Skip to main content.

Views on the Issues

Issue 1: National and regional strategic planning for water management could be improved

Submissions on this issue varied from firm agreement to a view that the Resource Management Act already adequately defines the national interest (in Part II) and provides for the ability to plan for sustainable development. Two submitters gave regional examples of strategic planning currently under way (in the Bay of Plenty and Marlborough). [For example, Submission 189 and 172]

Most submitters discussed ways in which strategic planning could be improved or matters that should be considered in addressing the issue. As one submitter noted: 'It wouldn't matter how good national and regional strategic planning was, you could always say it could be improved - the how is the more difficult question. If you do not define the issue accurately you won't get the output from the process you are undertaking that you are hoping for'. [Submission 44]

Levels of government

There was support for the rationale of the RMA in focusing planning and decision-making at the local or regional level. This was felt to be appropriate to make the best use of local knowledge in addressing local problems and making decisions that affect local communities of interest. One submitter identified problems in regional planning as arising from lack of an appropriate framework to manage conflicting interests rather than a lack of strategic planning. One submitter felt that local decision-making was less subject to political interference, and others raised concerns about central government 'picking winners' and a return to a 'Think Big' approach with economic development taking precedence over environmental protection.

A contrary view was put by one submitter who considered there is a need for proactive national planning. 'Regional planning documents often do not clearly state methods for addressing water allocation issues and lack flexibility to accommodate the changing water needs. Regional and territorial authorities are also often biased towards issues of local significance or local political pressures. Consequently, it is often difficult to effectively provide for issues of national interest.' [Submission 114]

Local government submitters noted that some of the concerns identified in Issue 1 relate to the 'first generation' of plans developed under the RMA. These submitters noted that:

  • councils now have greater knowledge about water and RMA processes
  • the second generation of policies and plans are likely to tackle gaps and accommodate more strategic water planning
  • the Local Government Act 2002 gives regional councils the ability to take a sustainable development focus through the long-term council community planning process.

Local government submitters identified a lack of guidance from central government (particularly in articulating national interest relating to water and priorities for freshwater management) as a hindrance to these processes. Definition of sustainable development and guidance on how to work within the different frameworks of the RMA and Local Government Act (sustainable management and sustainable development respectively) would also be useful.

Other submitters agreed there is a need for guidance from central government on the national interest in freshwater. However this should operate within the context of the RMA and should not impinge on matters best dealt with at a regional level. It should guide, rather than direct, local planning. One submitter stated that 'the role of national planning should be to develop the necessary frameworks to allow detailed planning at the regional scale'. [Submission 199] The need to recognise regional geographic and climatic variations and to retain flexibility for planning at regional or catchment level was also identified. 'Planning at the national level has to be very broad. Planning at the regional level has to be flexible enough to allow for growth in knowledge.' [Submission 32]

Some submitters felt that central government involvement in strategic planning is necessary to avoid inconsistencies or duplication of effort between regions. One suspected that 'some of the regions with the highest demands and risks are the least advanced in water allocation and environmental protection policies', [Submission 205] and felt that implementation of the RMA in the absence of national policy does not allow for cross-boundary integration. The submitters considered that inconsistent environmental standards or approaches between regions could lead to destabilising economic effects and long-term conflict.

Nature and scope of strategic planning needed

Submitters emphasised that planning for sustainable development needs to consider economic, environmental and societal sustainability rather than focusing narrowly on adverse effects of activities on the environment and other users. Submitters held a range of views about the balance between the different aspects. On one hand 'too much bias is to environmental bottom lines, not the livelihood provided by water or the economic benefits of water to the greater community'. [Submission 241] On the other hand 'sustainable development must relate not only to the industry but more importantly to the natural systems and waterways, including those yet to be reinstated, for the benefit of future generations'. [Submission 70] One submitter suggested that wide community debate is needed on the issue of sustainable development.

Various suggestions were made about the way strategic planning should be approached. Suggestions included:

  • moving from a position of responding to demand to foreseeing demand and setting guidelines for managing demands
  • a greater emphasis on the regional economic values of water
  • increased focus on understanding the water budget, both the annual and monthly budgets
  • the need for regional planning documents to clearly state methods for addressing water allocation issues, including flexibility to accommodate changing water needs
  • greater recognition of the finite nature of the water resource and the importance of its life-supporting capacity, now and in the future
  • adoption of integrated catchment management programmes.

Issue 2: Nationally important values need to be better addressed

Views about this issue were divided. In all sectors of the community there were people who agreed strongly that nationally important values need to be better addressed, and others who felt strongly that there was no real issue to consider.

Submissions disagreeing with issue

Those submitters who did not agree with the issue gave several reasons. Some expressed the view that the RMA already identifies national values and provides a framework for them to be managed. The role of Environment Court decisions in identifying nationally important values was also mentioned.

Some recreational groups referred to the role of water conservation orders in deeming values as nationally important and were concerned that the status of these might be affected by any change. These submitters were opposed to any broadening of scope of nationally important values to include use values in addition to the instream recreational, ecological and amenity values protected by water conservation orders. One submitter felt this could only be seen as a 'water grab' [Submission 126] by developers, and another suggested that instead of central government becoming more involved, communities should be provided with more funding to allow them to protect values adequately.

Submitters were very clear that water issues were best dealt with at the local level by councils, as they have the benefit of local knowledge. One submitter noted that the only reason nationally important values were not being addressed, is because central government is not providing a national view sufficiently clearly for departments to make appropriate input to regional and district plans. Another submitter was concerned that identification of nationally important values would mean that 'resources will be "locked up" unnecessarily in the interests of conservation, rather than managed appropriately to meet all community needs' [Submission 208] and that 'people living in highly modified urban areas will attempt to impose their wish lists on regions/districts'. [Submission 208]

Several submitters referred to the likely contention over deciding what is nationally important, given the wide variety of uses and values for water. One noted that 'even between government departments, views can be contradictory depending on the individual departments' brief or prime purpose'. [Submission 211] This submitter did state, however, that a coordinated approach between departments would be helpful in making local communities and decision-makers aware of national issues and enabling central government to be more holistic in its involvement in specific catchment issues.

It was suggested that debating what values are nationally important will take energy and focus away from making more practical and timely decisions about water management.

