Skip to main content.

Report of the Sustainable Development Water Programme of Action Local Government Workshops

Executive Summary

1 Purpose of this Report

3 Responses to the Issues

4 Responses to the Proposed Actions

Appendix 1: Principles of the Sustainable Development Water Programme of Action

Appendix 2: List of Consultation Meetings

Appendix 3: Record of Meetings Held in Each Region

You are here: Publications > Water > Report of the Sustainable Development Water Programme of Action Local Government Workshops > Online version >

Appendix 3: Record of Meetings Held in Each Region

Table 3: Whangarei meeting held at Northland Regional Council

Central government direction	What are the national motives? National standards would need an adaptation to the regional situation Is it a national or a regional issue? Existing plans would need to be integrated into any regime How effective would the programme be in areas where water allocation is not an issue? Who drives the setting and funding for the standards? A national environmental standard would have to be usable across New Zealand and based on regional differences Need national and regional standards and solutions to address water quality
Central government involved	Funding and research issues Lack of support for community programmes The programme is great work, but it's too late. Should have had guidance when the Resource Management Act was enacted Manuals, guidance and technical education is already available - the problem is with its use and dissemination Integration of State of the Environment monitoring with regional/industrial/other agency reporting is needed Need information on whether water bodies are actually over-allocated Monitoring and evaluation needs to be early and focused Research and funding needs to be accessible and coordinated Need to know about abstraction effects on biodiversity Need to look at the commonalities already in regional plans - national direction might not be needed Continuation of funding More funding for investigations to develop data to convince people of the need for change Review the work already being undertaken and identify the gaps Pilot trials for models of land use impacts Provide template for regional councils to balance competing values Need more complete background work, discussion and consultation on water bodies of national importance Need national co-ordination of research, standard approaches, best practice, funding and resourcing Regionally based pilot projects
Provide more tools	How do you set water allocation? How do you decide water uses? How long do you allocate consents for? Need certainty of water allocation Need better strategic planning for water use at all government levels involving problem identification, research and consultation Need a code of practice for non-point source discharges Use long term council community plans to prioritise, identify and monitor water resources of regional significance Need an alternative system to first come first served Need allocation catchment modelling
Working together	Need better public awareness regarding water conservation Need information leading to behaviour changes. Could use overseas experience Need to identify target audiences and use different approaches Industry needs information
Additional issues raised	The impacts of storm water on water quality is an issue in urban areas Who is providing national biosecurity? Need integrated catchment management Management should be catchment focused. Riparian management is a quick fix solution for rivers

Table 4: Auckland meeting held at Auckland Regional Council

Central government direction	Central government should provide the framework and local government will administer it with flexibility, local values, policy and practice There is inconsistency across New Zealand in approaches. Government should set direction an councils should set into practice The RMA is permissive but increased central government involvement results in a more prescriptive approach. It is better if it is guidance and assistance including money, than prescriptive There are ways to better the control at a national level A national environmental standard would bring certainty and consistency Need a set of criteria to help prioritise values
Central government involved
Provide more tools	First in first served is a problem Transfer of discharge consents is concerning as the receiving environments may be different A reward for not using water should be considered; for example, incentives for water efficiency Need to rank the impacts on water quality and develop actions plans from that There is conflict between regulation and standards at the local level. This presents barriers to sustainable management Water fora should be established where water quality is a problem. Should be across districts and regional councils Should use overseas experience to inform New Zealand policy especially on market based tools Water needs to be valued Move to market mechanisms (cost and benefit identification) - caution as to appropriate national environmental standards Management tools do exist. They need to be developed further
Working together	Need funding and education for urban catchment management and community engagement Needs to be a cultural mindshift from consumption to conservation Needs to be greater community responsibility for monitoring practice
Additional issues raised	Urban issues should be addressed Water Sustainable Urban Design needs to be considered, including programmes, criteria and guidelines. They should be incorporated into the long term council community plans

