Skip to main content.

Views on the Actions

Action 1: Develop national policy statements

The proposed action included development of national policy statements that could:

  • specify national priorities for freshwater
  • stipulate requirements for regional plans (for example, allocation limits)
  • require regional councils to set catchment-based water quality targets.

Alternative/complementary actions included provision of non-statutory guidelines and model planning provisions.

Is development of national policy statements supported?

There was a very broad range of responses to the proposal to develop national policy statements. Some submitters felt strongly that a national policy statement was desirable and long overdue. National policy statements were described as essential, vital, and critical to moving forward. The lack of national policy statement was considered by one submitter to be 'madness'. [Submission 95] This action was also considered to be consistent with overseas practice.

Some submitters identified the achievement of consistency across regional councils as a significant benefit of a national policy statement. [While one submitter identified achievement of consistency as a benefit of national policy statements, they noted 'management of the Waikato River will be through partnership between Waikato Tainui, the regional council and surrounding stakeholders as will be stated in the Deed of Settlement for our outstanding claims'.] Other submitters, while supportive of a national policy statement in principle, were very committed to retaining flexibility and allowing for local decision-making. Some submitters described their ideal national policy statement as broad and strategic.

A national policy statement was considered to be particularly useful for:

  • addressing nationally significant issues
  • specifying national priorities
  • providing broad policy direction to regional government on specific issues
  • providing strategic guidance
  • strengthening councils' planning
  • clarifying priorities and responsibilities for freshwater
  • providing better coordination between local authorities
  • developing a consistent approach to water planning among regional councils
  • providing certainty to decision makers and investors
  • enabling a whole of government statement on water.

Some submitters were supportive of national policy statements but expressed significant concerns about their effectiveness. While a national policy statement might provide a framework, it was not seen as improving the management of water, or providing the councils with the tools they needed.

Some submitters were strongly opposed to the development of national policy statements. Submitters were opposed to national policy statements generally, and also to the proposals (for example, requiring regional councils to set catchment-based targets for water quality). Submitters did not see the need for national policy statements, stating 'if there is a more appropriate tool then use it'. [Submission 158] In particular, 'the government has not demonstrated its case as to how imposing broad scale prescriptive policy instruments such as national policy statements ... would achieve better freshwater outcomes. [National policy statements] are by their nature very blunt instruments yet many of the problems associated with water allocation are catchment specific .... Better problem definition may reveal specific issues that can be addressed through existing political or resourcing processes that will get better results on the ground'. [Submission 232]

Some councils were concerned that the problem had not been adequately defined, and were not convinced the issues were significant enough to warrant development of a national policy statement.

Submitters opposed to national policy statements referred to regional variability as a key concern. Particular regions were identified as being unique (for example, Gisborne, West Coast), and the relevance of a national policy statement was considered to be questionable. There were concerns that 'freshwater diversity in New Zealand is strong and must not be eliminated by central control'. [Submission 81] Climate variability was also identified. In addition, the relevance of national policy within the Māori context was raised - 'Māori /iwi authorities are as diverse as the geography, and tend to favour ... regional policies ... which fits with the tribal context'. [Submission 127]

Many submitters were opposed to central government providing direction to regional councils. Others felt that local decision-making was very important, and that water management should be left to the regions, with government assistance if requested.

Some submitters were concerned about the potential content of a national policy statement, and that it would be used to drive a development interest over protection of ecosystems.

A number of submitters were concerned at the impact of a national policy statement on current local arrangements. In particular, that:

  • existing water rights must be protected
  • regional councils would be undermined
  • the issues have already been addressed through regional plans and policies
  • there will be conflict with the processes that are in train (for example, Otago).

Submitters also identified a number of flaws with the approach, including:

  • the national interest in water needs to be determined before national policy statements can be developed, and the difficulties in reaching agreement on priorities are substantial
  • a national policy statement would not assist with management of water as it must be very general
  • a national policy statement would not address the issue of water allocation without tools for determining highest value use over time
  • development of a national policy statement would 'give the message to water users that ... [water plans] will be continually exposed to central government interference; eroding the confidence of water users and the security of their water permits' [Submission 186]
  • central government under-estimates the difficulty in producing them.

The costs associated with a national policy statement were also identified as a reason for opposition - both the costs of development and implementation (and the concern of money wasted developing current plans).

Submitters also identified other tasks that should take priority over a national policy statement, including:

  • support of local government, raising awareness and completion of guidelines
  • completion of regional plans.

Potential content of a national policy statement

Many submitters identified preferred content for a national policy statement. Submitters identified the need for central government to specify national priorities. Submitters suggested the focus needs to be at the higher level issues, recognising the environmental, economic and social diversity in New Zealand. Some submitters suggested that central government involvement should be restricted to policy that has a direct influence on issues of national importance. Some submitters suggested a national policy statement should only set priorities for key national water bodies. The importance of the Treaty should also be recognised.

The purpose of a national policy statement was raised. Submitters were concerned that a national policy statement should concentrate on defining environmental policies and developmental ones, and that it 'should not be merely a blueprint for growth'. [Submission 194]

Submitters stated the importance of a national policy statement including the total freshwater resource: surface water, groundwater and wetlands.

Specific suggestions on content included a national policy statement that:

  • sets default provisions that could be used in the absence of plans, for example, maximum allocations, and methods of establishing significance or sustainable flow regimes
  • clarifies the role of regional councils in allocating water following the recent High Court decision
  • requires water efficiency measures
  • specifies processes to be undertaken rather than outcomes, for example, setting allocation limits [For example, establishes a requirement to set minimum environmental flows; develop flow sharing regimes; cap allocation; specify maximum flow rate and annual volumes in permits; ensure maximum flow rates are tied to a capped annual volume; enable a high level of protection for nationally important values; maintain hydrological interconnectedness.]
  • specifies milestones to be achieved
  • recognises the importance of water storage and existing water infrastructure
  • facilitates the transfer of resource consents
  • improves water quality
  • requires regional councils to set catchment-based targets for water quality
  • acknowledges the links between land use and water quality
  • states that land users have a responsibility to manage land in a sustainable way, including reducing runoff and contamination
  • enables the transfer of discharge credits
  • addresses the management of activities in community water supply zones
  • addresses the impacts of septic tanks on flood plains and poor land management practices
  • requires regional councils to address the management of water quality effects across the terrestrial/marine boundary
  • acknowledges the flaws in the existing ANZECC [Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council] and HSNO [Hazardous Substances and New Organisms] approach
  • recognises the need for whole catchment/aquifer planning
  • includes water bodies in urban and industrial areas
  • recognises the importance of good quality information
  • requires monitoring and reporting on state of environment and achievement of long-term council community plan goals
  • sets aside an allocation for tangata whenua future uses and for communities
  • recognises the iconic role of rivers in the landscape
  • recognises that any form of gross modification to the water body has to be regarded as peculiar to the river and considered on its merits
  • requires polluter pays
  • specifically addresses aquatic biodiversity issues
  • establishes the scope and extent of permitted uses.

Developing a national policy statement

Some submitters identified the need for clear time frames for completion of a national policy statement. The need for a national policy statement to be developed from a strong science base was considered to be essential by some submitters. Submitters also suggested that lessons could be learned from the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.

The importance of consultation during development of a national policy statement was strongly stated by many submitters. In particular, consultation at a regional level was recommended. Parties to be consulted include local government, communities, tangata whenua and industry. Establishing an independent science advisory body was also suggested.

There was a call for costs of participants to be included in the project. 'There needs to be effective participation of tangata whenua in the development of national policy statements .... This will require a significant investment of time and resources by central and local government.' [Submission 80]

Some submitters were concerned about the potential changes to the process of developing a national policy statement in proposed amendments to the RMA. Submitters also raised the need for an appeal process to be provided.

Implementation

Submitters highlighted the need for effective implementation of a national policy statement. Successful implementation was considered to rely on:

  • development of an implementation strategy, measurement of success and reporting of results
  • central government supporting local government and participating in regional planning
  • legislation, money, people and training
  • central government providing timely and credible scientific information
  • education.

Concerns about transition periods were also raised. Some submitters felt a national policy statement should be given effect immediately. Others identified the benefit of 'raising consciousness levels first' [Submission 53] through guidelines and model planning provisions.

Some submitters felt the effectiveness of a national policy statement was reliant on enforcement; that 'all policies need teeth, enforcement and penalties'. [Submission 38] The need for review of a national policy statement was also highlighted. 'Time and experience will improve it as long as things are kept reasonably flexible - a most important stance when dealing with nature.' [Submission 106]

Guidelines and model planning provisions

Many submitters were supportive of central government developing non-statutory guidelines and model planning provisions. Guidelines were generally considered to be effective tools that encourage local solutions to local problems, and 'better than heavy-handed and often unwise regulation'. [Submission 240] Central government was encouraged to provide guidelines rather than prescriptive or directive solutions as they have limited local knowledge. The Quality Planning website was considered to be a useful resource that could be used to transfer information.

Guidelines were also seen as part of a package of tools. Guidelines were considered to be an important precursor to a national policy statement, and also useful for implementation of a national policy statement.

Some submitters felt non-statutory approaches need to be 'backed up by legislative teeth (sticks), in order to achieve satisfactory compliance'. [Submission 226] Other submitters expressed concern that provision of guidelines would not address the urgency of the issues, would not be relevant across New Zealand, and would not provide certainty. Guidelines were described as being 'too woolly and unlikely to be effective,' [Submission 194] and therefore a 'waste of time and money'. [Submission 12]

Suggestions for the content of guidelines and model planning provisions included:

  • clarifying the responsibilities of each level of government
  • improving the management of diffuse discharges from land use on water quality.

Additional actions

Submitters also suggested that central government:

  • work closely with councils and environmental groups on a regional basis
  • provide technical support nationwide (for example, secondments) to determine the amount of water that can be allocated
  • provide funding for education, monitoring and research
  • develop education programmes that target urban people
  • develop tools for determining the highest value use of water
  • clarify the roles of different organisations in the management of the water resource
  • address first in first served through changes to the RMA
  • involve children, youth and local organisations (for example, adopting local water bodies)
  • develop a science-based market system
  • explore other implementation tools (for example, drinking water management information system)
  • develop a tool to create a hierarchy of values at a community level that varies across ecosystems, regions and communities
  • adopt a systems approach for exploring values and establishing priorities in local areas.

Action 2: Develop national environmental standards

The proposed action required that central government develop standards that would specify methods or procedures for:

  • setting environmental bottom lines (that is, minimum standards for water quality) and allocation limits
  • addressing the management of diffuse discharges.

The alternative or complementary action was the provision of nationally consistent numeric standards for water quality.

Is development of national environmental standards supported?

A very broad range of submitters were supportive of the proposal to develop national environmental standards. Some submitters described development of standards as being essential, and one of the most important actions.

Many submitters identified the achievement of consistency and certainty as key benefits of national environmental standards. Submitters also cautioned that national standards may not always be appropriate for local situations. Submitters noted there is considerable diversity among water bodies in New Zealand; and that a national standard could result in downgrading of high quality waters while being unachievable for lowland waters. Some flexibility in application of standards was considered to be desirable. Submitters suggested a variety of arrangements:

  • National standards could set a minimum requirement, with regional councils having the ability to develop more stringent standards if necessary.
  • There could be a combination of local (possibly catchment-specific) and national standards.
  • Central government could determine the process (requiring local government to prepare the standards for their regions) and local government could determine the outcomes.

Some submitters were critical of local government performance in this area, and saw national environmental standards as a way of directing more resources and expertise into the setting of environmental bottom lines. Submitters noted that changing community expectations may be easier if the standards were developed nationally, rather than locally.