Some submitters felt that identifying some water bodies as more important than others is not appropriate. Submitters were concerned that water bodies not identified might be compromised because of their lower importance, and that 'all water bodies are taonga and the objective has to be to look after them all'. [Submission 32]

Two submitters suggested there were already systems in place for identifying nationally important ecosystems and other values associated with particular water bodies, and one thought that the Department of Conservation, regional councils and NIWA should be able to gather all the information required for specific sites without the need for further bureaucracy.

Submissions supporting the need to address the issue

While a significant number of submitters were happy with the level to which national values are currently addressed, many others felt there is room for improvement. Some submitters expressed a view that this should be done within the intent of the RMA (particularly Part II); others thought there were limitations in the provisions in the RMA relating to water conservation orders. One submitter referred to a danger that water conservation orders might protect values that are detrimental to the purposes and principles of the RMA, particularly as they have focused on a narrow range of values. Another limitation mentioned was the resources available to apply for Water Conservation Orders. They were also seen by one submitter as too restrictive.

Some submitters felt that the full range of values for water is not adequately recognised at present. In particular 'water bodies with the potential to generate hydro-electricity and/or irrigation need to be recognised and protected (for future projects)'. [Submission 184]

The most common reason given for agreeing that nationally important values need to be better addressed was a need for a clear message from central government about the national interest. Submitters referred to the need for conflicting views held by different central government agencies to be resolved, and then articulated to local government and reflected in regional and district planning.

Some submitters felt that clear identification of national priorities and national values would also help councils to make decisions between conflicting applications for resource consent. One submitter suggested that priority water systems must be identified before deciding how to allocate water resources. Another thought that if central government was to safeguard identified values this would also overcome conflicting interests between other parties.

Other reasons given for needing to address nationally important values included:

  • the need for clear priorities where water systems cross regional boundaries
  • improved consistency across regional bodies
  • the importance of national icons would be emphasised
  • increased public awareness about the importance of water as a resource.

Issue 3: Setting environmental bottom lines and allocation limits is costly and contentious

Most submitters felt that this is an important issue. Some were concerned that the way it was framed in the discussion paper emphasises the difficulties rather than the importance of setting environmental bottom lines and allocation limits. One submitter noted that the difficulties 'must not stop those who claim to be responsible in ministries, parliament and local bodies from tackling the task. If they abnegate that duty, they've let the country's future down. Get some braver, stronger people'. [Submission 26]

Why set environmental bottom lines and allocation limits?

Many submitters explained why they felt it is important to set environmental bottom lines and allocation limits. Key benefits identified included:

  • certainty for the community and water users about the amount of water available for allocation, leading to greater certainty for investment. One submitter identified the objective as 'protection of the New Zealand economy' [Submission 65]
  • protection of ecosystems, aquatic health and life supporting capacity from irreversible damage
  • avoiding long-term environmental and economic costs, as 'the cost to repair damage to freshwater environments, if it can be achieved at all, will be vastly greater than the cost of providing credible scientific information', [Submission 89] and 'short term cost could avoid long-term environmental disaster'. [Submission 117]

One submitter felt that individual water users cannot be expected to take the initiative to limit their consented use in order to provide protection to freshwater systems. Because of this it is important for government to take responsibility for the big picture by setting environmental bottom lines and allocation limits to ensure adequate protection. Another submitter noted that any delay in setting standards increases the time for systems to recover and the cost associated with recovery.

Two submitters raised the concern that environmental bottom lines need to be based on sound historic and technical information, and reflect the continually evolving state of our environment. Submitters noted that 'attempts should not necessarily be made to create or to re-create some perceived state of "naturalness"'. [Submission 180] 'The country in general can never return to a virgin ecological state ... setting of environmental bottom lines should take into account restoring precious resources but also needs to be realistic in enabling social and economic needs to be met.' [Submission 110]

One submitter suggested that bottom lines should focus on the needs of ecosystems as distinct from the needs of recreational instream users. Another felt that establishing environmental bottom lines would help in prioritising adequate quantity and quality of water for domestic supply over other uses.

Need for science and information

There was significant agreement with the comments made in the discussion paper about the need for good science and information for establishing environmental bottom lines and allocation limits and making policy robust. Many submitters were concerned that the cost of research should not be seen as a reason not to do it. There were suggestions that both central government and those benefiting financially from their use of water should contribute to paying the cost.

The expense of research was felt to be justified by the outcome, with several submitters expressing the view that if bottom lines are established on the basis of good scientific information they are less likely to be contentious. One submitter suggested that disputes about the accuracy of scientific information 'are more likely to be caused by perceptions of the economic effects of recommendations (that is, greed) rather than the science they are based on'. [Submission 177]

Some submitters were critical of the current level of investment in research and environmental data collection. One submitter suggested, as an example, that in the case of lakes Rotoiti and Rotorua 'an ongoing programme of good environmental data collection could have partially averted the current situation'. [Submission 192] Concern was raised about the capacity of local government to fund or undertake the research needed for robust water management and about the impartiality of research funded by particular vested interests.

There was a strong view that central government should be more involved in both coordination and funding of science. One submitter identified 'the lack of effective links between government agencies and science' [Submission 147] as a problem. Submitters identified specific roles for central government, including:

  • working with local government to prioritise areas of knowledge gaps
  • providing funding assistance to fill gaps
  • facilitating a uniform approach throughout the country
  • facilitating sharing of science and information between councils.

Various areas of research and information were identified by submitters as needing further attention in establishing environmental bottom lines and allocation limits. These included:

  • research to improve understanding of hydrological systems
  • evaluation of alternative methods to establish sustainable flow regimes, including further development of instream flow incremental methodology (IFIM) to resolve current disagreement about this method
  • baseline hydrological data collection (particularly for smaller systems) and ongoing flow monitoring to determine long-term change. This includes a need for long-term data collection, national data gathering networks and coordinated collation and interpretation of data from various sources
  • collection of data on aquatic biodiversity and the effects of long-term water abstraction
  • information on the effects of discharges.

One submitter referred to the value of modelling to complement and extend environmental databases. Another suggested that a team of experts be established to report on and provide solutions to key problems.