Table 5: Hamilton meeting held at Environment Waikato

Central government direction	Has there been any attempt to determine the dollar value of water to guide consent decisions? The discussion document does not contain enough detail about 'values' and criteria for identifying important values. Would have liked more bold statements Supportive of development of a national environmental standard in relation to diffuse discharges. At the moment regional councils are trying to change national practices in land management. National standards would be valuable to help with this The work undertaken at Taupo could be a model for the future and an example of dealing with national values
Central government involved	Resourcing of poor councils is important. Currently is inequality in resourcing of councils and rates cannot be relied on for funding Unsupportive of Action 4: Increase central government participation in planning. Central government does not need to have a role in approving plans Cost of compliance needs to be considered along with resourcing There is a possible pilot project in conversion of forestry land to dairying and other farming in Reporoa. A whole of government approach could be adopted from the beginning. Could be an example of how things could be done Central government needs to take the lead where there are gaps More co-ordination between central and local government and scientists and more whole of government work
Provide more tools	How is MfE going to provide regional councils with tools to achieve the outcomes they want? There is a problem of building sustainable development outcomes and strategic planning into consent decisions. Greater weight needs to be given to sustainable development and tools to encourage this In terms of changing land use, there is a lack in certainty of direction in the document. Land-users need to be able to plan for investment Tools exist but they are blunt There is a need for tools that deal with over-allocation and cross boundary issues The auction/tendering option is commercialising water. If central government is going down this path you need to have boundaries to protect cultural values
Working together	Central government, local government and science need to work together on diffuse discharges The Resource Management Act looks at engagement with iwi, while the Local Government Act looks at engagement with Māori. There is a need to be aware of the difference and to look at the implications. It must be clear what sort of engagement central government wants and with whom There needs to be a more coordinated approach to working together to working together to address issues People from a range of institutions/organisations should be brought together to deal with big issues
Additional issues raised	The land and water interface. Subdivisions, land management etc needs more attention When will something usable come out of this process? Inequity exists between point source dischargers who spend money reducing impacts and diffuse dischargers who do not have to deal with the impacts

Table 6: Whakatane meeting held at Environment Bay of Plenty

Central government direction	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 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 How are we going to decide which are nationally important water bodies? They are all important. It should probably be a local decision Central government should be dealing with the big picture. Hands-on work should stay at the regional level
Central government involved	Central government should provide more tools and funding and local and central government should provide the science Affordability has not appeared in the document. This is very important to councils because ratepayers can't afford the full cost Lake Rotoiti has rapid deterioration in water quality. It will take a considerable amount of money to put it right The majoring of local government funding comes from local ratepayers but it is not them majority of ratepayers who are polluting or using the waterways Industry should pay for some of the pollution clean up Central government should look at developing criteria within catchments Developing a national role is crucial. Central government should be taking the majority of responsibility for funding. Would like to see government providing policy direction for outcomes and within that, criteria for funding to support local government to achieve outcomes Central government needs to be proactive not reactive Central government needs to take the lead with polluters. Central government needs to get involved in consultation with polluters Lack of research is a problem. There appears to be no government direction for funding. Is there possibility for setting up a water portfolio within the FORST funding system? Maybe government needs to rethink research funding models Science in New Zealand is closeted and not transparent. There is a lack of integration Need to look at water harvesting
Provide more tools	Rotorua Lakes Action Plan is a model of how decisions should be made Central government guidelines would be required for water trading. Need to make sure each region does not re-invent trading systems Support for central government providing tools but not tools that would require duplication of work already completed. Central government should set a framework and some boundaries and let councils work within this. Need to provide for temporary transfer If diffuse discharges are to become more regulated, need to address implications for Māori owners who want to develop undeveloped land. They will be hit by controls that earlier developers did not face. Role for central government to provide assistance for equity reasons 'Clawback' presents potential difficulties for councils. This councils is looking at using current Resource Management Act 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
Working together	Regional councils could apply more pressure to district councils. Regional and district councils could form closer relationships. There could be a requirement in the long term council community planning process to show there has been alignment between district and regional planning Water is now a scarce resource. Need to raise awareness. Public education is an important tool
Additional issues raised	Subdivisions are an issue. Developers make a profit and then leave a mess behind for communities to clean up. There is a need for controls on land management practices; for example, riparian management on farms 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 Need to recognise that district and regional planning go hand in hand. Need to look at functions of catchments as a whole Need to strengthen the focus in the Resource Management Act on looking at efficiency, including efficiency of energy generation. Emphasis on climate change and water efficiency are missing from the discussion document