Submitters identified the benefits of national environmental standards, including:

  • raised community awareness and increased community involvement in water issues (for example, by publicising frequent audits of water quality)
  • reduced costs to organisations involved in freshwater issues, including costs to individual councils in developing standards and defending them in Environment Court
  • increased efficiency and reduced duplication of effort
  • improved clarity for regional councils
  • a shift in the debate from what the goals are, to how they should be achieved
  • potential to stimulate innovation
  • having a clear benchmark to measure progress against
  • reduced complexity for organisations dealing with more than one region
  • speed of implementation (compared to a national policy statement).

Submitters noted the development of environmental standards would be difficult, and that there is no quick fix. However, 'the difficulties involved in establishing environmental bottom lines, and in understanding how freshwater ecosystems function, should not be used as a reason to say they do not matter'. [Submission 91]

A number of submitters (including five regional councils/unitary authorities) were opposed to the suggestion of national environmental standards. National standards were considered to be blunt instruments that ignore environmental variation and remove flexibility for the local community to develop local solutions to local issues. Submitters also identified potential for conflict between local and national interest. National environmental standards were also considered to be inflexible over time and could undermine existing community/local government initiatives.

Submitters were concerned about technical difficulties in the application, interpretation and implementation of national environmental standards; and noted the difficulties in ensuring that they are practical, enforceable and achievable. Councils were also concerned about potential costs associated with implementation of standards.

Submitters were also concerned that national environmental standards would:

  • be inadequate and inappropriate due to lack of research and information
  • risk dismissing Māori concerns as localised issues, rather than national issues
  • not provide incentives for voluntary adoption of management strategies that are well above bottom lines
  • be costly to develop
  • be prepared with little understanding of the economic costs and environmental benefits that will accrue from their implementation, and place a significant financial burden on some sectors.

Some submitters indicated a preference for non-statutory guidelines and indicators over national environmental standards (for example, for assessing the life-supporting capacity of freshwater and methodologies for measuring them). National guidelines for processes for the transfer of allocated water and setting minimum flows were also suggested.

Some councils noted there may be a case for developing national environmental standards on some nationally significant issues; however, an accurate problem definition and assessment of the effectiveness of a national standard (in addressing the problem) was required.

Potential content of national environmental standards

Many submitters suggested national environmental standards could be useful for:

  • criteria-based or nationally accepted methodologies (for example, to define bottom lines) with scope for local interpretation and variances, rather than directive or prescriptive standards
  • specifying limits for different uses of water (for example, recreation, industry) then the community can decide on the appropriate use for an individual water body
  • technical matters that are consistent across the whole country
  • where the similarities between regions feature more strongly than the differences.

Submitters had different views on the appropriate level of protection, making connections between the level of environmental protection, recreation, economic growth and employment. Development of 'environmental standards cannot come without debate on values, given that bottom lines are value-based'. [Submission 115] Submitters noted that tangata whenua often expect higher water quality than some other groups. A number of submitters suggested bottom lines should be set as high as possible (for example, all water should be safe for human contact), with a few submitters suggesting all rivers should be safe for people to drink.

Suggested content for national environmental standards included:

  • public health, including drinking water, recreational water quality, hazardous contaminants, minimum standards for treatment and monitoring of sewage plants, and for monitoring the performance on on-site sewage disposal systems
  • national priorities
  • environmental bottom lines (including people and communities)
  • allocation limits
  • requirements and criteria for setting flow regimes [Including details of all of the issues to be considered, with the explicit requirement that if an issue does not apply to a specific area, the exclusion of that issue must be fully explained.]
  • management regimes for diffuse discharges
  • effects of pH or temperature on some organisms
  • giving effect to the Treaty of Waitangi
  • the significance of the relationship between Māori and water
  • minimum flows, including processes for review trigger events
  • future land use
  • enforcement procedures
  • metering and subsequent user pays, for both urban and rural water users
  • discharge of nutrients from land use
  • communities setting targets for water quality through the community planning process
  • a short list of national water quality indicators [With explicit requirements for measurements based on flow, community values, catchment size and characteristics and anticipated uses for the water.]
  • the system of tapu, rahui, and noa
  • the use of matauranga Māori
  • minimum design standards for hazardous substance facilities
  • water bodies of national importance
  • soil conservation and riparian planting for flood control
  • processes for identifying and providing for social, cultural and environmental needs
  • requiring regional water management plans for all catchments, defining criteria for the priority and level of detail required for different catchments
  • defining key principles to underpin plans (including protecting existing rights and the national interest attributes of infrastructure including electricity generation)
  • structures that impact on freshwater (such as bridges)
  • riparian management
  • stormwater
  • catchment-based monitoring programmes
  • water reuse
  • enabling the migratory passage of freshwater fisheries.

Nationally consistent numeric standards

Provision of nationally consistent numeric standards for water quality was suggested as an alternative or complement to the setting of methodological national environmental standards. Some submitters were unsure of the difference between the suggested action and the alternative approach.

A small number of submitters were supportive of developing numeric standards, particularly for recreation and human use. Submitters noted it would be difficult to set numeric standards for aquatic biodiversity. Numeric standards were considered to provide clear direction on what is acceptable. Submitters suggested that numeric water quality standards could be applied to types of water use, enabling water to be used at its highest value.

A broad range of submitters were opposed to central government setting numeric standards. A one-size-fits-all approach was considered to be impossible to implement and unnecessarily restrictive or lax. Submitters were concerned that numeric standards would increase the level of uncertainty for councils and water resource users, and result in additional unnecessary costs. The majority of submitters were clear that standards must remain non-numeric and flexible enough to allow regional authorities to manage resources as best suits their region. Submitters considered numeric standards to be more appropriate at a regional than national level. Central government evaluation of the methods used by regional councils, and provision of best practice examples was considered to be more useful.

Developing a national environmental standard

There was a very strong call from submitters that any national environmental standards must be developed in a consultative manner, and provide a submission and appeal process. The following parties must be included:

  • local government
  • Māori
  • industry
  • communities
  • agriculture sector
  • recreational groups
  • conservation groups
  • scientists.

Submitters were not supportive of the consultation process used for the air standards, where they felt there was limited opportunity for real input. However, the design of the New Zealand Drinking Water Standard was suggested as a good consultation process. Submitters noted the first consultation question should be whether a national standard is appropriate for the particular problem.

Many submitters raised the need for standards to be based on good science, reliable data and a sound understanding of processes (including economic impacts of implementation). Submitters were also concerned that development of standards should:

  • respect existing property rights
  • integrate with other streams of the Sustainable Development Programme of Action
  • learn from approaches in other countries
  • be integrated with coastal water quality standards
  • be based on recognised and measurable criteria such as World Health Organisation standards
  • be based on an acceptable level of risk.

Implementation

Submitters were concerned about the effective implementation of national environmental standards. Key factors for successful implementation included:

  • provision of monitoring protocols for local government
  • development of guidelines initially, then conversion to a statutory standard (with transition provisions)
  • an implementation plan, including targets and timelines, an evaluation tool, compliance monitoring and auditing of local authorities (including benchmarking prior to implementation)
  • education with stakeholders to ensure all parties are aware of the implications that national standards will have on the way they live and work
  • effective information systems
  • a reporting mechanism
  • resources/funding to regional councils to enable them to meet the standards
  • pilot projects.

Additional actions

Submitters also suggested that central government:

  • co-ordinate and collect information required to develop standards and frameworks for management at a regional level
  • increase funding for science and research
  • ensure consistency between regional and district councils' policy
  • disseminate best practice to regional councils and communities
  • develop realistic targets and set priorities
  • provide incentives for landowners to undertake fencing and riparian planting.

Action 3: Address nationally important values

The proposed action required nationally important values be addressed by:

  • identifying water bodies with nationally important values and making this information widely available
  • prioritising for action those water bodies with nationally important values that are under threat.

The following alternative or complementary actions were also proposed:

  • a schedule attached to the RMA, specifying individual water bodies and their nationally important values
  • national monitoring and reporting of water bodies with nationally important values (including aspects of tourism, historic heritage, industrial uses, population growth, recreational use, energy generation and land use practices)
  • national environmental standards setting particular standards and management processes for water bodies that are nationally important.

Should water bodies of national importance be identified?

There was a very broad range of views on the suggestion of identifying water bodies of national importance. Some submitters were completely opposed to the action. Submitters preferred a regional or local approach, and believed the RMA currently identifies national values and provides a framework for them to be managed. Other submitters indicated 'there is no apparent integrated planning at the national level ... Government policy to address the area of conflict would be made much more focused and transparent than it currently is .... The action to address nationally important values is misplaced. Because the issues are poorly defined the actions to address the issues are inappropriate'. [Submission 44] Submitters stated the identification of water bodies of national importance 'makes a system we don't have in place, more difficult before we start'. [Submission 95]

One submitter noted that 'inevitably user interests will rank the development potential of rivers and aquifers according to their priorities. That is their proper role but it is not the role of government, national or regional ... the role of government, national and regional ... is to see that the resource is properly evaluated and its limits of use recognised, catchment by catchment'. [Submission 32]

There was support from a broad range of sectors for the identification of water bodies of national importance. Sectors included agriculture, industry, local government, research organisations and environmental groups. Support was often conditional. Some submitters were reluctant to see abstractive uses included, while others were against the total exclusion of any waterway for future development.

Local government tended to be supportive of increased clarification on what is nationally important. However, councils were concerned about the potential implications of this action. In particular, councils were concerned about how nationally important water bodies would be identified, how they should be managed and by whom. Some councils were reluctant to support the action in the absence of a detailed methodology to determine importance.

Submitters identified a number of benefits of the proposed action. Addressing nationally important values was seen as a way of prioritising short and long-term actions, identifying the bigger picture and encouraging action at the local level. Submitters noted the key is resolving conflict between values. The identification of water bodies of national importance was seen as a useful step in that direction. Submitters also noted the need for a whole of government approach in identifying water bodies of national importance. 'This is where central government can make a difference by prioritising the national values within the decision-making framework.' [Submission 59] The process was also seen as providing information that would be useful to regional councils.

Submitters were also keen to see consistency across regional councils. Some submitters believed 'there is a significant capture for the largely rural regional councils by rural interests who were interested in exploitation of water resources, who have but weak commitment to determining their sustainability and monitoring their condition. A system which forced regional councils to raise their game on significant waterways would assist'. [Submission 201]

Submitters identified key requirements of a successful approach to addressing nationally important values. Submitters noted the first step was identifying nationally important values. Any water bodies of national importance need to be clearly defined and prioritised, and they need to reflect the beliefs, aspirations and values of New Zealanders. Key requirements included that:

  • the process be within an integrated approach
  • the process be balanced and not captured by lobby groups
  • key areas of infrastructure be included
  • only in stream values be included
  • values be more than economic
  • the outcome should be decided by balancing national and regional interests through normal democratic processes, and local values are included
  • the bottom line is to sustain the indigenous biodiversity, conservation importance and cultural values through maintenance of minimum water flow levels and water quality standards
  • the methodology for identification be robust and based on scientific evidence
  • there be clarity around management of nationally important water bodies, how this will affect interested parties and people already using those water bodies and what the economic effects will be [One submitter noted that banks/lenders may have valued a property on the basis of access to water for irrigation. If the water is not available the value of the property will reduce.]
  • non-designated water bodies are not treated as expendable, exploited or sacrificed
  • the criteria used to identify water bodies are integrated with matters already identified in section 6 of the RMA (in terms of level of relative importance, and for plans and consent applications where section 6 matters are at stake)
  • the process be linked to a national policy statement, and that development of a management regime for freshwater to maintain, enhance or protect those values should occur within regional plans, and through consents.
  • central government provide resources towards finding solutions
  • links between water quantity, soil conservation, risk management, the capacity to cope and adapt in the face of climatic events, and landscape ecology processes are acknowledged
  • the status of Water Conservation Orders not be altered or disregarded
  • the approach provides certainty in the longer term
  • the public interest be protected.