Some submitters felt that more use needs to be made of traditional Māori knowledge about freshwater systems. 'Māori (and non-Māori) should work towards an integration of kaitiaki values into research gathered, to subsequently define what are kaitiaki bottom lines. Kaitiaki frameworks, values and traditional practices have become more and more relevant - in comparison to the standard "scientific" frameworks and research.' [Submission 227]

In contrast to the general view, there were some submitters who did not agree that there are problems in obtaining the information needed to set environmental bottom lines. These submitters felt either that adequate information is already available or that it could be easily obtained. 'Water quality can be measured by bio-indicators ... and water quantity is not a hard value to measure and set a minimum for in conjunction with quality.' [Submission 247]

Dealing with uncertainty and information shortfalls

As well as identifying ways of addressing shortfalls in science and information, submitters discussed the management approaches that are needed to make decisions on environmental bottom lines where information is uncertain. Some submitters thought that central government leadership in this area would be helpful, 'as it is reasonable to assume that scientific information/opinion will always be open to healthy debate, but that management decisions still need to be made after weighing up the evidence on its merits'. [Submission 41]

Many submitters felt that because of the uncertainty involved, and because of time lags in effects, it is important to take a precautionary approach in setting environmental bottom lines. Some suggestions were made about components of such an approach, including:

  • keeping terms of permits short 'to allow the frequent incorporation of knowledge as we learn more' [Submission 32]
  • explicitly including margins in limits to provide for effects that are time delayed (without present value discounting of these effects)
  • setting optimal rather than minimal standards
  • requiring comprehensive environmental, social and health impact assessments where there is insufficient information to set bottom lines
  • setting a '50% maximum allocation'. [Submission 185]

Other concerns

Besides the issues around obtaining an appropriate information base to set bottom lines and allocation limits, a number of other concerns were identified. These included:

  • the failure of allocation methods under the RMA 'to give adequate recognition to the nature and range of outcomes that result from a water allocation decision' [Submission 200]
  • the difficulty of managing cumulative effects through the consent process
  • a lack of public understanding about impacts on water quality and a lack of environmental stewardship
  • a lack of agreement on values, including what are nationally important values
  • the tendency for bottom lines to become targets or norms, rather than minimum standards
  • recognition of the possible need to reduce existing allocations, and the consequences of this for existing investment in infrastructure.

Issue 4: Water is over-allocated in some catchments, is not consistently allocated to its highest value use over time, and can be wasted

Submitters approached this issue in a variety of ways: some agreed with the problem described and expanded on contributing factors, some criticised the way the issue is defined, and some did not agree that the issue is one needing any action. While some submitters approached the issue as a whole, many commented on the specific aspects of over-allocation, allocation to highest value, transferability of water permits and efficiency of water use.

General comments about issue definition

Several submitters identified factors in water management and use that contribute to the issue identified:

  • 'Good frameworks for managing water allocation do not exist in New Zealand .... .There are limited imperatives on consent holders to address issues such as efficiency and storage options (although this varies widely between territorial authorities) and there is a lack of flexibility within authorities for transferability to meet specific needs at peak times...farmers within catchments who experience regular water shortages often know where water is "available".' [Submission 208]
  • 'The problem with "inefficient" water use is that the "inefficient use" is often part of this country's infrastructure (e.g. Waitaki hydro dams). Therefore, any changes in existing water use has knock-on effects on the infrastructure, which can have potentially massive repercussions both locally and nationally.' [Submission 30]
  • Limited knowledge about resources and their use makes sustainable management difficult. 'A major issue is the duration of consents, and the use of consent conditions that work against effective management of the resource. Individual consents for irrigation generally have a small effect .... However, their effect is cumulative.' [Submission 124]

One submitter expressed the view that the description of the issue shows incomplete understanding of water allocation practice, particularly the existence of community as well as economic values of water use and the need to manage security of supply. Another felt that it does not acknowledge Māori customary ownership to freshwater resources.

Some submitters from the local government sector felt that in their regions there were adequate mechanisms in place to address the problems, and suggested that the issue is localised rather than national in scale. Further to this, one submitter suggested that management in partnership with specific local authorities may be more appropriate than generic policy and allocation models.

Over-allocation

Some submitters agreed that over-allocation is a problem. Concern was voiced about the reduction in reliability for users resulting from this, and the sense that some users are effectively required to mitigate the environmental effects of others' water use.

Some submitters expressed the view that over-allocation could be addressed adequately through existing mechanisms, including setting of objectives and policies for water quantity, identification of minimum flows or sustainable yields, and the ability to transfer permits and to clawback water if necessary. One suggested that all the currently available tools 'must be weighed up along with existing use rights, existing infrastructure and investment, and the effects on local communities both socially and economically'. [Submission 211]

The definition of the issue was questioned by some submitters. One suggested that, rather than over-allocation, the issues were poor reliability of flow and inadequate minimum flows, and that these were the result of 'failures to set in place adequate environmental protection (rules to regulate takes) and infrastructure to harvest the flows and improve the reliability of supply'. [Submission 44]

The concept of 'highest value' use

Caution was expressed by many submitters about any proposal to identify highest value uses and allocate water accordingly. Several regional councils and other submitters voiced concern that either central or local government should be asked to 'pick winners' among different water uses. They questioned the capacity of government to determine which uses will be best over time - and some submitters referred to the potential influence of political pressure on making choices between uses. One submitter noted that this approach is inconsistent with the RMA focus on the environmental effects of activities, and another was concerned about whether it is consistent with sustainability: '... "value" is such a contentious subject. It is tainted also by the primary perception of water as a resource for exploitation and a vehicle for economic growth...unless development genuinely reduces environmental damage and the use of natural capital or offers efficiencies that are not prone to be outweighed by growth in volume, to term it "sustainable" is false'. [Submission 194]

Other difficulties were also identified with a highest value approach. One submitter noted 'many people who use water invest on the basis of long-term returns due to start up costs such as infrastructure. Hence at times that particular use ... may not be the highest value use compared to other industries that are trying to obtain access to the water resource. Determining whether this water is being "wasted" may present some challenges'. [Submission 19]

Some submitters considered identification of highest value should be left to the market, within a management framework including establishment of environmental bottom lines and allocation limits and an ability to transfer permits. One submitter suggested that tying permits to land title would assist the market to decide best use, while another noted that the value of water is already being reflected in land value.

In contrast to these views, some submitters identified a need to prioritise uses of water when the resource is limited. One submitter was concerned about the ability of market tools to assess non-economic values.