Table 7: Gisborne meeting held at Gisborne District Council

Central government direction	Government or councils should not decide what the best use of resources is There appears to be a threat of government regulation. Local government decision-making should be maintained All districts are different so policy statements would have to reflect local conditions Nationally important values could raise the level of awareness about important values How would a national environmental standard address specific regional issues? Māori may have different expectations for a national environmental standard Would water conservation orders be abolished? There is a conflict between communities determining their values for water and then having a water conservation order placed on a particular water body
Central government involved	Could central government require regional plans to be developed? Under the proposed changes to the Resource Management Act the Minister for the Environment is given powers to intervene without criteria. There are no opportunities for councils to contest the direction of ministerial decisions. Similar proposals for water management are not supported The cost to local authorities with small rating bases is significant Are the whole of government submissions like the input of the former Ministry of Works and Development? Science-based information for calculating minimum flows would be useful Is there support across government for providing subsidies to local government? Would Resource Management Act regional plans be required or would another type of regime or strategy be sufficient? Could set requirements for regional planning rather than requiring plans Central government approving plans is not supported
Provide more tools	Fencing waterways is not always feasible in hill country areas How will recreational groups compete in a tendering or auctioning system? If you do not allow the resource to get over-allocated then you will not need to set up markets People are entitled to certainty. Recognition of existing use rights should be included Tradability can allow regions to manage their way through demand for water A tradable system could allow the best value to result in a financial value. What about social and cultural values? We do not want councils or central government to decide what the best use of water is Are there opportunities to review the water conservation order provisions as well as existing orders? 'Clawback' tool would be useful for the future, and information on implementation of the tool How would 'water permit holders required to return a fraction of water resources' work? Merit in returning a fraction but returned amount needs to be used as an efficiency measure Who should determine what the highest value of water is? Deciding on who gets the water is about deciding which is the most important value A trading permit system relies on accurate information which is not always possible. A pilot registry system would be useful for transfers. Could have transfer between land owners and transfer between sections of rivers
Working together	Raising awareness of the issues is important. Central government should not assume all people have access to the internet Local government also has an obligation to provide information The council informs water users of the issues but there is a gap for raising general public awareness More education is needed on water efficiency What would central government's role be in the pilot programmes mentioned under Action 13? Collaboration has to be issues driven. Problems need to be clearly identified
Additional issues raised

Table 8: Napier meeting held at Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Central government direction	It is difficult to determine the best mechanisms until we know what the national priorities are Who sets the national priorities? A process is needed for involving local government and stakeholders for developing a national policy statement Consistent advice and direction is needed from central government Central government needs to be clear that there is not enough water to meet demands in some areas There is a danger that the issue could become politicised and overly influenced by pressure groups Trade-offs between values will have to happen. The reality is that increased use of water correlates with a decrease in water quality Some level of national guidance would be useful The content of an national policy statement should be high level. Prescription can result in conflicts A consistent methodology for determining minimum flows could be helpful in a national environmental standard
Central government involved	The Quality Planning website should continue to be funded and operated by the Ministry for the Environment Whole of government submissions could be useful because how can councils be expected to determine national priorities? There often a confusing message from central to regional government on what the national priorities are What is going to happen with the lists of water bodies of national importance? The Heretaunga Plains is included in the irrigation report - does this mean that central government will interfere with the management of this resource? The costs to ratepayers need to be taken into account. Taxpayers should pay as well as ratepayers Support and assistance from central government is needed for councils performing well, not only for those councils under-performing Assistance for under-resourced councils in the form of secondments and information sharing is supported More information is needed on how much water is available Is there central government support for water harvesting? Setting environmental bottom lines requires good information which is expensive to obtain. Compliance costs for water users and councils are also significant
Provide more tools	Central government has a role in researching international experiences and models. The Californian and Israel models should be researched We need to consider selling water to the highest bidder. Systems for allocating scarce resources need to be considered Selling water to the highest bidder doe not always mean it is allocated to the highest value Caution with moving away from first in first served. Could use frequent review to determine whether water is going to the highest priority use There is room for improving the efficiency of water use Would a water rental unit be payable to the Crown or to councils? Highest value use is subjective to determine. It would be difficult for councils to determine this Thought must be given to measuring systems if we have a more sophisticated allocation system. A set of systems for determining use, and undertaking monitoring will be needed. Upgrading and retrofitting equipment will be needed The practicalities behind measuring water need to be considered As water becomes more valuable there is more incentive for users to take all of the volume they are entitled to. Councils need to be able to measure use. The compliance regime is resource hungry Existing investments in infrastructure will need to be recognised if management systems change
Working together	Need to emphasise the importance of partnerships. Local government is an equal partner and should be involved at the start of the policy development process Central government needs to listen to local government
Additional issues raised	Why aren't urban impacts on water quality included in the scope of the programme? The document does not address the tension between the demand for more water and the water quality problems that often result from intensive agricultural production. The discussion document does not offer solutions on how to deal with this tension The document is reactive to the Resource Management Act. Where does sustainable development fit in? How can regional councils address social and economic factors to make effective environmental decision-making within a Resource Management Act (sustainable management) framework?