A number of problems with the approach were also identified by submitters:

  • Engaging in a long debate nationally about the values of water will not be constructive because there is a wide range of expectations and competing interests.
  • Identification of iconic water bodies will lead to neglect of others - all water bodies are nationally and equally important.
  • The approach is inconsistent with a whole of catchment approach. Rather than identification of individual water bodies, there needs to be recognition of the interdependency of water bodies as migration routes and holistic entities.
  • There is potential for commercial gain at the expense of others, and through a short-circuited process.
  • Nationally important values are yet to be identified - this must be achieved prior to identifying individual water bodies. The interests among government departments will need to be balanced, and central government must speak with one voice on nationally important values.
  • Who will decide on the nationally important values and priorities? What if the national values conflict with regional and local values? There is a danger in losing progress on issues through endless debate on what the status of the issue might be (national or regional).
  • There is a lack of clarity about trigger points on individual criteria for water bodies to be considered as nationally important. There is no indication of how the different criteria might be integrated into a single assessment scheme and how they will be prioritised (particularly if conflicting or incompatible). Discrete criteria will sometimes be conflicting and listing based on these will do nothing to resolve conflict between uses.
  • There is a risk that so many water bodies will be identified that they do not advance the discussion, reflect national priorities or help with setting priorities (submitters referred to the large number of water bodies on the natural heritage lists).
  • It is difficult to manage water quality through this process. Is it appropriate to address water quality only in specifically identified water bodies? Would different levels of pollution be permitted in nationally important and non-nationally important water bodies? Would water bodies already polluted by diffuse discharges be nationally important? Providing for different levels of water quality between identified water bodies and others is problematic and inequitable.
  • There is insufficient credible information available on which to base the process.
  • Identifying the water bodies is likely to lead to increased costs for taxpayers.
  • It is not clear how the existing reports will be used, how they will affect other resource users, and how they should be recognised at the local level. Should management plans sit outside of the RMA, or will section 6 of the RMA be elevated so that you don't consider section 5?
  • How will the approach deal with changing values over time?

Māori cultural values

Some Māori submitters were opposed to ranking of water bodies for any values. Submitters were concerned that setting national priorities for freshwater using national values is likely to create a hierarchy based on mainstream views of the highest value, and risked dismissing concerns of iwi as local issues. Submitters noted that Māori values and priorities may differ substantially from other New Zealanders, and need to be approached in a different manner in order to ensure that Māori values in relation to freshwater are protected and provided for.

A small number of submitters wanted water bodies to be identified as nationally important for Māori cultural values; [For example, Submission 156, Submission 188] however, the majority of submitters considered it to be inappropriate. Submitters noted that Part II of the RMA already provides the framework for consideration of tangata whenua values at the appropriate level; and the concept of ranking relative importance of water bodies is at odds with the Māori worldview. 'As tangata whenua, our interest is focused within our rohe .... Each hapū will have areas that they are connected to, and it is simply not the role of an iwi to decide which of those is more or less important than any other. Even within a single hapū's rohe, every body of freshwater is important, though maybe in differing ways or for differing reasons. To ask us to prioritise those would be the same as asking which of your children you love more. It cannot be done as all are part of us and therefore all are as important.' [Submission 229] Submitters noted that while some water bodies may have traditionally had more value for particular reasons, any prioritisation from a Māori perspective should only occur at the local level.

Submitters also considered it inappropriate to discuss in what way water bodies in their rohe might be more deserving of special attention than any other water bodies around the country. 'As the tangata whenua of our rohe, we can only speak in relation to our own water bodies.' [Submission 255]

Māori submitters considered the Treaty of Waitangi should set the tone and context for any development of nationally important values, and that the setting of policies, standards, and values must be undertaken in partnership with tangata whenua. The weighting of the values was considered to be just as important as their initial development. Submitters were concerned that any balancing process which does not properly understand Māori values will not enable the most robust decisions.

Submitters considered it was vital that there be no erosion of the ability for tangata whenua to participate in the management of freshwater; and that central government develop an appropriate framework for interacting with tangata whenua on key matters of national importance to Māori.

What is nationally important?

Submitters noted that defining national values is immensely important and may result in fundamental shifts in direction. Many submitters identified values that they considered were of national importance:

  • tourism
  • ecological values and biodiversity (for example, habitats for threatened species)
  • wilderness values
  • tangata whenua and communities
  • recreation
  • water supply
  • landscape, geological and cultural associations
  • hydro-electric power generation
  • wetlands
  • sites with potential value for water storage, irrigation and other economic uses
  • irrigation
  • existing infrastructure
  • pristine waterways and areas with access to safe harvests of fish and shellfish
  • public health
  • areas for mineral development.

Submitters also identified values that should not be included. For example, some submitters considered that existing mechanisms are adequate for protecting natural areas and were reluctant to have water bodies identified for ecological values. Submitters were concerned that resources would be unnecessarily locked up in the interests of conservation, rather than managed to meet all community needs. Other submitters were reluctant to have energy generation included as the energy options and strategy for energy remain indistinct. Submitters noted that inclusion of infrastructure in a formal statute makes it less flexible and unable to take account of changing technologies, markets, and climate change; whereas ecosystems are based on principles of action that remain relatively constant over time. Submitters also noted that many activities are capable of co-existing; for example fisheries, hydro-electric power generation and irrigation.

Identifying water bodies of national importance

Many submitters identified the need for extensive consultation to define the values, develop methodologies, gather information and identify individual water bodies. Submitters also identified a need to involve stakeholders in developing and implementing management plans.

Submitters suggested that nationally important values apply to catchments, rather than discrete water bodies, and also extend to aquifers. Submitters noted that effective freshwater management needs to be catchment-based as a wide range of activities within a catchment can affect water. Water bodies that are already identified in regional plans and on international registers should also be included.

The need for sound information and robust methodologies for valuing water bodies were also identified. Some submitters suggested a process that based priority on the level of threat to a water body. Submitters also suggested that water bodies on public conservation land should be assessed primarily from their conservation context. Challenges associated with values changing with time, affluence and understanding were also identified.

Managing water bodies of national importance

Submitters suggested a range of approaches to management of water bodies of national importance. Working with local government was considered essential, and allowing for management in a flexible framework that provides for decision-making at local level. An overall management plan was considered to be important, with prioritised actions, targets, and evaluation of progress (through national monitoring and reporting). The national interest could be reflected through a national policy statement/national environmental standard, or through guidance and submissions on regional plans and resource consents. Implementation on a catchment basis was also considered to be important.

Some submitters were concerned that water bodies identified as nationally important may have lower standards of water quality, and unconstrained land management. Submitters were also concerned that changes in management may create uncertainty for existing consent holders. In addition, the need for public education programmes was identified. Submitters also identified the need for:

  • additional funding from central government to implement solutions for individual water bodies
  • development of new tools and review of existing tools
  • identification of gaps in science, information and institutions.

Water Conservation Orders

Many submitters responded to the suggestion that the Water Conservation Order provisions of the RMA may be examined. A broad range of submitters were opposed to any change to the current Water Conservation Order provisions, including environmental groups, the energy sector, agricultural sector, individuals and research organisations. Submitters were concerned that existing conservation orders should be protected as considerable energy and resources had been invested to establish them. Some submitters considered that water conservation orders had been under utilised, as they provided the public with security. Energy and agricultural sector submitters were concerned that any changes to the provisions would create uncertainty for resource users and incur additional unnecessary compliance costs. [For example, Submission 184]

Some submitters suggested that Water Conservation Orders should become easier to establish and that any changes to the RMA should strengthen rather than weaken Water Conservation Orders.

Some submitters suggested that Water Conservation Orders should be time-limited and reviewed. The reviews should be at the same time as relevant plans, and in the light of current scientific knowledge and public values.

Alternative approaches

Many submitters commented on alternative approaches that could be taken. At a broad level, submitters suggested that central government could prioritise the national interest in water within the context of central government issues. Rather than create a further tier of regulation, a more efficient approach could be to improve resources for government agencies such as Department of Conservation to enable them to contribute effectively to plan preparation and resource consent processes. Development of a methodology for regional councils to consistently identify important water bodies was considered to be a more useful approach, and development of a national policy statement was also proposed.

The alternative action of developing a schedule to attach to the RMA was supported by some submitters. Submitters noted that as values change over time, the schedule should be reviewed and updated regularly.

The suggestion of national monitoring and reporting of water bodies with nationally important values (including aspects of tourism, historic heritage, industrial uses, population growth, recreational use, energy generation and land use practices) was strongly supported by some submitters. The data and reports on each catchment could supply benchmark information, and ensure central government has hands-on knowledge of all aspects relating to nationally important values. Some submitters were concerned about duplication of effort - preferring that monitoring remain the responsibility of regional councils. Submitters noted that regional councils have knowledgeable personnel, access to information and physical access to water bodies. Results of regional monitoring could be made available to national organisations or departments as appropriate. Submitters were also concerned that national monitoring and reporting would be costly, and risks undermining general monitoring requirements.

There was some support for the development of national environmental standards that set particular standards and management processes for water bodies that are nationally important. Submitters noted that there should be full participation of industry, local government and the public in development of the standards; and that they would need to be strictly enforced. Some of the submitters opposed to setting national environmental standards were concerned that the national interest in an individual water body would be over-represented.

Submitters identified a range of additional actions that could be taken, including:

  • an increased emphasis on energy efficiency and promotion of other forms of energy
  • installation of water meters
  • preparation of a national policy statement to ensure that there is a rapid reduction in the pollution of waterways
  • encouraging regional councils to develop appropriate plans.

Action 4: Increase central government participation in regional planning

The proposed action included:

  • providing information and guidance
  • lodging submissions, either individual departments or whole of government.

The alternative/complementary approach was that central government could be responsible for approving plans.

Views on the role of central government

There was a very strong call for regional decision-making. Generally submitters want regional councils to be the major authority responsible for the management of water, and responsible for the final decisions. There were concerns about reduced community participation if central government were to adopt a more proactive role in water management, and the potential for 'fast track mechanisms ... for the business interests instead of for environmental, community interests or tangata whenua'. [Submission 191] There were also concerns about reduced flexibility to deal with local situations, and that central government officials would not have good quality local information (compared to regional councils).

Central government was considered to have an overview role. This was characterised as setting overall policies. Submitters preferred that central government operate 'at a high level setting the goals, objectives, targets and time frames to achieve these, then let the regions get on with the job on a catchment by catchment basis'. [Submission 11] The role of central government was 'to have a wide view of the whole country in the future as well as the present'. [Submission 4]

Features of the recommended central government role included:

  • ensuring that regional councils work for the benefit of all parties
  • protecting the environment [It is 'essential to have a | Ministry for the Environment division do this and also assist local groups', Submission 193.]
  • advocating for nationally important values, and for regional councils to have regard to them
  • articulating national priorities
  • promoting good practice in regional plans
  • focusing on defining water bodies of national importance
  • intervention only where there is compelling reason or lack of regional capacity.

Increasing central government participation in regional planning

Improved regional planning was identified by some submitters as the primary way in which more sustainable outcomes will be achieved. There was a broad range of responses to this specific action. Some submitters were quite clear that they opposed the action, commenting 'Please don't' [Submission 20] and 'Don't need or want it'. [Submission 106] Some submitters had faith in local government making decisions and felt water management plans were best developed at regional level. Regional councils were considered to be at the coal face. Consultation and community input was identified as a better way of taking people with you, rather than taking orders from on high (that is, central government). There were concerns that central government involvement in regional planning would slow the process, and lead to reduced local decision-making.

Other submitters felt central government participation in regional planning was absolutely necessary. This was considered to be one of the most important actions by some submitters. Having each region reinventing solutions to a national set of issues was considered to be inefficient and had potential to create long-term conflict. There was a caution that increased central government involvement needed to be done for defined purposes - it should not be seen as an automatic solution to some regional shortcomings. Situations where increased involvement might be useful included:

  • when the various competing interests are all part of government policy - social wellbeing, development and environment create confusion for planning at local and regional level
  • in respect of environmental and quality standards for town supply water.