Water use efficiency

Some submitters considered the emphasis should be on promoting efficient use of water across the board. One submitter questioned the concept of water wastage. 'The idea of wasting water is ... nonsense. If a farmer takes more water from a river than he needs the surplus water drains into the groundwater. The extra groundwater recharge can be used by someone else. Thus the border dyke irrigation schemes which are very inefficient in terms of water use are very efficient at harvesting surplus water in rivers and recharging groundwater. They are also very efficient in terms of energy use ... when deciding what is the wisest use of a resource an holistic view has to be taken of the whole land and hydrological system.' [Submission 44]

Issue 5: Tension between investment certainty and planning flexibility

There was wide variation in the significance attached by submitters to this issue. While some felt it was very important, others thought it was a statement of the obvious and not worth considering. Several submitters identified that the tension is not unique to water management but is normal in any allocation system. One noted that 'tools to adjust the balance must be a fundamental part of the water allocation system' [Submission 201] and referred to models used for other resources such as minerals, oil and gas, fisheries and geothermal energy. Another suggested that the tension 'cannot be resolved whilst there is private investment in the utilisation of a public resource for a fixed tenure'. [Submission 107]

Some submitters thought that the issue should be characterised differently. One suggested that the real issue is the absence of good water allocation frameworks. 'Managing environmental risks and water demand is not about flexibility as such, but about having certain and secure frameworks within which to operate.' [Submission 208] Another submitter felt that the issue is related to 'the decoupling of water management from development ..., investment, such as irrigation infrastructure, agricultural, and hydro-energy generation also needs to be more substantially linked to the conditions under which the right to take water is determined by other factors ... such as drought'. [Submission 207]

The likelihood of an increase in the tension was signalled by some submitters - due to increasing investment in water resource development on one side, and to the likely increase in variability of the resource as a result of climate change on the other side. One submitter also noted that 'our needs for water do not decrease with a reduction in river flows, indeed they often increase' [Submission 76] and another raised a concern about pressure on councils to compromise environmental values in favour of large-scale investment in resource development.

The need for certainty

Views on the importance of investment certainty as a factor in freshwater management were polarised. Submitters from agriculture, energy and industry sectors emphasised the importance of certainty and submitters from environmental and recreation groups considered that this is given too much prominence.

Submitters supporting the need for investment certainty noted that many industries rely heavily on the ability to access water and some require substantial investment in infrastructure. Without certainty of water supply to support long-term investment, development and innovation would be stifled. This would have impacts on the economy and ultimately quality of life. One submitter noted specifically that, with current economic returns, continuing irrigation is necessary to ensure continued investment in farming. Another stated that existing consents 'do not...provide a level of certainty commensurate with the level of investment that is needed for large scale, physical infrastructure such as [electricity] generation schemes ... There are few industries as reliant on such weak property rights as hydro and thermal generation.' [Submission 264]

These submitters identified changes to legislation, policies and planning documents as all having the potential to reduce certainty for resource users, with certainty about the value of existing consents and the likelihood of their renewal particularly important. There were strong calls for protection of existing rights and precedence to be given to existing users over new users in water allocation decisions, with one submitter voicing support for the Aoraki Water Trust High Court decision. Another submitter suggested that both historical and present water use should be recognised.

In contrast, submitters from environmental and recreational groups felt that certainty or permanence of rights for resource users should not take precedence over the needs of the resource, including sustainability and water quality. One submitter thought that the RMA currently gives too much certainty of tenure to consent holders; another went further, stating that investment certainty for private rather than community gain should not be a consideration. It was suggested that where there are threats to sustainability or water quality, rights should be curtailed.

The need for planning flexibility

There were also divergent views on the emphasis that should be given to the need for planning flexibility, although these were not as clearly polarised as those on the issue of investment certainty.

Some submitters felt that the inherent variability of the water resource was not sufficiently recognised in the issue statement. One submitter stressed the importance of flow variability to maintaining the natural character and biodiversity associated with rivers and others made reference to the need to ensure a sustainable environment.

One submitter argued 'given that users are dealing with a finite resource that will fluctuate significantly due to climatic influence, rights can be fairly allocated only on the basis of supply, not demand'. [Submission 27] Other submitters identified the need for a solid understanding of the effects of activities and the need to take a precautionary approach to water allocation to cater for changing circumstances and the development of knowledge about the resource and the effects of water use.

Some submitters noted that inflexibility, as well as uncertainty, will affect investment and economic outcomes. One submitter felt that the need for planning flexibility was over-emphasised and that tools currently available in the RMA provide sufficient flexibility to plan and manage water allocation in a way that protects the environment. This submitter suggested that increased flexibility in the use of water, rather than in planning, is needed to allow for changing demands.

Definition of rights to water

Many submitters felt that there is room for improvement in the way that rights to water are specified by water permits, although there were differing views on the direction of changes that should be made. 'Water users' rights need to be clearly defined whatever they are, so that water users have a common understanding about what property right they are getting and for how long it goes for. A clear understanding of the right will then assist decision-making and whether to invest in that activity. More tension exists when people think they have a right when in fact they don't.' [Submission 89]

One submitter stated that improvements in specification of rights could enhance both certainty and flexibility and another expressed the view that 'well-defined entitlements to water are critical for enhancing economic wellbeing'. [Submission 264] However another submitter warned that 'innovations in setting water permit conditions need to be based on a solid understanding of effects'. [Submission 147]

Submitters from the energy sector were concerned to increase the security of rights afforded by water permits. They identified a number of factors influencing the quality and value of entitlements, including:

  • clarity and duration of the entitlement
  • security and exclusivity of tenure
  • transferability
  • divisibility
  • flexibility in how the right can be exercised.

The energy sector voiced concern about the current short duration of consents (compared to the life of dams and in contrast to land use consents), uncertainty over renewal and potential changes to conditions, transferability of permits, and clarity about the extent of some entitlements (such as entitlement to water above a dam).

Other submitters felt that rights to water should be more constrained. They argued that resource consents need to be time-bound and should not be seen as a 'lifetime right'. Some suggested that the current maximum 35-year term is too long, with one submitter noting that in situations of increasing demand, long-term consents give existing holders an advantage over others wanting to share the supply, and another stating 'it is hard to see why, for private economic benefit, that water consent duration should be any longer than other economic instruments such as leases, bank loans, or realistic economic planning horizons'. [Submission 85] These submitters felt there should be no assumed right to renewal of consents; some thought that renewals should be assessed in relation to the most desirable needs or other potential demands for water in the area, rather than according to concerns about protecting investment.