Table 9: Stratford meeting held at Taranaki Regional Council

Central government direction	Uneasy about a raft of changes which could result in frustration and cost. Need transparency, clarity and buy-in from the community One-size fits all is not a good approach. Regulatory costs are high and regions don't want to have to pay for problems that aren't theirs Solutions have to be targeted National environmental standards are too blunt. Would be useful to have capability and research undertaken to provide a tool box of methodologies that could be region specific National legislation may be required on a catchment and/or river specific basis
Central government involved	Need to remember local relationships are important and a heavy-handed approach might not work Department of Conservation is the only department doing its job regarding submissions. Needs to be an integrated government view when appropriate. It would be valuable at consent and plan level. At the moment social and economic departments are absent New Zealand Planning Institute would be more effective operating at the regional level like the Resource Managers' Group There is value in pilot programmes Need targeted funding Central government should help less wealthy councils upgrade infrastructure Lean lessons from overseas experience
Provide more tools	Problems need to be properly defined in order to develop solutions. Need to be specific about the extent, trend and spatial distribution of problems It is difficult to predict future water and land use The tools are already available. They need to be used professionally, imaginatively and with support from the community Allocation - there is an issue with how you judge best use. The tools for allocation are already available. Certainty is needed in a system Efficiency of use is a problem. If a charge is put on water use efficiency would increase Work on Taranaki values found that environmental issues were in the top 10 things values, and water was number one Minimum flow work would be helpful Economic instruments won't work everywhere Market instruments could be used for fully allocated resources Tradable consents may have merits. There are no legislative impediments for trading to occur now Pricing mechanisms would be the best way to deal with efficiency of use Could put a condition in consents for hydro generation that would allow water to be allocated from their permits to other users Use an enforcement regime that is based on the tools available
Working together	Ministry for the Environment has created false impressions and expectations with Māori. Need to fund increased Māori involvement in a strategic way that does not create problems for councils. Strong links with Māori have been established in Taranaki Growing awareness of sustainability concept amongst resource users. Policy people and non-government organisations haven't connected with this yet There is a lack of appreciation of mainstreaming of environmental values in the discussion document. This impacts on the tools that should be used Regulation is needed to underpin education and awareness programmes in areas where there is no awareness Need to connect with key resource users at a property scale
Additional issues raised

Table 10: Palmerston North meeting held at Horizons Regional Council

Central government direction	There is no framework for non-point source pollution. Who pays for the impacts? Guidance, research and tools are required Monitoring and legislation is required, and stronger penalties Need a clear steer on priority use and providing certainty for investment Some benefit in national direction, but there are risks with central decision-making Communities should have the first call on water supply Standards for water quality must be rigorous and enforced National policy statement would be more helpful that a national environmental standard Local government needs to be involved in developing a framework for a national environmental standard Regional councils should retain decision-making
Central government involved	Funding is needed for local government to treat discharges Coordination of best practice of water conservation approaches is needed Need funding to deal with ageing infrastructure Water storage should be an option Nervous about central government involvement Local districts need funding and support to improve water bodies of national importance Central government should subsidise land-based sewage treatment There should be a water quality fund Central government funding for community projects such as riparian planting Needs to be a central water efficiency agency like ECCA
Provide more tools	A levy could be established based on water volume Avoid privatisation of water Require metering of use Tools for non-compliance are weak. Need higher fines Incentives around water conservation and reduction of discharges are needed How do you prioritise competing use? Need to be aware of economic development needs of the region when thinking about allocating water Land-based water systems are an option A value needs to be put on water - this may result in behaviour change Trading of water rights is an option. We should look to overseas examples Need certainty for consent holders Tools are needed for setting minimum flows Incentives and direction is needed for rainwater tanks and recycling of water Priorities must override a tendering process Community water supplies should be permitted activities
Working together	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 interest research for regional councils to use; for example, for setting minimum flows. There is a need to be confident that minimum flows are defensible which requires good information Better to focus on putting programmes in place to use rather than resources into pilot projects to develop more tools. Perhaps funding for significant national issues such as the Lake Taupo pilot project Funding for education programmes
Additional 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 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 of catchment' approach, without separating allocation and quality issues. Quality and quantity should be considered together There has to be more emphasis on water conservation and sustainability