Information/guidance

The suggestion of providing information and guidance were welcomed by submitters. Good information was considered to be essential for quality decisions to be made. This was seen as a useful step that would help reduce costs and increase efficiency in some areas. Provision of information and guidance to regional councils was also seen to promote consistencies between regions and contribute to the development of best management practices. West Coast Regional Council would like to be able to gather greater levels of information than they can at the moment (due to ratepayers limited ability to pay).

Suggestions of the type of information that could be provided included:

  • advice on issues affecting all councils (that is, climate change)
  • competing national interests for integration into regional planning
  • a base regional plan which allowed regional councils to add their own extensions.

The guidance and information would be most useful if provided in the early stages of plan development. It is important that central government work with local government to identify where there is a need for greater guidance and direction.

Making submissions on plans

Some submitters were concerned about central government making submissions on regional plans. Concerns were expressed about overlap with the role of local government, and that the other parties that made submissions on plans would not 'have the resources to fight central government through the courts'. [Submission 83] Submitters suggested that lodging submissions should be done as last resort because it 'would add unnecessarily to cost and be too late in the process'. [Submission 69] An alternative approach was suggested whereby central government could make sure that regional councils have water plans, but not influence local decisions.

Other submitters noted that central government was able to participate in regional planning through the current submission process, and this was seen as a constructive approach. Submitters suggested that local government should specifically address the central government submission, rather than just note it as useful background. 'The national viewpoint should be heard alongside all the other viewpoints when regional and district government is preparing or amending regional and district plans. The mix of national, regional, district and vested interest groups needs to be laid on the table to ensure the best outcome for the nation.' [Submission 44]

There was a suggestion that central government could become involved where there is insufficient information to allow for development of a sound policy framework at the regional level, and this has been identified as a whole of government issue.

Submitters noted that central government should ideally be involved at the start of the process (rather than at the formal submission stage) and that the statutory time frames must be complied with.

Views on whole of government approach

A small number of submitters were concerned about adopting a whole of government approach to developing submissions. The present system allows each government department to submit arguments based on their specialist area of knowledge. Separate submissions provide councils with valuable perspectives and information about the different focuses and jurisdictions of the various departments. These opinions can then be weighed up against one another in a transparent manner. Others found it difficult to see how the whole of government approach is workable.

Some submitters specifically commented on the role of the Department of Conservation. Some submitters felt the Department of Conservation should continue to submit on freshwater issues independently of other government departments. The Department of Conservation was seen as having an important role as advocate for native ecosystems and species, especially when local submissions and processes are weighted towards economic values. Concerns were expressed about the potential dilution of the Department of Conservation's specific role. [Note the proposed RMA amendment allows for separate Department of Conservation submissions.] Other submitters welcomed the contribution from other departments, noting the inclusion of the Ministry of Economic Development (for example), would enable more balanced decision-making.

Many submitters were enthusiastic supporters of the whole of government approach. Separate submissions were considered to be unhelpful - containing conflicting points of view. A whole of government approach was considered to be useful in establishing the government's position and priorities on certain issues (as the competing views would already be assessed and balanced).

Submitters suggested that a whole of government approach would also:

  • assist central government in understanding the resource management issues faced in the regions
  • provide an opportunity to identify matters of national interest
  • provide an opportunity to develop sectoral management approaches as advocated in the recent report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (Growing for good).

Central government approval of plans

A small number of submitters suggested that central government should be responsible for approving regional plans. Benefits of central government approval of plans were seen to include:

  • an emphasis on national values
  • consistent delivery nationwide of water protection values
  • avoidance of conflicting plans
  • provision of quality assurance of plans
  • increased enforcement of planning provisions.

Many submitters were strongly opposed to the idea of central government approving plans. Central government 'would be on a hiding to nothing with the suggestion that it be responsible for approving regional plans. Plans only work if the community accept it is their plan. The "hand" of Wellington would not be welcomed'. [Submission 116] Central government adopting an approval role was seen to be 'big brotherish' [Submission 53] in the context of freshwater. Submitters noted there was a more obvious case for approval of plans in coastal area. Central government approval was seen to add another layer of cost and to create the potential for conflict between local and central government. Concerns were expressed that central government approval would negate the regional plan consultation process that was used to reflect local conditions and community values, and reduce the participatory nature of plan development at the local level. Central government approval was seen to be in conflict with devolved decision-making, and local government retaining responsibility for water management and decision-making. Submitters also noted that central government approval of regional plans would add more time to already lengthy process.

Links to other actions

Submitters linked this action to other proposed actions, particularly the development of national policy statements and national environmental standards. Some submitters noted that the submission process could be used to give effect to national policy statements and environmental standards; whereas others commented that approval of plans and submissions would be unnecessary if the national tools were developed.

Submitters also referred to the proposal to set requirements for plans as an alternative approach to Action 4.

Additional actions for central government

There were many calls for funding and provision of resources to regional councils under this action. A small number of submitters identified specific targets for funding, including:

  • smaller regional councils
  • science and assessment systems where these are likely to go beyond the capability of regional authorities
  • science, research and water conservation methods
  • impartial expertise and back-up for councils
  • regional planning.

Submitters also referred to the need for monitoring and auditing under this action. A national system to monitor freshwater quality and the health of freshwater ecosystems over time was considered to be essential. The need for a central overview to ensure achievement nationally of bottom-line standards was also identified. Submitters also identified the need for an audit capacity to ensure effective implementation of plans and providing assistance to regional councils where required.

Submitters also suggested that central government:

  • be represented among local decision makers to ensure that local government effectively administers RMA
  • initiate pilot projects on a partnership basis
  • develop mechanisms to enable various agencies to work together more effectively
  • explain and simplifying the submission process
  • adopt a co-ordinator role.

Submitters also raised:

  • the potential for secondment of experts to regional councils
  • concerns about the availability of information held by central government
  • a preference for regional consistency in the involvement of the Department of Conservation in regional plan development
  • concerns with the 'while' in section 5 of the RMA, and attempts to balance development against ecological integrity under considerable political pressure
  • concerns with local councils in breach of their own plans
  • the need for more scientists to be available for independent information
  • concerns about constraints on mining/quarrying and a request for more integration between district and regional plans to better address water quality issues in some areas
  • the potential for information and guidance to be developed to aid Māori to lodge submissions
  • the need for central government to contribute significant funds to transform existing agricultural practices to improve water quality
  • concerns about the lack of price signals
  • concerns about trust of local government level, and a preference for collaboration of experts and the public.

Action 5: Increase central government's support for local government

The proposed action required central government helping build councils' capacity, and disseminating good practice in the following areas:

  • strategic planning
  • setting environmental bottom lines and allocation limits
  • engaging effectively with Māori
  • how to clawback existing allocations and transfer of water permits
  • efficient water use.

The following alternative or complementary actions were also proposed:

  • central government supporting a mobile team of planners, to support regional councils
  • central government could subsidise poorly resourced councils directly
  • central government could help disseminate best practice for assessing water resources and monitoring impacts.

Is central government support welcome?

A small number of submitters were opposed to central government providing support to local government, considering it to be unnecessary. Submitters were concerned about central government becoming too involved in local issues, noting that perhaps central government could encourage regional councils to work together on common issues. Submitters also noted that technical capacity will grow in response to need. One submitter preferred that clear instructions be given to local government, rather than support.

The majority of submitters (including councils) were supportive of central government providing support to local government, [Some submitters noted that their support would depend on the type of intervention.] and were very clear that decision-making should remain at the local level. Submitters identified the benefits of central government support:

  • reduced costs and increased efficiency
  • increased certainty for both abstractive and in-stream values
  • raised awareness of different approaches
  • improved standards of plan development and implementation, while allowing councils to retain freedom to deal with local issues according to local needs and environment
  • regional planning is based on reliable information and a sound understanding of processes, and is consistent with overall national planning.

Local government submitters were very supportive of the proposed action, noting that provision of central government support was very important and should form the starting point of any central government initiatives. Local government were supportive of central government filling information gaps (in conjunction with councils), and opportunities to share lessons learned. Regional councils noted that while they have considerable expertise in environmental management at a general level, they are yet to develop capacity in the other areas of sustainable development. Councils cautioned that any guidance must be practical and useful.

Submitters cautioned that increased support must be part of a package, and that there will be delays in uptake of best practice through the planning system. Submitters were also concerned that while central government should assist, duplication should be avoided. Some submitters noted that both local and central government have lost significant capacity over the past 20 years, particularly in the areas of land use practices, land use systems thinking, adaptive management frameworks, land use economics, public participation, and best management practices.

Submitters noted that for provision of support to be effective, it should be in the context of regional councils identifying and tackling issues, and creating programmes of action. Submitters also identified the need for a robust process to identify good practice.

Strategic planning

There was support for best practice on strategic planning from a broad range of sectors (including two councils). Submitters considered strategic planning to be an important element of regional planning, and central government support would provide a consistent approach. Submitters proposed the development of guides for strategic planning, and model plans followed up with ongoing advice on how to apply plans to regionally specific issues.

Setting environmental bottom lines

There was general support for central government providing guidance on setting bottom lines and allocation limits. Submitters were very clear that while support was welcome, the actual bottom lines and limits should be set at the regional council level (and not by central government). Some local government submitters were supportive of the dissemination of good practice in setting environmental bottom lines (including minimum flow calculations) and allocation limits, provided that the good practice deals with methodology rather than actual bottom lines.

Engaging effectively with Māori

There was some support for best practice and capacity building to assist with engaging effectively with Māori. Some local government submitters were concerned that any guidance should be in terms of establishing principles, rather than prescribe how any engagement should occur. [Submission 59]

Submitters also noted that processes must also be identified for effective engagement with hapū. [Submission 154] Some submitters noted their opposition to changes proposed through the RMA review, as they were concerned that the proposals seek to disengage with Māori. Some submitters also noted that there should be effective engagement with other parties (for example, water users), in addition to Māori.

Clawback and transfer

Many submitters were opposed to the suggestion of clawback of existing allocations. 'If a new water management system is to succeed, it will need to take into account the existing consented water allocations as they stand, and will need to provide resource users (such as hydro-electricity generators) with a reasonable level of certainty that their water allocation is secure. Certainty is required to enable sound decisions to be made for existing and future investments.' [Submission 114] The transfer of consents was supported as the most effective and equitable way to ensure that water is allocated to its highest value use.

Some submitters were supportive of central government providing support to local government in the areas of clawback and transfer of consents (including one council). One council was opposed to additional central government support or good practice dissemination on clawback and transfer water permits, [Submission 59] considering this to be adequately addressed in the RMA.

Efficient water use

One submitter was concerned that dissemination of good practice on efficient water could undermine investment certainty as it could be taken to imply within-term reviews of consents. [Submission 258] However there was support from a broad range of submitters for initiatives that build council capacity and the dissemination of good practice advice on efficient water use (including three councils). One submitter noted that teaching urban users to use less water and respect summer restrictions would be useful.

Alternative approaches

While the proposal to increase central government support for local government was widely supported (including by councils), submitters noted that the areas in which support might be provided are not the areas of greatest need. Submitters identified alternative or additional areas that would be useful, including:

  • clarifying the roles and responsibilities of central and local government with respect to water and land management [Submission 41]
  • clarifying how to review consent conditions
  • collecting evidence
  • solving problems associated with implementation of plans
  • developing non-statutory integrated catchment management plans
  • taking science and putting it into a practical usable form
  • setting protocols for joint resource consent processing, involving electronic processing of resource consents between district and regional councils where there are shared responsibilities
  • funding enhancement projects
  • managing discharges and achieving timely reductions in diffuse-source water pollution
  • developing demand reduction strategies, including public education, information, promotion of appropriate technologies, pricing and regulation
  • responding to the recent Growing for good report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment
  • enhancing the maximum output from water resources
  • assisting with the development of a framework and methodology for achieving catchment specific standards
  • providing guidelines for identifying nationally important water bodies
  • assisting with development of a framework and methodology for achieving highest value use.