There was support from among both submitters seeking greater certainty and those seeking more flexibility for the following changes:

  • linking of consents to assessment of available flow (for example, a percentage share of allocable water)
  • reflecting seasonal peaks and variations in use more closely
  • having conditions specifically linked to criteria for healthy ecosystems (such as water temperature).

A number of submitters, including several from the local government sector, felt that no changes are required to the way rights are specified. They suggested that current maximum terms for consents are appropriate to enable reassessment of whether the best options are being pursued, and that there should be no presumption of renewal (although one submitter thought there might be circumstances of national interest where longer terms might be warranted for essential infrastructure). They also noted that in some cases rights are already being defined in terms of volumes and seasonal allocations. One submitter felt that the resource consent process was the best way to resolve the tension between certainty and flexibility.

Some submitters felt that a greater focus on the rights associated with consents carries a threat of privatising water or turning it into a commodity, or that it does not acknowledge Māori customary rights to water resources. One warned that changing the way rights are defined will lead to litigation.

Issue 6: Māori participation in water management could be improved

Many submitters agreed that there was a need for more effective participation of Māori in management of freshwater resources. Key themes discussed in relation to the role of Māori in water management and decision-making included: responsibilities arising from the Treaty of Waitangi; the role of tangata whenua and manawhenua; and the place of Māori traditional and cultural values for water in achieving sustainable management. Submitters also discussed concerns about capacity and resourcing, and about processes for including Māori in decision-making.

The Treaty relationship

Some submitters from Māori organisations voiced disappointment at the lack of acknowledgement in the discussion paper of the Treaty of Waitangi. One stated 'while participation with Māori is mentioned, there is no acknowledgement that the need for participation derives from the Treaty relationship between the Crown and Māori. In not making that link one could infer that participation of Māori, in the context of this document, is to be the same as any other member of the community'. [Submission 188]

These submitters stressed that involvement of Māori and the Crown in the management of water is 'defined by the guarantees of the Treaty of Waitangi and the resulting relationship as Treaty partners'. [Submission 143] 'Enhancing Māori participation' was felt to be an inadequate response to the need to manage water resources in the context of the Treaty. Instead, it was suggested that the first step needed is to review the current water management regime for consistency with the principles of the Treaty (including findings and recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal) and then investigate solutions. One submitter stated that 'this step is essential to address the feeling of grievance and antagonism that currently exists' [Submission 229] in relationships with the Crown over management of freshwater resources. Another emphasised that any provisions for water management must give meaningful effect to sections 6(e), 7(a) and 8 of the RMA.

Particular matters highlighted in regard to the Treaty relationship were:

  • 'the duty of the Crown to actively protect and provide for our rights and interests in relation to our freshwater resources is guaranteed by the Treaty of Waitangi' [Submission 188]
  • 'the lack of Māori partnership in water management' [Submission 255]
  • 'the assumption that the Crown has the sole authority to manage and authorise use of freshwater resources ... some acknowledgement is required of iwi/hapū claims that their customary ownership of various water bodies has not been extinguished by sale or otherwise'. [Submission 156]

Some other submitters, particularly from the local government sector, also identified a need for the Crown as Treaty partner to proactively address issues of ownership and co-management of water. One submitter noted that this is especially an issue in relation to any discussion of tradable permits. One local government submitter, however, felt that the issue of ownership of water resources is outside the scope of this programme and should not be open for debate.

Treaty issues associated with loss of kaimoana sources through pollution of estuaries was also raised.

The role of manawhenua

Māori organisations were concerned about the Crown defining the role of Māori in freshwater management. Submitters emphasised the importance of the manawhenua role and the associated kaitiakitanga obligations. Submitters noted that processes should enable the level of involvement that hapū holding manawhenua choose to have rather than restricting or defining their role. Submitters felt that Māori should be able to participate as decision-makers, with one suggesting that policies and standards 'should facilitate co-governance, co-management and co-regulation of freshwater resources between manawhenua and local authorities'. [Submission 80]

Traditional and cultural values and kaitiakitanga

There was significant support for greater recognition of kaitiakitanga and incorporation of Māori values into planning for freshwater management. Many submitters, from a range of sectors, felt that traditional understanding of water systems has an important role to play in building strategies for sustainable development. Early consultation with tangata whenua and greater involvement in policy development and plan preparation were identified as desirable to incorporate this. One submitter suggested collaborative management initiatives that enable the participation of tangata whenua in freshwater management should be promoted. Another submitter noted that although the RMA recognises Māori values and kaitiakitanga, this is not reflected as well as it could be in practice.

Submitters identified several specific water management issues that are of concern to Māori. These included:

  • protection of waters that are wahi tapu
  • maintaining and protecting the mauri of freshwater ecosystems
  • maintaining vital, healthy mahinga kai populations and habitats capable of sustaining harvesting activity
  • mixing of freshwater and waste discharges - greater consideration should be given to ways of avoiding discharge to waterways
  • mixing of water within and between catchments
  • heating of water
  • prevention of long-term deterioration in ground and surface water levels
  • tighter control and monitoring of allocation and water quality
  • no long-term degradation of one water system in favour of another (damming or trade-off approach to water management).

Capacity and resources

Appropriate resourcing was identified by many submitters, particularly from local government, Māori organisations and the research sector, as a key requirement for effective engagement of Māori with water management issues. One submitter noted that this is a concern that goes beyond water management to resource management generally.

Processes for involvement of Māori

Frustration was expressed by some submitters that Resource Management Act processes had excluded Māori. One submitter stated 'there is an element of "too little too late" in the Water Programme of Action, in that the current generation of plans already apportion effective control over water resources and their management, to the exclusion of tikanga Māori ... there does not appear to be a mechanism to allow Māori to have meaningful input into the management of these taonga'. [Submission 275] Another noted the provisions in the Act for transfer of decision-making powers (s. 33) and development of iwi recognised planning documents (s. 61), but felt that these had been under-utilised. This submitter suggested that 'provision of resources, specialised advice, or development of models under these sections could provide a direct benefit for ... Māori in freshwater management'. [Submission 229]

One submitter identified that other approaches for involvement of Māori, such as the Mauri model used in the Bay of Plenty Smart Growth Strategy, are available but lack national exposure. Another referred to the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (s. 77) that significant decisions relating to land or water must take into account the relationship of Māori and their cultural traditions with ancestral land, water, sites, wahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

Some submitters were critical of current consultation processes. The need for better communication, 'negotiation and mutual discussion as opposed to being "talked at"' [Submission 227] and 'sound tools for dialogue' [Submission 85] were identified. However one submitter noted that consultation should not inhibit progress in developing plans and policies.