Table 11: Wellington meeting held at Greater Wellington

Central government direction	Clarity is required on what the national interest is and what the difference is between the national and regional interest 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 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 If there is a national interest to be expresses, it should be done as part of the regional planning process
Central government involved	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 interest research for regional councils to use; for example, for setting minimum flows. There is a need to be confident that minimum flows are defensible which requires good information Better to focus on putting programmes in place to use rather than resources into pilot projects to develop more tools. Perhaps funding for significant national issues such as the Lake Taupo pilot project Funding for education programmes
Provide more tools	Before looking at trading, look at the fishing quota system and whether it is effective in sustaining stocks Need to look at a 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 Need to define the framework before having a useful look at the tools The problem with diffuse discharges is the Resource Management Act requirement of 'no adverse effects'. This could be strengthened to 'no change' or 'beneficial change' There lots of tools and information already Need to look at increasing efficiency of use Non-regulatory tools used by councils need to be recognised Water trading should occur within a framework so it can be traded to 'highest value' rather than free trading Efficient use of water refers to the best dollar use of water
Working together	Must take the process slowly and take people along with you
Additional issues raised

Table 12: Nelson/Tasman/Marlborough meeting held at Tasman District Council

Central government direction	Meaningful standards could be helpful for plan development. They would provide some consistency It would be useful to have more oversight and support for councils with few resources Local solutions for local problems are needed An effective national policy statement or national environmental standard is reliant on a good development process the accurate definition of issues The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's report raises the need for a minimum water quality standard Point source and non-point source pollution needs to be separated for a standard There are risks in defining methods in a national environmental standard. Local solutions cannot always be applied in other areas of a catchment. Flexibility is needed Having a national environmental standard would mean provisions in plans might need to be strengthened, but also tailored to the regions. Want to avoid arguments over numbers - best practice is a better option Government involvement is not supported. Drinking water standards have not been helpful. The quality of different water bodies cannot be compared Need information about nationally important water bodies and a clear policy statement about nationally important values. Water Conservation Orders might not be worth the effort. An inquiry is needed into how values can be mediated through local processes The importance of Māori values needs to be incorporated into the national values project National guidance which determines priority values would be helpful What is the process for resolving competing values, or options for progressing the water bodies of national importance projects? Is there going to be a list for the uses of water, or for the priority uses of water? A low-flow management regime provides some priority use
Central government involved	Best practice covering how to set allocation limits, maintaining security of supply, and developing priority regimes would be useful Long term commitment by central government is needed Funding needed for long-term community investment in water development Forums to discuss issues and disseminate ideas would be useful Watchdog role for central government to step in where there are problems Central government support to encourage regional councils to strengthen their professional and political networks Capacity building in water resource management is needed. Expertise is lacking nationally. Central government organisations need technical expertise to advise Ministers. There is a lack of capacity in the Ministry for the Environment to help enhance the level of practice in the regions A crew of practitioners or a roving practitioner could be placed on secondment around regions Audit panels for regional plans could be useful Central government has an overview role to ensure regional councils are doing their job adequately, but councils do not want to have to report to central government Central government investment in water research is not coordinated. Research needs to be aligned with the issues raised in the discussion document Ministry for the Environment needs to become involved in the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology review of funding criteria Integrated catchment management is lacking. This should be included in best practice information Biodiversity funding for achieving better practice on private land is a good model for providing advice locally Cost implications for councils implementing the proposals need to be considered
Provide more tools	Ministry for the Environment can build tools for moving from discharge consents to risk mapping and making this information available to the farming community Problems with septic tanks could be improved through maintenance and use Waterway design guides would be useful Systems for predicting where fish are would be useful Monitoring processes should be looked at from the national level Councils need allocation powers such as comparative assessment, especially in high demand areas Would a market mechanism approach result in private ownership of water? A resource rental system could mean that permit holder might give up their rights to take water more quickly How do you determine which is the highest values use? Some values are not economic The debate is about how to determine security of supply and how to manage the tension between councils dictating security and users holding security in permits First come first served can work for non- over-allocated resources. Central government should develop an RMA process for managing over-allocated resources More work is needed to determine whether water bodies are over-allocated
Working together	Irrigators and industry need to be included in the plan and policy development process There is not enough emphasis on the role of education in the discussion document A stock take of education material already produced is needed and a programme focused on empowering local government to deliver programmes. National resources could be developed as templates which could be adapted for local issues National scale programmes need to build in sufficient lead-in time to incorporate local programmes Public awareness should be a tool incorporated into the other actions The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment report states that management of diffuse discharges is not a matter of setting a national water quality standard. Local solutions and changes in practices are needed Is there a commitment towards co-management regimes and to encourage a greater role for Māori to engage in regional decision-making?
Additional issues raised	Aquatic weeds are a key issue in some regions. Government should develop a proactive campaign for eradication of aquatic weeds Pest issues have been left to local government to manage without national resources Should the impact of climate change be regarded as a key issue? If so, it is perhaps relevant to Actions 5 and 8. Jurisdictional clarification of water end use is needed