Submitters also identified potential mechanisms that could be used to support local government, including:

  • funding and facilitation of workshop sessions for regional council staff (including consents and planning staff) to share knowledge and resolve commonly experienced problems
  • providing training seminars for recently elected regional councillors
  • establishing regional council centres of excellence, by allocating responsibility for developing guidelines to councils who have already addressed the issues
  • coordinating and funding projects on large/complex issues that involve cross-boundary projects and issues of national significance (for example, storage dams with effects that cross local authority boundaries)
  • facilitating a broad process of knowledge transfer and cooperation between central and local government and among councils
  • funding and support for protecting potential storage sites for both supply storage and hydro-power
  • using existing special interest groups (for example, water allocation group) and mechanisms (for example, quality planning website)
  • auditing plan effectiveness and reviewing plan implementation
  • funding local government-run monitoring programmes and information dissemination by local government
  • providing resources to regional councils for plan preparation where there are strong elements of national or out of region interest (for example, tourism, recreation, managing water bodies of national importance, energy)
  • providing resources for coordinated education programmes
  • coordinating science across local and central government, and sharing science among councils
  • identifying and supporting scientific projects of national significance, practical trials, opportunities for discussion and information sharing, and wide dissemination of results (both success and failure)
  • improving dialogue between science agencies and the government sector
  • providing a pool of experts which local government can access
  • supporting five year academic appointments (similar to the timber and concrete industries) or endow a chair
  • developing information for nationwide application (especially to assist smaller councils)
  • allowing for local government to influence central policies, particularly in terms of feedback from the community.

The suggestion of a mobile team of specialist planning advisors was supported by some submitters (including one council). Submitters opposed to the mobile team of planners were concerned about cost, duplication of effort and over-involvement of central government in regional resource management. Submitters noted that the mobile teams should include non-biased experts, ecologists and education experts. Costs associated with the mobile team should also be reimbursed.

Submitters suggested a network of planners, rather than a mobile team, may be more cost effective. Capability building of staff and councillors was also proposed, as a more effective long-term solution than bringing in specialists for short periods.

Some submitters were opposed to central government subsidising poorly resourced regional councils. Submitters were concerned about increased costs for taxpayers, and that subsidising poorly resourced councils would not address the long-term nature of the problem. One submitter was concerned about the potential for distortion of water markets. Another submitter suggested that if a council is poorly resourced because of lack of rates base, then they could merge with another council. [Submission 150] Submitters also noted local communities should receive support, [Submission 193] and polluters should be facing the true costs of pollution rather than the public. [Submission 212]

Many other submitters considered the support of poorly resourced councils to be a reasonable approach, especially in areas with low population (for example, West Coast and Gisborne). Submitters noted that some councils are too small to sustain the breadth and depth of skills needed. Submitters also suggested the introduction of user charges for wastewater and stormwater may assist with funding of poorly resourced councils. Submitters cautioned the approach should be carefully considered, and more assessment and consultation is required.

Dissemination of best practice for assessing water resources and monitoring impacts was supported by some submitters. Submitters noted the proposed action would reduce conflict and make water resource assessment across New Zealand more consistent.

Additional actions

Submitters identified additional actions that could be taken. Central government could:

  • approve regional plans
  • develop national policy statements and standards
  • enable a tax on visitor accommodation to help improve water quality
  • manage nationally important water bodies
  • support restoration schemes (for example, 'Living Streams')
  • provide incentives to decrease domestic water usage, and adopt mandatory water efficiency labelling schemes for toilets, showerheads and appliances
  • reduce the maximum duration of consents
  • audit local government performance and determine if RMA based outcomes are being achieved through regional plans
  • review the mining privileges in Otago
  • promote augmentation and irrigation schemes
  • develop guidelines for riparian protection along with financial assistance to advance their implementation
  • provide opportunities for those involved in water management to develop skills, including landowners, tangata whenua, industry, irrigators, environmental interest groups and communities
  • increase involvement of Ministry of Fisheries in local government planning processes.

Action 6: Develop special mechanisms for regional councils

The proposed action included the development of additional tools to enable councils to manage situations where water is over-allocated or water quality is declining. One option is to give councils powers to clawback existing consents to take water, or to discharge contaminants. Many alternative and complementary actions were also identified.

Are special mechanisms required?

Views were divided on this action - it was identified by different submitters as either the most important or the least important action to carry out. While there was a significant level of support for tools to address over-allocation and declining water quality, there was more caution about whether councils should be given powers to constrain existing consents. Many submitters also commented on other possible mechanisms identified.

General support

Some submitters expressed general support for the intent of the action in enabling regional councils to better deal with allocation and water quality issues and promoting more efficient use of water. However several of these submitters felt that more detail is needed on specific mechanisms, and clarification of which tools are already available under current legislation. Discussion with local government was requested before specific measures are developed, as well as consultation with ratepayers by councils before they adopt any measures.

Some submitters raised particular concerns about water quality, with one suggesting that the proposed action does not go far enough in addressing discharge problems.

Various other comments were made, including:

  • the need to reflect Treaty obligations by involving Māori in any initiatives (including co-management)
  • a concern that long-term security of consents should be maintained to protect the investment required to gain and use them
  • a converse view that investment certainty must not be weighted against protection of water bodies, future users or environmental damage [Submission 191]
  • support for the 'first-in, first-served' approach (although two submitters supported a move to competitive, comparative assessment of applications)
  • disagreement with the concept of allocating water to its highest value
  • the need for tools to be used within a framework of national bottom lines or guidelines on allocation regimes and limits to pollution
  • the need for a catchment planning approach rather than ad hoc planning
  • a concern that councils should be able to apply the precautionary principle where appropriate
  • the need to find ways to address long time lags in decision-making
  • the need for any new tools to make 'management more efficient, effective and affordable for ratepayers and water users'. [Submission 221]

General opposition

Submitters opposing the action also raised concerns about the lack of clarity as to specific tools being considered. The main objection to the action was the belief that powers and tools currently available to regional councils are sufficient to address the issues. Specific references were made to the role of regional water plans, the ability to deal with breaches of consents and the ability to review consents at time of re-application (and reduce them if justified). Discussion with local government was requested about the necessity and practicality of any new measures.

Several submitters from environmental groups felt that the focus should be on appraising council performance and ensuring they are carrying out their existing functions well rather than developing new mechanisms.

Other concerns included:

  • the threat to investments of existing users - one submitter identified a need for compensation or financial assistance if these were affected
  • the conflicting concerns that the proposals indicate too much central government control and limit the flexibility of local government to address regional issues, or conversely that they give local government too much power.

Allocation role of regional councils

Many submitters supported the proposal in the Resource Management Act review to confirm the role of regional councils in water allocation, with one stating that 'regional councils do a very thorough and expert job in reviewing water allocations'. [Submission 129] While some submitters felt this role was already clear others felt there is room to make it more explicit, with one noting there is sometimes confusion between the roles of regional and district councils.

Some submitters felt that others should be involved in allocation as well as regional councils. Submitters from Māori organisations suggested that mechanisms for allocation should be developed in partnership with tangata whenua, or that iwi and hapū should be involved in allocation processes, in order to meet obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. Other suggestions included:

  • allocation should be done in consultation with central government
  • hydrologists, industry representatives and specialists should be involved (particularly where resources cross regional boundaries).

There were also several submitters who felt that regional councils should have a more limited role in allocation. There were three main views expressed:

  • water allocation issues are of national importance and it is more appropriate for central government to have this role
  • regional councils are subject to the influence of local politics and do not always have the expertise to make allocation decisions. One submitter suggested 'an independent water management commission for each catchment or region' [Submission 30] as an alternative
  • market mechanisms should be the main vehicle for water allocation, with the regional council role limited to allocation for instream uses and implementation of market mechanisms (but retaining the regulatory role of monitoring consent conditions). It was suggested that a role in re-allocation makes entitlements insecure because decisions are subject to lobbying.

One submitter was concerned that a focus on allocation rather than management of resources would lead to resources being compartmentalised rather than dealt with in an integrated way.

Dealing with over-allocation and declining water quality

There was strong support for tools to address problems of both over-allocation and declining water quality. One submitter drew particular attention to the Aoraki Water Trust decision in the High Court as highlighting that more tools are needed.

Several suggestions were made as to how the development of tools should proceed. These included:

  • A cautious approach should be taken. One submitter noted that 'over-allocation is particularly sensitive and reducing water availability is a long-term process'. [Submission 25]
  • In contrast, some submitters expressed a degree of urgency, with one seeking agreed timeframes and standards for improvement of water quality.
  • Local government should be involved in developing tools. These 'should enable action rather than prescribe it', [Submission 179] with councils having the ability to choose tools in consultation with their communities.
  • In addressing decline in water quality, regional variations need to be considered, but comparison of benchmarks between regions is also important.
  • 'Science and public discussion [are] vital for success.' [Submission 252] One submitter noted particularly the need for good independent research in relation to management of diffuse discharges.
  • The cumulative effects of discharges and of permitted activities need to be considered as well as effects of individual consents.
  • It would be useful to look at how similar issues have been addressed in other countries.

Some submitters opposed development of new tools to address over-allocation. One felt that over-allocation problems arise, not because of a lack of tools, but because 'policymakers at council levels have not yet thought out what an effective allocation system entails'. [Submission 201] Submitters from the energy sector were concerned that this action may weaken entitlements of existing water users, as security of entitlement requires that the quantity of allocable water only be reduced if clear environmental criteria are met. [Submission 264]

'Clawback' - constraining existing consents

There were divided views on whether regional councils should be given powers to constrain (or 'clawback') existing consents to deal with over-allocation or declining water quality.

The main reason given for supporting this tool was the need for adaptive management over time to deal with unforeseen negative effects. Contributing factors identified included the long duration of many consents, development in understanding of effects over time and the likelihood of increased stress on the resource as a result of increasing demand and climate change. One submitter noted that, while councils are currently able to review consents at any time, the cost involved makes early review unlikely.

Some of these submitters felt that the need for adaptive management outweighs the need for investment certainty. One submitter stated 'achieving the environmental outcome is more important than who may or may not benefit personally'. [Submission 200]

Submitters from the agricultural and energy sectors, as well as some others, opposed the idea of constraints on existing consents. Most concerns were focused on the effect of such a tool in decreasing certainty of investment for water users - one submitter suggested that this is contrary to moves in the Resource Management Act review. Submitters felt that it does not recognise the large existing investment in land and infrastructure by users, and one suggested that it could be a disincentive to further development of water storage infrastructure because of the increased uncertainty. A submitter from the financial sector suggested that a clawback mechanism could affect how lenders value farming operations.

Other reasons for opposition included:

  • clawback is not efficient or equitable
  • it raises property right issues
  • it has potential to impact on public water supplies, particularly in dry periods
  • clawback 'can create perverse incentives for applicants to apply for greater quantities than they require in order to allow for the clawback provisions, thereby reducing the availability of the resource for other users'. [Submission 66]

One submitter identified a difference between technical over-allocation and actual over-allocation. For example, the 'Waitaki is fully allocated, not over-allocated. In other words, while new abstractive use is not possible, existing consent holders are able to exercise their rights to the extent that they wish and the recognised environmental bottom line is protected'. [Submission 258]

Some submitters, although opposing constraints on existing consents, felt that proportionate reductions in allocations would be preferable to replacing the current first in, first served system of allocation.