Several submitters commented on the actions proposed in the recent RMA review. While some submitters from the local government sector felt that changes proposed in the current Amendment Bill might help address the issue, submitters from Māori organisations did not agree. These submitters were concerned that, rather than enhancing Māori participation, proposed changes would reduce or even extinguish it by limiting input to plan preparation stages and to named iwi, rather than hapū. One submitter noted that this would exclude many effective environmental agencies of Māori and referred, in preference, to the potential usefulness of a database being set up with Te Puni Kōkiri as a vehicle for involving hapū.

Provision for involvement of other parties

There were some submitters who, while supporting improved Māori participation in water management, commented that all other interested parties must also be able to engage effectively. One stated 'no individual should be excluded or overly favoured in the consultation process because of race or financial status'. [Submission 115] Another noted 'the challenge is to harmonise the desire for Māori empowerment in water management with the need for co-ordination across stakeholders. Community participation ... also needs to be improved, given the responsibilities of local governments under the Local Government Act'. [Submission 207]

One submitter suggested that, as the Treaty protects certain property rights, similar protection should be extended to others.

Submitters disagreeing with issue

Some submitters felt that current opportunities for Māori participation in water management are adequate. One submitter stated 'some Māori have a great deal to offer in terms of sustainable use of resources ... however there is no need to make a special case for these views. [Each] should be judged on its merits'. [Submission 56] Several submitters from the local government and agriculture sectors referred to their experience of effective engagement with Māori and one expressed the view that the Resource Management Act provides a relatively strong foundation for this. One submitter said that, although it is not always easy to identify which Māori groups to involve, it is not clear that greater participation would improve or speed up processes.

A small number of submitters were concerned about specific attention being given to participation of Māori. One asked 'where are the benefits of this special recognition of Māori over other groups in the community evaluated. This imposes significant cost on regional and district ratepayers for relatively little discernable benefit other than giving Māori the feeling that they have more rights than the public in general. This comes at the expense of irritating a significant section of the rest of the community'. [Submission 44]

Issue 7: A lack of effective action in the management of diffuse discharges of contaminants on water quality in some catchments

General support for issue

Most submitters agreed that management of diffuse discharges is a problem that needs to be tackled. One submitter stated that 'land management is critical to maintaining water standards' [Submission 86] and some felt that insufficient attention had been given to this problem in the discussion paper. Some submitters referred to exploration of the problem in relation to intensification of agriculture in the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (Growing for good).

Several submitters felt that, rather than 'managing' discharges, there is a need to avoid them. 'Waterways should no longer be the repository for wastes from farming, residential or industrial sources'. [Submission 168] Some referred to the need to avoid further pollution of water used for drinking or recreation. Conflict between kaitiaki values of hapū and iwi and non-Māori values in relation to discharge of waste into water was also mentioned. One submitter warned against entrenching 'a flawed view that a certain amount of contamination of water is acceptable. There is always uncertainty as to the acceptable level of contamination a waterway can absorb without threatening its life supporting capacity. For this reason we should always be trying to minimise discharges of contaminants'. [Submission 210]

Some submitters drew attention to particular sources of contaminants, including fertilisers and pesticides, soil erosion and poorly treated wastewater, or to specific land uses such as production forestry, mining and farming using feed pads. One noted that over-abstraction of water also has an effect on water quality. Others commented on some of the consequences of the problem, including:

  • the effects of sediment in increasing wear on power turbines and irrigation infrastructure, and in reducing storage capacity of dams
  • loss of habitat and biodiversity
  • adverse effects of contaminants from freshwater systems on the marine receiving environment
  • adverse effects on food sources
  • adverse effects on the health and wellbeing of the community.

While supporting the need for action on the issue, some submitters cautioned that this could have a significant effect on property rights and land use opportunities.

Underlying causes

A number of comments were made about the underlying causes of the problem. While one submitter felt there is a need for more research into the biological, physical and social reasons behind the issue, others suggested a range of causes or contributing factors.

Some submitters identified the role of economics in contributing to unsustainable land management practices. One stated 'it is difficult to escape the conclusion that there must be some sacrifice of economic growth to avoid some damaging effects. The economic drivers that lead to grossly unsustainable activities must be neutralised, abated or subverted'. [Submission 194] However, another submitter felt that 'reducing economic influence on development is another logical solution, but realistically will never occur due to community reliance on increasing income to offset inflationary costs'. [Submission 27]

Problems with Resource Management Act processes, or the way they are implemented, were also commonly seen as a key factor. Particular matters included:

  • poor drafting of water and land use plans
  • inadequate regulatory control of the impacts of land use
  • insufficient focus on ecological and hydrological processes
  • cumulative effects are not well addressed
  • poor enforcement of regional plan rules
  • lack of education or incentives to farmers to reduce diffuse discharges
  • lack of integration between different government agencies managing land use in the riparian zone and its effects.

A sense of frustration was evident in some comments, with submitters suggesting a lack of commitment on the part of regional councils or farming representatives to addressing the problem. Conversely, one submitter stated 'the lack of effective action referred to is not a fault of farmers or of regional resource managers. Rather it is a direct reflection on the inadequate understanding science has about managing large-scale diffuse discharges - or even how to track them and measure them'. [Submission 248]

Some submitters referred to the difficulties in addressing the issue when the effects of land use practices may not be manifest until years after the land use is established, and similarly the benefits of remedial action will be delayed. However one submitter warned against this being used as an excuse for inaction, noting that modelling techniques could be used to give a picture of effects sufficient for decision-making.

The lack of effective management tools to manage diffuse pollution was identified as the key issue by one submitter.

Scope of the issue

Many submitters criticised the focus of the issue on discharges from agricultural activities and suggested that the scope should be widened. One submitter stated 'a holistic approach to improving water quality ... needs to be taken and not an oversimplification of the processes that contribute to the change in ecological and water quality condition'. [Submission 59]

The need to give attention to overall catchment run-off was identified. Concerns about stormwater discharges from roads and from urban areas were most frequently mentioned. Urban discharges from commercial and industrial sources were also of concern, with one submitter noting that many urban streams and lakes are significantly degraded. Effects of run-off from development of subdivisions, unreticulated sewage such as septic tanks, and diffuse discharges by boat users were also identified.