Table 13: Canterbury meeting held at the Christchurch Convention Centre

Central government direction	Need to paint the big picture at the national level National guidance would take the pressure off local political sensitivities Guidelines need to be practical, sensible and workable. They must be developed in partnership between central and local government. Need greater local government involvement in setting national standards and the process for doing so The national interest should not override local interests Nervous about central government directing councils Central government could lead when the issue is politically too difficult at the local level. Need adequate funding to make the direction happen There is a gap between the idea and implementation especially regarding a national environmental standard Does having nationally important water bodies lower the value of other water bodies? All water bodies are nationally important Would groundwater be recognised? Need to identify the gaps in information first. Could have value if it assists a whole of government approach Need to list water bodies of regional importance to be included along-side water bodies of national importance Concern that central government will take over local government responsibilities Questionable whether central government will be able to agree. Would be useful if discussion was had at central government level National policy statement - prescription legislation is only useful if the problem is the same across the country. Enabling legislation would be better for regional differences. Need to be flexible to change and reflective of regional differences National environmental standard - ability to enact standards is different across councils and communities. Need to identify consistent goals. Local government needs to be clear with the community what they are trying to achieve and this relies on local information which is hard for central government to deliver Is a need to develop environmental bottom lines Central government should provide the framework only and provide flexibility for local government to make it work Need a balance between local and regional interests Useful to have a national system to have a consistent approach and process to identify flow requirements
Central government involved	MfE needs scientific authority to balance policy, standards, more streamlining across the country and more national cohesion Need a national water advisory council with scientific and policy function Need guidance to assess the quality of waterways and to set standards Storage is a major issue A coherent central government view would be helpful but if local government disagreed could result in lowest common denominator Would need to have checks around central government involvement Should look overseas for research. Israel is doing research on water allocation and quality Central government should carry the risk for regional development projects such as irrigation Lack of coordinated science approach Need an agency to play an ombudsman role. The Environment Court process is too cumbersome Need a dispute resolution mechanism between the different mandates Need a national water advisory council Central government should fund a study on groundwater for allocation A coordinated central government view would be useful in submissions but they need to include a regional perspective Central government should support and fund local government initiatives such as the Canterbury Strategic Water Study Need guidance on implementing solutions Need to share best practice Need access to good science
Provide more tools	User pays gets people thinking more Need water metering in Canterbury households Central government should push for compulsory metering Major consents should be decided by the Environment Court Lengthy plan development process makes them out of date. Consent process ends up determining the outcome Could have consents decided by region only on points of law Appeals should only be on points of law Need to clarify property rights Could develop a survey tool to assess waterways Equity issues are associated with trading Water as a property right could be an effective way of allocating it Economic instruments can achieve better use and allocation and better quality of discharge because use is paid for. Need certainty for consent renewals. Trading groundwater would be difficult because it is hard to define the resource. Need to identify boundaries before trading. Existing users need to be recognised Efficient use is critical for large scale dairy farms Is there a role for triple bottom line reporting? Need a process for fast tracking projects of national and regional significance Need a national system for identifying flow requirements Need a definition for priorities of use Economic tool box is a good idea but needs more work
Working together	Need to empower communities for better outcomes Needs to be a model for the interface between central and local government, and communities Need an engagement of science in environmental decision-making Central government, local government, other agencies and communities need to work together to understand water systems and agree on outcomes and actions, which includes communication and education
Additional issues raised	Urban water quality should be addressed Need to promote integrated catchment management There is no mention of indigenous forestry or vegetation in the discussion document Central government should have a greater role in storm water management and monitoring Urban and rural should not be separated Need to take a total water cycle approach rather than a linear approach

