Skip to main content.

Whakatane local government meeting

2 February 2005

Questions/issues raised

Cost-sharing with Local Government

Affordability has not appeared at all in the document and is very important to councils. Ratepayers can't afford the full cost of addressing problems.

Lake Rotoiti

There has been a severe and rapid deterioration in water quality. It will take a considerable amount of money to put it right. The situation has gone beyond local government penalising their ratepayers.

  • The majority of local government funding comes from local rate payers but it is not the majority of ratepayers who are polluting or using the waterways.
  • Situations have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis eg, the pollution of Lake Rotorua is different from the pollution of small streams.
  • Small streams feed large lakes - remember this.
  • You can no longer swim in or drink water from Lake Tarawera . Tasman and Carter Holt Harvey make millions in profits but don't have to pay to clean up. Our lakes and rivers are being polluted by intensive farming and industry.
  • Identifying sources of pollution is a major consideration.
  • Central government should look at developing criteria within catchments. Developing a national government role is crucial. Central government has a history of passing on costs to local government. Central government should be taking the majority of responsibility for funding. Would like to see government providing policy direction for outcomes that they want to see; within that, criteria for funding to support local government to achieve outcomes.
  • Central government needs to be proactive, not reactive.
  • In a policy vacuum you have a credibility problem.
  • Farmers are a major polluter of lakes. No one has been to Federated Farmers to tell them how to deal with issues. They need to have the hard word put on them.
  • Subdivisions are an issue e.g. Tauranga now has 7500 new subdivided sections. Developers make a profit and then leave a mess behind for communities to clean up. When will there be a restraint on new subdivisions? There is a need for controls on land management practices e.g. riparian management on farms.
  • The lack of research is a major impediment. There does not appear to be any government direction for funding. Is there any possibility of setting up a water portfolio within Foundation of Research, Science and Technology funding system? Or maybe Sustainable Farming Fund or Sustainable Management Funding would be more adaptive; maybe there is a need to rethink research funding models. There must be science and research, it is a crucial component but this is not reflected in the document.
  • There is no reflection in the document of enhancing the environment. A minimalist approach is not raising sights high enough. This could come through as a high level National Policy Statement.
  • There is a move away from the environment itself.
  • Maybe central government needs to do more research and come back with best practice guidelines.
  • Values need to be quantified. Central government needs to set guidelines and not necessarily just bottom lines. There is a need to cater for more than "bottom lines" for the environment and it is important to recognise the need to integrate quality and flow aspects.
  • Would like to see standards raised for all water bodies (all water bodies are important) - rather than having "pockets of effort" based on identifying some water bodies as more worthy than others.
  • How are we going to decide which are nationally important water bodies? They are all important; it should probably be a local decision.
  • Inter-connection and integration is not reflected in the document. The term "integrated catchment" is missing from the document.
  • Land/water integration - there is a need to recognise that district and regional planning go hand-in-hand. Don't look at individual streams, but the system as a whole (e.g. not environmental bottom lines for each stream, but functioning of systems as a whole - could fully protect one stream and heavily abstract from another but have an overall functioning system).
  • The Rotorua Lakes Action Plan is a model of how decisions should be made.
  • 1080 is still being dropped on land and finds its way into rivers. There is a need to go to the sources of pollution to fix the problems.
  • If government is going to fund the clean up then they need to see that farmers are getting the hard word. Central government needs to get involved in consultation with polluters.
  • If identification of nationally important values is going to lead to government involvement (in the form of funding), then it is appropriate for government to make that call. Central government should be dealing with the big picture and guidance and local government will solve the problems. Hands-on works should stay at local/regional level. Central government should provide tools and funding and both local and central government should provide science.
  • Central government guidelines would be required on water trading. A top-order mechanism would be needed so that each region doesn't invent their own trading systems.
  • In terms of working together, there should be a demarcation of roles so that the roles of all involved are clear and any gaps and overlaps are apparent. There are holes in the current structure. Working together is crucial in order to move forward.
  • Regional councils could apply more pressure to district councils. Regional and district councils could form closer relationships. The Rotorua Lakes Action Plan has had the benefit of better alignment of regional and district council planning. There could be a requirement in the Long Term Community Council Planning process to show that there has been consultation/alignment between region and district council planning. This would be reflected in both plans.
  • There is support for central government help in providing tools, but not regulation of these that would require duplication of work already done (eg, requiring a particular method for setting minimum flows). Set some boundaries/framework and let councils work within this. Tools need to be quicker and sharper. We need them today and Environment Bay of Plenty will be very disappointed if the tools mean that they have to go back and regulate.
  • Science in New Zealand is closeted and not transparent. There is a lack of integration. Government has to deepen their pockets and fund science. Research is being replicated as a result of a lack of co-ordination and information flow between different providers and across agencies needing research.
  • Central government should act as initiator of research and local government should be able to tap into this research.
  • There is a need to provide for temporary transfer to enable trading.
  • There is a need to strengthen the focus in the Resource Management Act on looking at efficiency, including efficiency of energy generation. There is a need for considerable national help to find the water we need for future use. Emphases on climate change and water efficiency are missing from the discussion document. There must be more emphasis if the government wants to push for efficiency.
  • Water is now a scarce resource. It is a reality and there is a need to raise awareness as people still take water for granted. Public education is an important tool.
  • Look at water harvesting.
  • It is better to have a single voice from central government rather than a number of different views from Ministry for the Environment, Department of Conservation, Ministry of Economic Development etc. This leads to mixed messages. Central government has a better chance of influencing if they have one clear message.
  • If diffuse discharges are to become more regulated, there is a need to address implications for Māori owners who want to develop land that has not been developed. They will be hit by controls that earlier developers didn't face - there is a role for central government to provide assistance for equity reasons.
  • The 'clawback' clause presents potential difficulties for councils. Environment Bay of Plenty is looking at using current RMA provisions (review of consents) to deal with the need for clawback. What else is proposed?
  • Concern about the implications of the Aoraki decision for the consent process.

Last updated: 25 November 2008