Most comments focused on water abstraction, but one submitter stated: 'Clawback in the context of diffuse discharges does not seem to make sense, particularly as it is difficult to impose a discharge permit requirement where there is no discrete discharge point'. [Submission 172]

Submitters made some suggestions about components and conditions of any clawback mechanism. Suggested components included:

  • good quality data about the resource and independent monitoring of existing use
  • criteria for renewal of consents based on compliance with consent conditions, best practice, EPI indicators and new information over time
  • 'do what the Aussies have done - make permits tradable, decide how much water needs to [be] clawed back for the environment, and progressively buy it back'. [Submission 200]

One submitter questioned whether the first-in, first-served principle would confer retrospective preference in relation to any constraints imposed on consents.

Conditions proposed on the use of this mechanism included:

  • development of any mechanism must be preceded by clear definition of the issue and alternatives and by public consultation
  • any new processes should involve those who will be affected
  • information should be provided to consent applicants indicating that clawback might occur, so this can be factored into investment and management decisions
  • the process should address the relative importance of activities to the economy, community and environment
  • it should only be used where the effects to the environment are significant or immediate
  • there should be 'a consistent approach and consideration of fair and reasonable transition arrangements' [Submission 139]
  • assistance or compensation should be provided to affected consent holders
  • it should not be applied to municipal water supplies
  • any reduction in discharge permits should be accompanied by research and incentives for techniques to reduce discharges.

Other tools

Some opponents of claw back felt that alternative mechanisms are more appropriate to address over-allocation problems. Suggested alternatives included:

  • trading and transfer mechanisms (which would address property rights concerns)
  • central government assistance with establishment of water storage and incentives for efficient infrastructure
  • assistance in education and developing best practice
  • avoidance of over-allocation by development and timely review of freshwater plans (including setting environmental bottom lines), with assistance from central government and a call-in mechanism if plans are not completed within specified time frame
  • current mechanisms for review of consents and for cancellation of consents that are not exercised
  • negotiation of voluntary restrictions on consents where over-allocation has occurred.

One submitter suggested: 'Privatisation should be on the table'. [Submission 20]

Alternative approaches

Modify water permits

Comments were made on all of the suggestions listed under this approach. In particular there was significant support for reducing the term of consents and opposition to restricting the ability of councils to review consent conditions. One submitter made a general plea for more flexibility and sophistication in the nature of permits.

Consents for instream uses

There were few comments on this suggestion. Some submitters felt it was worth considering, with one noting: 'This helps to distinguish what is required by sustainable management from what is actually an allocation to a use that competes with abstractive use'. [Submission 175] Conversely, another submitter was concerned that providing for commercial instream users by granting consents could lead to conflict between these users and individual recreational users. This submitter was also opposed to any suggestion of payment for water use by recreational users.

Duration of consents

Two submitters (one from the energy sector and one water supply provider) supported the ability for councils to grant longer consents for water uses involving significant investment in infrastructure. However many other submitters opposed lengthening of consent duration and suggested that terms should be shortened (although one submitter was concerned that communities should not have to compensate for this). A key reason given for shortening terms was the need to provide for adaptation to changes in knowledge of the resource, or matters such as climate change.

One submitter suggested that a combination of shorter consent terms and trading of permits would allow for investment as well as for protection of the resource, stating: 'Investment certainty is a rare business luxury which has to be paid for'. [Submission 32] Another thought that investment certainty could be provided for by making consent terms consistent with economic planning horizons such as the terms of rural bank loans.

Other suggestions about the appropriate length for consent terms included:

  • 'around 18-25 years. This would mean that the duration of water permits is limited intra-generation[ally], and would not extend beyond the generation of those decision makers who first granted the permit' [Submission 255]
  • '15 years. This represents a sufficient period of time to fully depreciate the cost of improvements and to get a reasonable return on capital invested.' [Submission 77]

Some submitters felt that consents should be issued for no longer than 10 years, with one linking this to the life of regional plans.

Linking consents to a percentage of flow

There was a range of views on whether consents should be linked to a percentage of flow. Some submitters supported this, with one local government submitter noting that this is already done. A submitter from the energy sector, while supportive, felt that stored water would need to be treated differently.

Some submitters felt that this suggestion, which links consents to supply rather than demand, needs further investigation. One thought that it would be difficult to implement and monitor, and stressed that there should still be limits imposed to maintain minimum flows. Two submitters (one from the agriculture sector and one water supply provider) opposed the idea because they felt it would provide too much variability for users and would not lead to the most efficient allocation of water.

Restricting ability to review consent conditions

Nearly all comments on this alternative were opposed to any restriction on the ability of councils to review consent conditions. Submitters felt that this ability is important to accommodate new information, changing environmental conditions or the potential for cumulative effects on the resource.

Some local government submitters felt that current provisions in the Resource Management Act for reviewing consents were not being used to their potential. One suggested a national assessment of how section 128 is used and assistance for councils in using this provision. Another thought there might be a need to amend current provisions, noting that the cost and time involved might be hindering their use.

Other suggestions included:

  • amending review provisions to allow for reduction in the amount of water granted
  • an ability to review consents at any time
  • opening review of consents to wider scrutiny to make decision-makers accountable.

One submitter felt there is room for further investigation of restricting the ability to review consent conditions, and another suggested this could be limited to a catchment-wide review at the same time a regional plan is reviewed.

Other suggestions

Other suggestions made about modifying water permits included:

  • providing an ability for consents to be cancelled after two years if not used, rather than the current five, to allow access for other potential users
  • distinguishing between permits to take water and permits to use water.

One submitter suggested that any modifications should be made within a framework of greater central government control.

Water use measuring systems

There was significant support across all sectors for compulsory water measuring systems so that councils can monitor water use accurately and better understand the resource. One submitter noted that it would allow councils to relate allocations to actual use. Several submitters suggested that this proposal, in conjunction with other measures such as volumetric charging, water efficiency diagnostics and/or industry efficiency standards, would be useful in encouraging efficient water use.

Some submitters thought there should be a distinction between different water uses, with suggestions made about exemptions for small takes or for domestic and stock water uses. One submitter also noted that some types of abstraction, such as industrial and domestic uses, put significant quantities of water back into the system (although with reduced quality).

There were some submitters who supported compulsory measuring in some circumstances, but thought that there should be criteria related to the amount of resource allocated or authority for regional councils to decide if there are areas where metering is not required. A concern was raised about the effect on communities and one submitter suggested a need for further consultation. One submitter noted that there were pilot projects in various regions that could be examined.

Some irrigators opposed compulsory measuring systems because their irrigation systems are designed only to abstract the consented allocation or include gauges. Both these and some other submitters were concerned about the cost of installing and maintaining measuring systems and networks to support them. One council felt compulsory systems were unnecessary and reflected too much central control.

Volumetric charging for monitoring

Views on volumetric charging were evenly divided, with opposition voiced mostly by submitters from the agricultural sector. These submitters were concerned about the cost to users, and the effect of this on the viability of existing or proposed investments.

Support for this measure was often linked to support for compulsory measuring systems as a means of encouraging efficient water use. There was disagreement about whether charging should be on the basis of actual use or consented use. An 'actual volume' basis was seen as consistent with a user pays approach, while it was suggested that a 'consented volume' basis might encourage transfer of unused water.

Other comments included:

  • charges should recover costs of both research and management
  • any moves towards use of this measure need to be made in consultation with permit holders.

Water efficiency diagnostic service

Some submitters supported provision of a water efficiency diagnostic service, with one submitter suggesting central government could provide specialist assistance. One regional council noted that it was currently their practice to use water use guidelines to determine appropriate allocations. Another submitter warned that such a service would need a realistic local basis relevant to actual requirements.

Other submitters opposed this measure. Reasons for opposition included:

  • it is not appropriate for central or local government to decide what constitutes efficient use - market mechanisms would do this more effectively
  • efficiency of use is relative and depends on the value of water (for example, it is efficient to apply less water than plants need when water is scarce)
  • concern about cost
  • it could be a first step towards imposing clawback mechanisms.

One submitter was concerned that council staff might not have the training to consider fully the need to accommodate the influence of climatic variables and risk management.

Setting seasonal volumes in resource consents

The setting of seasonal volumes when granting resource consents was generally supported, although there were a few submitters who expressed opposition. Reasons for opposition included the difficulty of setting an appropriate volume given the variability of climate and water resource, and the potential detrimental effect on irrigation management (for example, under watering early in the season to ensure sufficient allocation remains for later).

One submitter thought that setting seasonal volumes would only succeed if increased storage facilities become available. Another felt that volumes should be set in consultation with users to accommodate any special requirements.

The suitability of seasonal allocations for hydro-electric power generation (allowing generation to increase in winter) was noted by one submitter from the energy sector. Another submitter commented that councils are already able to set seasonal limits in allocations.

Industry efficiency standards and codes of practice

There was strong support across sectors for central government and councils working with industry groups to develop efficiency standards or codes of practice. Submitters felt that close consultation with industry and users, including the ability for them to make submissions, is important. It was suggested that current practice and modifications to systems currently used should be considered, and one submitter noted the need for local variations to be recognised.

Some submitters thought that consultation should also include the community, Māori and health agencies, with one suggesting that standards or codes of practice could be incorporated in long-term council community plan processes. Another submitter suggested that time frames for implementation by consent holders could be included, with financial assistance to facilitate this.

Three submitters opposed this measure, for the following reasons:

  • Efficiency of use is relative, and market mechanisms are more appropriate for achieving efficiency.
  • It would be better to develop efficiency measures than standards.
  • Development of industry standards or codes of practice could imply potential for use of clawback mechanisms.

Financial assistance for efficient technology

Support for this measure came from a wide range of submitters. Some suggestions were made as to how it could be implemented, including:

  • rewards could be given for increased efficiency
  • assistance could be subject to conditions similar to student loans
  • it should be delivered through existing grant schemes rather than creating more bureaucracy
  • a portion of rates could be allocated to encouraging efficient use.

One submitter felt that financial assistance could encourage users to find alternative water sources such as rainwater or recycled effluent.

Several submitters opposed the idea of financial assistance. Some felt that this amounted to a subsidy for industry, and others suggested that instead of providing assistance to inefficient users, inefficient use should be penalised to encourage change. Some submitters preferred a market approach. '[Financial assistance] would risk being economically inefficient, and it would inevitably lead to discrepancies and disputes over levels of subsidies to different types of users. If water is made transferable, revenue from sale of water could help users to fund their shift to more efficient technology, and provides the best basis for users to decide whether new technologies are actually economically efficient.' [Submission 175]

One submitter was strongly opposed to financial assistance being given on a change technology or lose water basis.

Resource rental

The suggestion of a resource rental for water use polarised submitters, with opposition primarily from the agriculture and energy sectors and support from local government, community, environmental groups and individuals.

Supporters felt that a resource rental charged per unit of water would be a way of reflecting the true costs of the resource and providing an incentive for efficient use. It was also suggested that it could provide for reinvestment in water management. Some submitters referred to the public good nature of water. 'Water is a community good; by removing it for private gain, the applicant is depleting a public resource at no charge.' [Submission 233]

A concern was raised that establishment of a resource rental should not be linked with privatisation of water.

One submitter, while supporting a resource rental, recognised that it would increase costs for users and suggested it could be accompanied by rewards for increases in water use efficiency. Another noted that some users, such as industrial and domestic abstractors, take large amounts of water but return a significant proportion. Consultation with water users was requested, and it was suggested that further work is needed on how a resource rental can be established in a way that is efficient and equitable. One submitter also noted that a registry and development of a market value would be required.

Some submitters sought an assurance that revenue would be directed to water issues rather than going into a general fund. One suggested it could be put in a trust to fund research and restoration.