Table 14: Greymouth meeting held at West Coast Regional Council

Central government direction	Government direction will lead to government dictation Costs to ratepayers if and national policy statement is too prescriptive Local solutions for local problems must be maintained Central government's role is to monitor and assist - not to demand Different solutions needed for different problems Long term council community planning process provides more credit to local decision making How do you compare the water bodies of national importance criteria? How to determine whether there is a threat to particular water bodies Central government should balance the competing national values Specified methodology for determining low flows would be useful and guidance Don't want existing work overridden by national tools Target areas where there are actual problems rather than blanket national policy statement or national environmental standard Are we going back to Ministry of Works days when central government had more control?
Central government involved	Councils are bearing the impact of paying for environmental impacts of tourism Department of Conservation should be paying for the upkeep of water bodies in the Crown-owned estate Water harvesting should be used more Funding is need for more information and community-based projects Funding should be longer-term and easier to apply for Whole of government submissions would allow a broad government view to be presented which is in keeping with sustainable development Government needs to determine the balance between the values of sustainable development at the national level Whole of government approach should be adopted at the beginning of the planning process Central government has a role in providing tools and facilitating the dissemination of solutions and best practice National tools will need to be accompanied by funding for information, equipment and monitoring A mobile team of planners and subsidies are supported How will the funding be determined? Cost of implementation of an allocation process should be relevant to the environmental threat
Provide more tools	Resource consents could become a tangible asset if water has a market value Security of supply is important - existing investments need to be recognised Water conservation orders add an extra layer of bureaucracy Allocation system should be implemented by an independent body. Water meters would be useful Trading - mining licences are not traded because people want to protect their rights. The same could happen to water Water efficiency diagnostic service made available to council would be useful for determining actual use Transfer - picking winners is problematic Market mechanisms for diffuse discharges - how can you quantify the level of discharge according to soil type and stock numbers? Would need information and monitoring
Working together	The Lake Brunner project s a good example of using Sustainable Management Funding for a community-based project. Central government should provide a proactive approach for local -level projects that would be difficult to fund from local rates Central government has a role in developing education awareness campaigns with regional councils Education and information is needed on the issues Customised education programmes for particular areas Catchment based education programmes are more effective than large scale advertising campaigns Landcare Trust is a good model Agencies need to work alongside communities Local government already has requirements for building relationships with Māori under the Local Government Act
Additional issues raised	Need for integrated catchment management approach