Some submitters felt that there are also still important issues to be addressed around point source discharges, with sewage discharges particularly mentioned.

Opposition to issue

In contrast to the general support, two submitters disagreed with the issue statement. They noted that not all impacts on water quality are related to land use practices - examples were given of Canada geese fouling waterways and aerial poison drops. One submitter stated 'the RMA is about sustainable management based on the recognition that trade-offs will be required, and that a balance is to be sought between social, economic and environmental considerations at the local level. For example in some parts of the country there are very high levels of water quality, and communities in those areas may choose some decline in water quality in exchange for economic growth'. [Submission 208]

Issue 8: Development of water infrastructure is not keeping pace with demand

There was a range of views expressed regarding this issue. While some submitters felt it was a significant issue which must be addressed through the development of infrastructure, others agreed with the issue but instead suggested managing demand for water and land use. One submitter noted: 'The contrary but equally relevant issue therefore is: Limitations in water availability is not adequately factored into land use decision-making'. [Submission 259] The majority of submitters agreed that development of infrastructure not keeping pace with demand was an important issue.

It was regarded by two submitters from the local government sector as an issue which needs to be addressed to ensure sustainable economic growth and community development. One submitter felt that the issue should be rephrased to recognise the importance of local authorities identifying basic community needs and allocating money equitably, before investing in other less important projects such as tourism and economic development.

An alternative view was expressed by one submitter, who noted that the provision of infrastructure should be user-driven and that demand and economics will determine the pace at which it is provided.

A number of submitters identified difficulties associated with the development of water infrastructure. The high capital cost involved in the development of water infrastructure and maintaining standards of safety and hygiene imposed by central government were noted by submitters as barriers. 'Storage would be a solution in Canterbury but cost, community effects, [and] RMA issues may get in the way.' [Submission 140]

The reality that it is cheaper for a district council to take water from a running source than to develop storage infrastructure, was identified as a further barrier to the development of infrastructure. It was noted by a submitter from the energy sector that private parties and companies, as well as communities, find it difficult to develop infrastructure due to the lack of certainty that the investor will be able to enjoy sustained use of their investment and recover the costs and benefits.

Further concerns identified by submitters included:

  • Water storage was identified in the discussion document as an issue but was not expanded on in the actions as the other issues were.
  • Waste water infrastructure development was also regarded as an important issue, in particular the lack of water infrastructure at the coastal marine interface. Inadequate sanitation, sewage and waste water facilities, and infill housing (resulting in increased stormwater due to lack of natural soil infiltration) were all seen as a direct result of inadequate water infrastructure.
  • Consideration needs to be given to the scale, type and appropriateness of the infrastructure required.
  • Also of concern to one submitter was that 'current practice is to overload infrastructure then to attempt to design new or improved systems using only "existing" information for minimal design and consenting studies'. [Submission 147]

Water storage and irrigation schemes

Issue 8 generated a considerable amount of feedback regarding water storage and irrigation schemes. A variety of views were expressed, with submitters from a range of sectors showing support for water storage infrastructure. In particular, submitters from the agricultural and industry/business sectors promoted the positive impacts of water storage. It was noted that New Zealand does not have a lack of water, but rather spatial and temporal variations in water availability which could be overcome by water harvesting and storage. Water storage and irrigation schemes were seen by some submitters as essential to ensure increased productivity and provide positive economic and environmental outcomes, particularly in water short areas. 'Most cases of irrigation and water storage enhance the environment, both in stream and out of stream, and this needs to be taken into account in any plan.' [Submission 187]

One submitter noted the extensive benefits of irrigation. 'The beneficiaries of irrigation development are not only the farmers involved, but the wider community, including townships and larger towns, as well as the wider region and New Zealand as a whole.' [Submission 261]

Submitters voiced the following concerns about the development of water storage infrastructure and irrigation systems:

  • There is a current lack of research on the environmental, social and economic impacts of large scale storage schemes.
  • Water storage should be located on the land to be irrigated.
  • Water storage should be funded by those who will experience the direct benefits.
  • Water infrastructure is often poorly conceived, is appropriated by a few and can divide communities.

Domestic water tanks and water recycling systems were referred to by individual submitters, with one submitter commenting that councils could assist by introducing by-laws to make it mandatory for new buildings to have rainwater tanks.

The need for a strategic approach

The need for a strategic approach was identified as an issue of particular interest to a range of sectors. Submitters from the agricultural sector were supportive of a strategic approach to the development of water infrastructure, particularly for irrigation and water storage. Long term strategic planning was regarded as a prerequisite to the development of water infrastructure.

One submitter noted that 'priorities for development of water infrastructure should be addressed in the national policy statements and regional plans ... a key cause of Issue 8 is that the planning processes undermine and deter the long-term investment in appropriate capital infrastructure that minimise environmental impacts while allowing for economic and social development'. [Submission 115]

Introducing requirements for water use efficiency into regional plans was suggested as a possible means of resolving the issue of demand exceeding supply.

The need for integrated catchment management was recognised by submitters, some of whom thought this would be best achieved through plans.

Funding of infrastructure

The high capital costs involved in providing water infrastructure was identified as a major barrier to infrastructure development. Determining who should fund infrastructure projects was recognised as an issue in need of consideration. Views were divided as to whether funding should be provided by central government, local government or those who will benefit directly from the development of infrastructure. It was also suggested that a co-ordinated approach to funding could take place.

Some submitters suggested central government should have a key role in providing funding for infrastructure. Submitters from the agricultural sector would like to see commitment from central government to regional water enhancement projects. It was noted that communities often lack the financial resources but not necessarily the desire to develop water infrastructure. It was felt by one submitter that insufficient funds and a reluctance to increase rates can impede infrastructure development in communities. 'It may be that we need an independent body run from central government that has the sole purpose of developing and putting in place strategic infrastructure.' [Submission 19]

Submitters also encouraged a coordinated approach between local and regional authorities initiated by central government to identify, protect and assist in the development of viable water storage opportunities.

Submitters justified their view that the central government should play a key role in providing funding by emphasising the potential national benefits of infrastructure development. 'Central government funding for irrigation infrastructure (especially water harvesting and storage) can be justified on the basis that both the regional and national economies will benefit.' [Submission 180]

One submitter suggested that the central government role in funding should be on an investment basis rather than providing grants or subsidies.