Opposition to a resource rental was based on several grounds. Submitters felt it would increase uncertainty, affect the economic viability of existing infrastructure and diminish the value of consents and associated land value. Some noted that users already pay significant costs in applying for resource consents and in capital and running costs. It was suggested that it would favour 'those resource users operating in a "cost plus" environment, to the prejudice of those resource users working in a more market competitive environment'. [Submission 186] One submitter thought it would discourage efficient resource use.

Some submitters felt that a market-based transfer regime would be more effective in determining a price for water, with one noting that where there is no competition, the price of a resource rental should be zero.

Another concern raised was that 'the paying of a resource rental has major challenges with regards to ownership that cannot be easily overcome .... The issue of ownership of the resource is at the heart of this and we believe this process will create divisions between industry and environmental groups also between Māori and Pakeha. Little will be gained by this process and much ill feeling will occur'. [Submission 111]

Other comments included:

  • There is a need to better understand demand and supply before looking at resource rentals.
  • 'If farmers are charged for water, so will environmental use[s].' [Submission 161]
  • A resource rental would disadvantage recreational users.

Community allocation

There was strong opposition to the concept of requiring permit holders to return annually a fraction of their consented amount of water to be allocated by the community. Submitters felt this would undermine security of access, affect the economic viability of infrastructure and be a disincentive for investment. It could also run counter to encouraging efficient use, as it might lead users to seek more water than needed. One submitter also questioned the underlying presumption that the community does not have adequate access to water, or that it is best placed to select appropriate investment.

It was suggested that the proposal is overly complicated and a better approach would be to ensure that initial allocations are appropriate. The role of consent reviews and renewals in addressing excess allocations was also mentioned.

Two submitters felt there could be a place for this measure as a means of restoring environmental flows in a situation where sudden reductions in entitlements would be too disruptive, or in conjunction with water storage. Another submitter suggested that a percentage of water allocations should be made available to tangata whenua in their rohe to recognise rangatiratanga and the Treaty partnership.

General comments on alternative approaches

Submitters noted that some of the alternative approaches listed are already available and being used by regional councils. It was suggested that proposals for new tools should be discussed in detail with regional councils and that councils should consult with communities through planning processes before adopting any controversial mechanisms. One submitter thought that relevant tools should be offered to councils following an audit. Another suggested that freshwater plans using integrated approaches should be made a requirement.

The need for any tools to recognise local requirements and environmental variability, and to be practically based, was stressed. Submitters felt that councils should be able to decide which tools to use to address local problems, although the need for clear parameters and consistent standards of implementation between regions was also identified as important in providing certainty to users.

Several submitters thought that there was a gap in the approaches identified in relation to dealing with diffuse discharges. Some noted particular difficulties under the current system, including cross-jurisdictional issues between regional council functions regarding discharges and the district council responsibility for controlling land use. The difficulty of dealing with stormwater discharges entering reticulated systems was also mentioned.

A number of potential tools were identified for addressing water quality issues, namely:

  • a requirement that abstraction points should be below discharge points for the same land use, to promote improvements in discharge quality
  • research into alternative approaches to discharge
  • incentives for sustainable disposal of contaminants
  • catchment-based nutrient caps and nutrient trading
  • levies for use of fertiliser and other sources of contaminants, with levies used to fund iwi and hapū to carry out kaitiaki responsibilities
  • funding of 'clean-up' groups from fines imposed on polluters
  • use of existing tools such as esplanade reserves.

In addition to tools for managing water quality, some other additional approaches were suggested. These included:

  • trading of permits, investigation of water pricing mechanisms and establishment of water markets
  • increased powers relating to temporary transfers of permits
  • financial support for identification of potential storage sites
  • an amendment to the Resource Management Act to enable allocations of water to be set aside to provide for future demand for water supply from urban growth
  • establishment of an agency with a mandate to plan long-term development of water resources
  • initiation and dissemination of research into efficient water use and best practice (such as the use of shelter)
  • development of incentives for the wise use of water as an alternative to regulatory control
  • requirements for use of water efficient devices and other water conservation measures
  • development of mechanisms to ensure safe yield from aquifers
  • collaborative interagency and community studies to develop nationally agreed benchmark indicators (including freshwater, soil and biodiversity) for the health of river and lake systems
  • use of modelling to improve the ability to set effective consent conditions
  • mechanisms to better recognise and protect intrinsic and recreational values of water, including streamlining the water conservation order process
  • greater powers for councils to enforce standards.

Action 7: Enhance the transfer of allocated water between users

Support for enhanced transfer

There was significant support for making it easier to transfer allocated water. The provision in the RMA review to provide for temporary transfer of consents was seen as particularly useful. It was suggested that a greater ability to transfer consents would have benefits in terms of:

  • efficient management of the resource
  • greater certainty for users wanting to establish or expand
  • movement of water to its most valuable use
  • allowing adjustments in water use to respond to changing circumstances and pressures.

The benefits would be greatest in areas of substantial demand. It was suggested that establishing effective transfer systems would avoid the need for development of clawback mechanisms and would be a more equitable way of addressing over-allocation.

Views on the most appropriate form of transfer system were divided between support for investigating a market-based trading system and a preference for a system in which 'no money changes hands between consent holders'. [Submission 43]

Submitters supporting market trading felt that this would be more efficient and flexible than an administrative system of reallocation and would increase 'the extent to which individuals face the costs and benefits of their decisions to use water'. [Submission 264] Some also saw the market as a better way of determining how water should be used than allowing councils to decide priorities. However, although supporting market mechanisms, some submitters noted that it should be made clear that it would be access to water rather than the water itself that would be traded, and there should be 'no doubt that water can not be privately owned'. [Submission 56] Submitters were also concerned about the granting of rights in perpetuity, because it denies future generations the ability to protect matters of importance to them.

The key concern of submitters who preferred a non-market transfer system was the potential for access to water to be captured by corporate interests. One submitter stated: 'tradable rights would benefit those with deep pockets' [Submission 116] and another suggested that trading had not worked in Australia and 'would be catastrophic to New Zealand agriculture'. [Submission 125] One submitter was concerned about windfall gains for current consent holders. Another reason given for caution about market mechanisms was lack of knowledge: 'Before market mechanisms/tradable rights can be applied there needs to be a very good understanding of the whole water system, and clarity around the boundary conditions for each catchment'. [Submission 85]

Some submitters suggested that it would be desirable to enhance transfer; however, it would be difficult if existing users were concerned about the potential effects on their land value or the viability of their operations. Several submitters from the agriculture sector were concerned that the proposal to enhance transfer might be connected to other suggestions about reducing allocations. These submitters supported transfer between users by agreement, but strongly opposed any idea that transfer might be forced and result in reductions in total volume allocated over time.

One submitter was only supportive of transfer of water permits if accompanied by a resource rental, to ensure equity and reduce the likelihood of a goldrush mentality.

Submitters were very clear that further consultation was required prior to any changes being made.

Tools to enhance transfer

Development of a registry system to record transfers was widely supported, and one submitter proposed a review of available New Zealand systems to identify one that would be suitable. This submitter felt that a registry system might strengthen rights and so assist consent holders to obtain finance. A suggestion was made that central government could be involved in monitoring council registries; another submitter felt there should be a national and compulsory registry system.

There was also support for central government involvement in disseminating good practice guidelines and ideas to local government. Some local government submitters suggested clarification on what is considered to be a transfer would be helpful, for example, whether or not cooperative rationing between users during droughts would be a transfer. A suggestion was made by other submitters that a national policy statement could be developed to facilitate transfer.

Several submitters who supported investigation of market mechanisms felt that the proposals in Action 7 do not go far enough and that there should be more active steps taken to stimulate markets.

Controls on transfer

The need for local government control, administration and monitoring of any transfer system was stressed by many submitters. One submitter also noted: 'It is essential that the public develops a good understanding of the process and has confidence in any structure put in place'. [Submission 260] Other submitters commented on the need for a policy framework for transfer to be set in regional plans to ensure water is used appropriately and efficiently, and for there to be extensive community consultation on this.

Submitters identified the need for various controls on the ability to transfer water permits, although it was also noted that rules for temporary transfers should be relatively simple. If such transfers are to be encouraged, it was felt the process should be quick and have low transaction costs.

The need to ensure that environmental concerns are satisfied was identified. This included restricting transfers to within the same catchment or aquifer, providing for minimum flows and instream needs first, imposing allocation limits, taking into account the state of the source and ensuring that the effects of any change in type of use or abstraction point are not more than minor. The need to consider links between water quantity and quality was mentioned. Submitters also noted the need to consider the effect of any new abstraction point on tangata whenua values and downstream users.

It was suggested by some submitters that concerns about environmental effects arising from a change in type of water use could be addressed by separating the 'take' and 'use' aspects of permits. This would allow for allocation to be controlled by a market mechanism and use to be controlled by the resource consent process.

If market-based transfer systems are to be pursued, the need for controls to prevent speculation, 'extortionate practices' [Submission 66] and monopolisation is seen as particularly important.

Other concerns included that:

  • transfer mechanisms must not undermine existing investment
  • there is a need to consider any role or requirement for public participation in transfer processes
  • issues around 'the initial allocation of credits' [Submission 242] and transition to any market-based system to avoid windfall gains
  • there is potential for sustainability issues to arise from pressure to maximise use of the resource if the value of water increases greatly
  • limitations on the nature of water rights must be clarified and understood
  • water stock assessment is required to underpin a transfer system.

The need for accurate measurement of water use was also identified. Many submitters identified the need for further exploration of market based approaches prior to adoption of any changes.

Pilot projects for transfer systems

Pilot projects were suggested by several submitters as a way of getting a better understanding of the possibilities and potential impacts of water transfer mechanisms. Some submitters proposed a pilot project be undertaken in their region. Aspects identified as needing to be studied included:

  • impacts on water quality of transfers involving change in use
  • quantifying efficiency gains from transfer in different circumstances
  • conditions that are likely to promote transfers
  • any unanticipated results
  • options for technology, software and infrastructure to support a transfer system (building on experience currently being developed in regional councils).

Status quo

While many local government submitters supported the action, a similar number noted that transfer is already taking place. Some of these submitters did not feel that further action is necessary - it was suggested that systems would continue to develop without central government involvement.

Opposition to enhanced transfer

There was strong opposition to transfer from most Māori submitters because of concerns about potential establishment of property rights without recognition of existing customary rights. These submitters felt that customary rights defined by tikanga and rangatiratanga should come before commercial or recreational interests. Submitters identified a need for dialogue between iwi and hapū and the Crown about these rights to avoid the problems that have arisen in relation to other resources such as fisheries and aquaculture space. Reference was made to findings of the Waitangi Tribunal that commercial development of freshwater resources should not take place without addressing existing property rights held by Māori.

Submitters also stated that 'allocation of tradable private property rights in a taonga such as freshwater is inappropriate' [Submission 143] and that trading could lead to an exploitative attitude to water.

Submitters from the environmental sector and a number of others were also concerned about possible privatisation of water or capture by corporate interests. In addition, several felt that there had not been sufficient consideration of the possible adverse environmental impacts of greater flexibility for transfer. The problems associated with transferring allocations between different locations were particularly mentioned.

Submitters also expressed the view that the benefits of trading have not been demonstrated in the New Zealand environment and that the risks to the sustainability of water systems are too great. One submitter suggested that the experience of the fisheries quota system is that commercial rights take priority over biodiversity or the environment, and was concerned that this should not be repeated with freshwater. A submitter was concerned that transfer of water permits will not solve over-allocation, lack of water and excessive demand. Another submitter noted that transferability could mean under-utilised allocations would become fully used, putting more pressure on the resource in times of shortage.

Alternative approaches suggested by submitters included:

  • arrangements for transfer to be made by a regional council with consent holders at the time of reviewing a consent
  • agreement between users in a water user group in which abstractors share a combined allocation
  • setting of community priorities and comparative assessment of consents as proposed in Action 11
  • closer links between decisions on land use change and water management
  • incentives and other assistance for water harvesting and storage
  • a greater focus on efficient use and water conservation for both urban and rural communities.