Table 15: Dunedin meeting held at Otago Regional Council

Central government direction	The concept of 'national importance' is worrying, for example, if the Waitaki River is identified as nationally important for hydro power generation The background reports (with the exception of the biodiversity report) are useless and cannot be used to make decisions There is a need to look at instream values above nationally important values. Instream values must be addressed before allocating to abstractive uses Waters of national importance need to be identified so communities know where they are Local decision-making is needed with central government providing guidance There is a need for a combined top-down, bottom-up approach. All the actions in the document are top-down and patronising A national policy statement could set default and minimum flows in the form of a method rather than a prescribed level and must take into account the individual catchment characteristics A national policy statement would be a good start but must be written carefully. It could be used to reinforce the local role in decision-making Practical knowledge is missing from the top-down approach; the community knows best Ranking of national rivers of importance requires extreme care. Focus on one value reduces the value of other values. Tough decisions will need to be made Must be careful not to introduce rural water standards because the cost will be impractical You cannot treat the whole country as equal. There are different environmental conditions and resource implications in different regions A national policy statement could address issues about water storage, acknowledge that we are short of water, acknowledge that rating issues are important and that costs have to realistic
Central government involved	Central government could provide funding for local government Supportive of whole of government approach but it would require agencies to develop a joint, non-conflicting mission statement Regional councils should be able to call for government assistance to deal with difficult issues Central government should have a role in infrastructure. A separate national group could be put in place to oversee infrastructure and to provide funding. There is a need for policy which supports water harvesting as the Resource Management Act stands in the way Water storage is missing from the document We need improvements to infrastructure in terms of irrigation, water distribution systems and storage A good scientific base is required. There are gaps in research and monitoring especially for aquifers. Central government funding and/or joint ventures with local government are needed NIWA collects a lot of information on water but they are working for private interests and the information is not available to the public Government should provide funding for compensation for loss of mining privileges Government input needs to take an overview approach. Funding and resources need to be available There should be no duplication between central and local government as this will lead to increase in costs to the rate payer. Whatever is implemented should minimise costs to end users Shared expertise is needed throughout the country as not every council can afford to employ specialists
Provide more tools	The first in first served approach allocates to commercial uses leaving nothing for the community. Community values need to be provided for as well as economic values. The New Zealand community should own the water Over-allocation is an issue and often people do not use their full allocation A moratorium could be put in place as a tool to prevent degradation In Otago there is currently a mechanism in place to trade water rights Efficiency will impact on existing irrigation. If farmers make more efficient use of water they can irrigate more but still use the same amount of water Does the market decide what is the highest value use? Why not community values rather than minimum values? Monitoring abstraction rates is a gap but it is a funding issue particularly where there is a low rating base The Kakanui catchment was seen as a good pilot project where all water-users are metered voluntarily. The community accepted this approach as they recognise that there is a problem in the catchment. However, it may not be so readily accepted in areas where people do not perceive there to be a problem with water quantity There needs to be central government direction on tools for conserving water in urban areas. In particular this relates to metering water supply, which will meet with political resistance Tradable rights to discharge would be a bad idea. Loosening the polluter pays principle and allowing for the right to pollute Tradability across borders would be difficult The cost of the establishment of a tendering system and lack of tenure security will mean that it will not work. Certainty is important especially where long term investments are involved Otago has a good working water plan. There is an opportunity for others to learn an use it as an example
Working together	Rural and urban communities need to be educated about making choices and the value of water Awareness of sate of water quality is important Joint ventures between central and local government are required to tackle many of the problems
Additional issues raised	Potable water is needed in rural communities for domestic needs, fire fighting, service schemes or storage New subdivisions require potable water supplies There is a need to integrate thinking and planning around water issues. Domestic, stock, irrigation and biodiversity interests should all be integrated. An holistic view is needed Sustainable management of water needs to be undertaken on a catchment-by catchment basis Urban areas need to better understand their demands for potable requirements and the cost of making water sources available Concern over public health issues relating to drinking water from groundwater resources, which are affected by intensive agriculture

Table 16: Invercargill meeting held at Environment Southland

Central government direction	A national environmental standard could be contentious if there is no community buy-in Implementation costs will be imposed on the community Some flexibility is needed in a national environmental standard. The arbitrary nature of setting them is problematic The national environmental standard process can cut across community solutions. Local solutions could already be working well A national policy statement should be high-level and act as a guidance document There is no acknowledgment in the document that freshwater is a finite resource Will a national policy statement provide percentages or will it be abstract statements? Minimum flows do not always take into account environmental values Is there a call for government to define land-use activities that are appropriate for particular land areas as a result of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment report?
Central government involved	Is central government looking at collaborative research on specific problems? Research into recycling of water and rain water collection could be useful Strong need for independent research on nutrients and solutions Document is short on the research aspects such as research into technical efficiency Will funding be provided for specific research on water allocation and use? There needs to be a separate fund for water allocation There is already a lot of research but there are gaps around integrated and whole of catchment solutions Central government needs to facilitate the exchange of information. What about a one-stop shop for water or water information? Research and policy networks for information coordination are needed National coordination is needed to facilitate the exchange of ideas and practices Government used to make submissions but this has largely been withdrawn. Information, guidance and advice should be available to councils at the start of the planning process Whole of government submissions would be useful rather than an end of process sign-off like the Coastal Plan process
Provide more tools	Resource consents could become a tangible asset if water has a market value Security of supply is important - existing investments need to be recognised Water conservation orders add an extra layer of bureaucracy Allocation system should be implemented by an independent body. Water meters would be useful Trading - mining licences are not traded because people want to protect their rights. The same could happen to water Water efficiency diagnostic service made available to council would be useful for determining actual use Transfer - picking winners is problematic Market mechanisms for diffuse discharges - how can you quantify the level of discharge according to soil type and stock numbers? Would need information and monitoring
Working together	Sharing of information and best practice Community-based solutions should not be overridden by national policies
Additional issues raised	Urban supply needs to be taken into account. Urban supplies sometimes cross catchments What is the status of the discussion document in relation to the Resource Management Act review? Some of the Resource Management Act proposals appear to overtake the discussion document proposals. Has the Government already determine what is to be done?

[ Previous ]