7 Conclusion
1. Discussion and research about NPS discharges and associated property rights has proven difficult because of a relatively low level of awareness of NPS impacts and a lack of formalisation of rights.
2. Landholders are aware of impacts from their operations outside their property, but this awareness appears to be:
- greater for local impacts that for more distant impacts
- greater for point source discharges than non point source discharges.
There was considerable defensiveness in responses on NPS impacts, with a feeling that farming was often being unfairly singled out.
3. The landholders see minimising impacts through NPS discharges on the environment as part of their set of responsibilities, but again this appears to be a hierarchy of stewardship for their own property > neighbours > local environment > distant environment.
4. The participants saw their core rights in the context of making a living off their property. They were prepared to accept some level of constraint on their operations, but not to the extent that it impacted on this capability. They did not express a right to continue a particular land use, nor the ability to continue with existing levels of NPS discharges if these were proven to be damaging to the environment.
5. The current lack of formalisation of their property rights in respect of NPS discharges did not appear to be significantly affecting investment and management on their properties. Issues were raised with compliance costs and over-regulation. Regulatory approaches which maximise flexibility were clearly preferred.
6. Other stakeholders spoken to were largely clear about the paramount nature of the community's right to water quality which would override landholders' rights to NPS discharges. There was a wider spread of views about the nature of any existing rights which would need to be considered or compensated in achieving a desired level of water quality, with some tentatively recognising some level of rights but others rejecting them.