A range of views were expressed regarding the extent of councils' role in funding infrastructure. One submitter noted that 'councils have a clear obligation to provide and maintain infrastructure for municipal water supply, stormwater management and wastewater treatment. Whether they have a role in providing infrastructure for irrigation is much more debatable'. [Submission 175]

A number of submitters believed it was important that infrastructure projects are funded by those who benefit directly from them rather than the wider community. Concern was expressed by submitters regarding the use of tax and ratepayers' money to fund water infrastructure projects. 'It has to be proven yet that the storage option is a good idea. We do not agree that setting up this type of infrastructure is a government, regional or local authority responsibility.' [Submission 84]

Address issues of land use and increased demand first

The need to address land use issues and manage demand was identified by submitters from a range of sectors as an equally important issue as developing water infrastructure. Submitters from community and environmental groups emphasised the need to consider water as a limited resource that must be used efficiently and the importance of exploring alternatives to water infrastructure first: 'Demand needs to be curtailed. I don't believe that building more dams is the answer at all.' [Submission 176]

Several submitters felt that it was important that the causes of increased demand are analysed and alternatives such as water conservation and efficient water use promoted. In addition, demand management through water metering, charges, targets and plans could help prevent the need for an infrastructure development.

One submitter urged 'before expensive infrastructure is developed every effort must be made to attend to land use issues and the wasteful irrigation systems currently in use'. [Submission 70]

New issues identified by submitters

Submitters identified a range of issues they felt were either absent from the discussion paper or were not given enough specific recognition. Seventy-nine submitters identified new issues. Dominant themes are outlined below.

The need for greater emphasis on the needs of ecosystems

Some submitters, particularly environmental groups, felt that the need to protect and maintain ecological and natural values should be emphasised more. Reference was made to the biodiversity strategy and the need to recognise the priority given to biodiversity. Several submitters suggested that restoration of degraded habitats, particularly wetlands, should be pursued as part of any improvement to freshwater management. Concerns were also raised about the invasion of aquatic ecosystems by weeds and pests, and the effect of this on both biodiversity and water quality.

Water quality

Many submitters raised concerns about gaps in the way the discussion paper addressed water quality issues. Particularly prominent among these were concerns about the need to pay greater attention to control of the effects of land use on water quality. The exclusion of urban land use from consideration by the Sustainable Water Programme of Action was criticised by submitters from across the range of sectoral interests.

Some submitters also identified catchment land management practices such as vegetation clearance and land disturbance as needing specific attention to address their effects on water quality. Several submitters referred to the importance of riparian management in protecting the quality of surface water bodies. Other issues raised included stormwater management, continuing problems arising from point source discharges by some industrial operations, and the need to look at ways of controlling diffuse contaminants at their source (for example, components of car tyres and building materials).

Urban issues

Concern about exclusion of urban issues was not solely confined to water quality. As one submitter put it 'many of the issues raised...are either directly applicable to, or inextricably linked with, water quality and quantity issues in urban areas. With no process proposed to address urban issues separately, we are concerned that the sustainable management of water in all parts of New Zealand will not be able to occur'. [Submission 52]

As well as general comments about the importance of considering urban as well as rural impacts on freshwater management, submitters made specific reference to the need to pay greater attention to the way water is used in urban areas, and the need to promote water conservation measures in both domestic and industrial settings.

Integrated management

Submitters were not only concerned about a lack of integration between urban and rural environments. The need for greater integration was raised in relation to different components of water systems (including rainwater, groundwater and surface water), between water quality and water quantity aspects of freshwater management and between land use and water management. The need to take a fresh look at the effects of our land use systems on water resources and to ask questions about what are appropriate land uses was raised. Several submitters voiced disappointment that the paper did not mention the need for an integrated catchment management approach.

Three submitters extended this approach to suggest that the effects of freshwater management on coastal waters (and their uses for recreation and food production) must also be considered. One submitter warned 'if the downstream impacts of freshwater quality issues on coastal ecosystems and sustainable production systems are not acknowledged when planning how to improve the management of freshwater, then the true costs of freshwater management problems will be underestimated'. [Submission 113]

Other integration issues identified were the need for links between energy use and water use to be recognised, the need for systems thinking, and the need for linkages and co-ordination across government.

Research and information

A number of submitters felt that the document did not adequately emphasise the importance of research and information to effective management of the freshwater resource. There were several aspects to this concern. One submitter noted 'the current level of research funding is inadequate to underpin the rate of change of land use, water quality and water quantity that is currently occurring in many areas of New Zealand'. [Submission 192]

The need for greater consideration of climate change - both its potential effects on water management issues and the effects of water use activities on drivers of climate change - was specifically identified, as was the need for an assessment of the growth needs of the country. Monitoring of both the resource itself and of resource consents was felt by some submitters to need more emphasis. In the words of one submitter 'we cannot manage what we do not measure'. [Submission 7]

Some submitters felt that the lack of public awareness about freshwater management issues needs to be highlighted as an issue in itself. One submitter specifically identified the need for more understanding of the natural variability of the water resource.

Public health

Some submitters felt that public health issues were not sufficiently emphasised, with the allocation and quality of drinking water specifically identified as a concern.

Performance

Several submitters felt that local government performance (in water planning, decision-making and monitoring and enforcement of consents) should be highlighted as an issue. Another related issue was the need for capacity building and development of skills in the water management area.

As well as these dominant themes, the following issues were also raised:

  • efficient use and the need for a greater focus on demand management
  • ownership and property rights in relation to water, including the need to recognise Treaty rights and to avoid effects on existing and prospective Treaty settlements
  • valuing/pricing of water, including the need for a common approach to this and the importance of price signals that reflect true value. Greater attention to use of incentives was also raised
  • various sustainability principles, including the need to focus on long-term sustainable use of water and a long-term vision and the need to take a precautionary approach. Sustainable energy was also identified
  • recognition of Māori values - the need to incorporate and provide for Māori values and concepts of freshwater management, including mauri, and to understand that these are underpinned by a holistic approach with an ethic of sustainable use and adaptive management
  • attention to systems and specific environments under threat, including groundwater aquifers and wetlands
  • community participation and concerns about effects of legislative review on the participative process.

Submitters also raised issues specific to their region or a specific use, public access issues, the effects of inter-catchment transfer, and the need for a national structure with oversight of water management.

[ | ]