Skip to main content.

Wellington local government meeting

8 February 2005

Questions/issues raised

  • There is no mention of public water suppliers, Ministry of Health or of the impacts climate change may have on supply and demand.
  • Clarity is required on what the "national interest" is and what the difference between national and regional interest is.
  • If water bodies of national importance are going to be identified, there needs to be a tight definition of why it is important and what that means.
  • Too much emphasis is placed on ecosystems at the expense of public health and economic growth.
  • Too much emphasis is placed on allocation at the expense of looking at water bodies as living systems and the need to maintain these.
  • The discussion document is too demand-driven, there is a need to look more at efficiency.
  • There needs to be a "whole catchment" approach, without separating allocation and quality issues. Quality and quantity should be considered together.
  • Before looking at trading, look at the fishing quota system and whether it is effective in sustaining stocks (suggestion that it isn't).
  • There is a need for research to determine bottom lines.
  • The public could benefit from central government sharing information about the state of resources across the country; but don't want central government involvement at the expense of local decision-making.
  • There is a need for national research for regional councils to use eg, for setting minimum flows. There is a need to be confident that minimum flows are defensible, which requires good information.
  • There are potential issues involved in identifying national values if they clash with regional values that have already been set.
  • There is disparity between looking at nationally important values across a range of environments and uses.
  • There is a need to look at framework for finding solutions rather than trying to find solutions for everything. The concept of "highest value use" would be useful to define for different rivers.
  • The discussion document is a combination of focus on tools and focus on framework. There is a need to work on defining the framework before having a useful look at the tools.
  • Diffuse discharges - the problem is the Resource Management Act requirement of "no adverse effects" - this could be hardened eg, to "no change" or "beneficial change".
  • There has to be more emphasis on water conservation and sustainability.
  • There are lots of tools and information already.
  • It is better to focus on putting programmes in place to use rather than putting resources into pilot projects to develop more tools (as these often fall over). There should be a better spread of resources across the board rather than channelling into particular projects - except for significant national issues e.g. Taupo pilot project appropriate for such large scale issues.
  • There is a need to look at wasting less water before looking at increasing efficiency.
  • The non-regulatory tools used by councils (eg, encouraging planting) need to be recognised.
  • If there is a national interest to be expressed, it should be done as part of the regional planning process.
  • It is important to take the process slowly and make sure you take people along with you.
  • Funding to educate people would be helpful.
  • Water trading - should occur within a framework so that it could be traded to which use has been identified as "highest value" rather than free trading.
  • "Efficient use of water" refers to the best dollar use of water not being more careful with it. This needs to be clarified as a lot can be achieved by not wasting water.

Last updated: 25 November 2008