a need for national standards for managing hydro resources.
  • Start with having a national policy statement to provide guidance.
  • It is naive to think that it is possible to achieve a "whole-of-government" approach because different departments have different mandates.
  • Concern about bank erosion affecting wetlands.
  • In working together, there is a need to make sure Māori are involved. Many Māori believe ownership issues should be resolved before looking at management. The way in which values associated with water are identified needs to be carefully considered - often Māori values are watered down.
  • Auctions/tenders raise concerns about large multinationals e.g. Monsanto owns rights to a large portion of India 's water.
  • There is too much emphasis on the economic uses of water.
  • Nutrient trading suggestions try to put environmental issues on an economic footing. This does not treat the issue seriously enough.
  • There is a need to differentiate between water from different sources e.g. rainwater, river water, groundwater and deal with them differently.
  • The path of groundwater through soil needs to be recognised.
  • There is a need to look at national standards for urban stormwater management.
  • If the government is serious about national standards and national values, then this needs to be accompanied by funding for implementation.
  • There is a problem in urban areas of rainwater being diverted by channels and not infiltrating and recharging the water table, as a result it is lowered.
  • It would be valuable to have a way of comparing values of water.
  • Is there a possibility of comparing consents across different regions? For example, two separate hydro-power proposals in different parts of the country.
  • Set up a Māori group with representatives from all hapu to provide advice to councils, because no one councillor can represent all hapu.
  • There is a lack of consistency by councils in administering the RMA. National standards would help.
  • Concern that national standards/policies might not fit the local environment.
  • Concern about imposition of funding on the local community in the future.
  • Decision-making should take place on a catchment by catchment approach, tailored to each individual catchment.
  • The use of incentives would be a better approach than enforcement e.g. tax relief for sustainable management - water conservation techniques, rainwater tanks. There is a need to be aware of where the issues are coming from. There is a need to look at industrial and agricultural users as well as domestic users in relation to incentives for sustainable management.
  • There is the problem of potential conflict between local and national values. With local decision-making, would any local community be prepared to give up their valued resource for the 'national good'?
  • Leadership and direction from central government rather than lots more rules. If standards are produced, there needs to be flexibility to reflect resource issues for councils - targets rather than requirements?
  • Central government could play a role in assisting development of tools to decide priorities and to help in the decision making about allocation.
  • The current mix of decision-making levels is about right. The problem is inaction by central government on tools that are available (National Policy Statements, National Environmental Standards, guidelines).
  • Quality and allocation are two distinct issues which shouldn't be thrown together into the same solution eg, National Policy Statements.
  • Want a set of tools to aid decision-making on allocation.
  • Want overall direction about water quality but local decisions.
  • Would the suggestion about a central government role in approving plans require a new government agency? If there is any existing department, there would need to be a clear separation between regulatory and advocacy roles.
  • There is a problem in Resource Management Act applications of financial mitigation approach by some companies/developers. Incentives for those in opposition to go away prevent the full issues from being heard.
  • It would be helpful if at the beginning of a process, the government came out and put its cards on the table and identified clearly its view on what issues were of national importance. Any process for doing this would have to address the problem of change of government. It would need to be binding on government and people over time.
  • Security of infrastructure is an issue. There is a need to provide for the needs of the country over time. It is not an issue that can be solely looked at on a catchment basis (eg, Waikato water going to Auckland ), maybe there is a need for a growth strategy for the country.
  • Security of water quality is a major issue e.g. problems from dairy conversion at Reporoa - water quality issues on the Waikato River .
  • Anti-pollution incentives? In addition, those who pollute should pay to clean up.
  • What is the starting point for determining baseflow for allocation - is it based on existing land use at the time or potential land use? Different land-uses have different effects on this and there needs to be a clear identification of a starting point.
  • Concern about controls on forest planting.

Last updated: 25 November 2008