Resource Management Act review proposals

Protection of existing investment

Views were divided on the proposal for a mechanism to take into account existing investment when considering applications to renew consent. Reasons for support included:

  • certainty of consent tenure is important for effective trading
  • erosion of property rights of existing users will cause uncertainty and impact on investment in rural property.

Some submitters, while supporting some recognition of existing investment, thought that this should not outweigh consideration given to sustainable management. It should not provide for continued inefficient use and factors such as climate change and the health of the water body should be taken into account. One submitter also suggested that future growth in the area should also be considered, and another suggested any mechanism should be used in conjunction with environmental and social indicators to determine the impact of the investment.

Reasons for opposing the proposal included that:

  • it is unjust and prevents competition
  • it could stifle innovation
  • existing investments should not have automatic priority over agreed community preferences in regional plans
  • some uses (such as survival of people, animals and ecosystems) should be accorded a higher value than existing investment
  • right of renewal should be based on best practice, environmental indicators and evolving knowledge.

Determining when an application for renewal should be considered before a competing application

There was little support for this proposal. Most opposition (and support) was related to a concern about the possibility of criteria being set on the basis of priority uses (or 'picking winners'). This is discussed in Action 11. Other comments made included that:

  • this may encourage water rivalry
  • criteria would need to fully consider the need for certainty of supply for industry
  • a competitive situation would only arise if the resource was close to allocation. In this situation sustainability should be the over-riding consideration and the possibility of transfer by mutual agreement should be explored
  • wide consultation would be needed in setting criteria, and national guidelines or standards might also be required.

Action 8: Develop market mechanisms to manage diffuse discharges

Market mechanisms could be developed to assist with the management of diffuse discharges. The proposed action included development of:

  • mechanisms to trade permits to discharge particular contaminants within a catchment
  • pilot registry systems to record permit transfers
  • pilot projects to evaluate use of market mechanisms.

Views on market-based approaches

Some submitters were supportive of exploring market based mechanisms to manage diffuse discharges, including submitters from local government, Māori, recreation groups, agriculture and energy sectors, industry, and community and environmental groups. Support was often 'in principle' and based on the proviso that the approach:

  • is part of an integrated package
  • protects instream needs
  • does not adversely affect existing users (including small producers)
  • gives appropriate recognition to effects of discharges on cultural values
  • allows for evaluation of the effects of the discharge at the new location (including culturally significant sites)
  • is based on good science
  • is based on a first in first served approach
  • includes both urban and rural areas
  • requires diffuse discharges to be managed at source.

Many submitters were strongly opposed to the development of market-based mechanisms to manage diffuse discharges. Submitters urged extreme caution with this action, and some requested the action not be considered any further. Submitters were concerned that the market approach creates a property right (and therefore benefits) for a land owner that is polluting water, and is based on the premise that some degree of pollution is acceptable. Submitters also expressed concerns about the possibility that local degradation might be considered to be acceptable, provided there is no overall decline. Submitters noted that allowing some pollution is intuitively less sustainable than attempting to reduce pollution to levels where it is not having adverse effects.

Submitters were also concerned that:

  • market mechanisms are inadequate at valuing some less tangible values (for example, cultural, biodiversity and recreation values)
  • with a maximum cap on pollution, there will be a tendency to allocate permits up to the cap, rather than trying to reduce pollution
  • transfer of discharge permits may lead to land owners hoarding permits to enable increased production
  • the initial allocation of permits may be inequitable
  • discharges may simply move from one site to another, rather than being effectively managed and reduced
  • in moving from one site to another, discharges may have an adverse effect at the new location, and may cluster in one area
  • market mechanisms will not provide sufficient incentives for land owners to change land use or reduce discharges.

Submitters were also concerned that the mechanism would fail and contribute to an increasingly 'poor public perception of agriculture and its use of the environment'. [Submission 111] In addition, some Māori submitters were concerned that transfer of discharge permits implies ownership of water by the permit holder, and noted that their concerns associated with transfer of water allocation permits also apply to the transfer of discharge permits.

Many local government submitters noted that there is much work to be done to fully understand the potential implications of using market mechanisms to manage diffuse discharges. Submitters noted that the operation of a market mechanism assumes a full knowledge of a system, including the source, transport and dilution of diffuse discharges, and the system boundaries (for example, contaminant tolerance levels in specific catchments). Given the complexity of the majority of receiving environments, councils viewed this type of market mechanism to be, at best, a longer-term option for water quality management.

Of the specific approaches that were suggested, pilot projects were considered to be an essential first step. A pilot project would allow for development and implementation issues to be resolved prior to the approaches being adopted more widely. If a pilot project is developed, local government submitters were keen to be involved. Development of a registry system also received some support.

Development of market mechanisms

Submitters noted that the development of market mechanisms to manage diffuse discharges would be extremely difficult, and perhaps progress should be made on water allocation prior to water quality issues. Submitters identified problems with setting the catchment limit or cap for specific contaminants. Submitters noted the cap would need to be protective of ecosystems, and the economic impacts of the cap on existing users must be determined. 'It is straightforward to develop nutrient budgets for a single site, and to look at changes in water quality between points on that site using a monitoring programme. However ... translating that information to the catchment scale, and assessing the effect of variables ... are more challenging propositions.' [Submission 208]

Submitters also noted the difficulties associated with determining the quality and quantity, and therefore the value, of discharges from individual properties. Establishing the existing use rights would be complex in catchments with diverse land use, particularly where other sources of diffuse discharges (for example, roading and urbanisation) would also have to be taken into account.

Submitters also identified the need for educating people in the market, and allowing equitable participation by those users who do not generate an income from the resource (including recreational users and environmental services).

Implementation

Submitters noted that implementation can be the most important part of a new system. The key implementation issues identified by submitters were:

  • monitoring at the farm level
  • quantification of the reduction in discharges through changes in management, and consequent changes in the amount of an existing permit made available for trading
  • fluctuations of water quality and lag periods between the discharge and the effects becoming manifest.

Submitters noted that development of pilot projects that bring together the diverse experience of regional councils, government departments and crown research institutes may be more useful.

Alternative approaches

Managing the effects of diffuse discharges on water quality was considered to be a critical issue. Many submitters expected the management of diffuse discharges to be given a higher priority in the Sustainable Water Programme of Action, and were disappointed that there were not more actions specifically proposed to address the issue. Submitters recognised the difficulties in confronting perceived property rights in terms of existing land use or proposed land developments. Submitters noted the importance of taking a comprehensive approach to managing diffuse discharges; and that while economic instruments might form part of that approach, concentrating on economic instruments alone is likely to be problematic. Submitters also steered officials to the recommendations of the recent report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (Growing for good).

Research and information

The need for any action to be based on good scientific information was emphasised. It was noted that good quality impartial science is important in changing land use practice, particularly where decisions have to be made about the trade-off between economic growth and water quality, or where actions could affect property rights and land use opportunities. Some submitters commented on the link between good information and good policy and planning.

Submitters identified a wide range of information and research needs, including:

  • tracking and measurement of diffuse discharges to both surface water and groundwater to identify both causes and the scale of effects
  • monitoring groundwater resources and understanding links to surface water quality
  • the health of groundwater ecosystems (including indicator species)
  • cumulative effects of diffuse discharges
  • effects of pollutants and other aspects of water quality (both singly and in combination) on indigenous flora and fauna
  • identification of water bodies at risk and assessment of their carrying capacity
  • tools for managing diffuse discharges, such as nutrient management plans
  • biological, physical and social reasons for declining water quality.

Several submitters suggested a role for central government in supporting or assisting with research and scientific data.

Not all submitters were convinced of the need for further research. Some felt that sufficient information is available now to act. One submitter, while agreeing that research is needed, argued that 'we have to operate with the best information we have available and operate on a precautionary principle for things that are irreversible while we develop that knowledge'. [Submission 89]

Education and awareness

Submitters identified the need for dissemination of both research findings and information about available mechanisms for addressing the effects of diffuse discharges. Effective education to increase understanding among land users and the wider community of the impacts of their activities on water quality, and ways they can change this, was seen as important.

Some submitters identified specific matters that should be the subject of education initiatives, including riparian management, nutrient management and stormwater treatment. One felt that education 'needs to start at the source. For example, retention [of vegetation] in the high country and downlands to slow runoff, retention and reinstatement of wetlands along with reinstatement of riparian margins on all streams and rivers'. [Submission 57]

Working with land users

Many submitters acknowledged the steps undertaken by the dairy industry and others to address the problem of diffuse discharges. Greater use of voluntary initiatives, and inclusion of other sectors such as the fertiliser industry, was supported. Some submitters suggested that any actions to manage the impact of land use on water quality should only be carried out in partnership with affected land users and with industries. However others, while supporting such partnerships, felt that voluntary initiatives will not achieve improvement quickly enough unless accompanied by national policies directed at changing practice.

Planning and regulation

Some submitters commented on the important role of regional plans in addressing the issue, and the need for regulatory controls. It was noted that some plans already contain relevant controls such as requirements for fencing waterways and controls on fertiliser application rates. Suggestions were made that plans might eventually need to require consent for changes in land use (for example, a change from forestry to dairying) to avoid negative effects on water quality. One submitter suggested that short term permits would provide flexibility for regular improvement (by encouraging this at renewal time). Another suggested making rights to abstract water dependent on compliance with conditions of related discharges.

Some submitters from the local government sector were concerned that the transaction costs for them to develop rules that are effective and able to be implemented and monitored are likely to be high. They suggested that central government assistance is needed in this area.

Views about the role of national policy and national standards were mixed. Some submitters felt that a national policy is necessary to promote change in land management practices and quickly reverse the current trend in water quality. Another supported setting of clear criteria for water quality at national level, but with the ability for regional councils to monitor and manage their own areas. One submitter noted that decisions about restriction of development where this is not acceptable are best instigated through local authorities. [Submission 27]

The need for funding support for land use change to accompany a national policy statement and national environmental standards was also mentioned.

Several submitters supported establishment of national environmental standards for water quality. One suggested such standards would prevent councils from setting high minimum flows to provide dilution capacity (with consequent effects on availability of water for abstraction) and instead require activities to comply with defensible water quality bottom lines. Another suggested that standards could include requirements for regional monitoring and for stormwater treatment.

Conversely, one submitter warned of the risk of developing national standards when understanding of some aspects of water quality is not sufficient to provide certainty that standards will achieve appropriate protection. This submitter suggested that the impression of certainty given by standards could stifle further research and innovation.

In contrast to submitters calling for greater regulation, some submitters preferred an approach of non-statutory integrated catchment management plans to manage diffuse discharges.

Submitters suggested the following additional and alternative actions be explored:

  • development of tools to determine the sources of contaminants, measure inputs and monitor outcomes
  • clarification of jurisdictional responsibilities between regional and district councils, and encouraging cooperation between councils
  • development of incentives to encourage land management practices that mitigate or avoid diffuse discharge for urban and rural areas (for example, wetlands, riparian planting)
  • working in partnership with local government to develop best practice
  • facilitation of sharing of ideas and best practice among local authorities
  • assistance with developing nutrient budgeting and modelling approaches
  • improved and nationally consistent approaches to defining discharge permits
  • enforcement
  • land use controls and limits on stock numbers
  • separation of the permit to take water from the permit to use water
  • development of a framework and methodology to define a catchment-based cap
  • development of industry led approaches
  • enabling regional and district councils to levy differential rates for environmental purposes
  • promotion of best practice for groundwater monitoring
  • establishment of guidelines for economic valuation of resources, and working with regional councils to develop best practice guidance on how to measure or value ecological issues.

Other actions

Other actions suggested for addressing the issue included:

  • clarification of responsibilities of government, councils and landowners
  • development of more effective consultation practices
  • development of best practice guidelines and forums for sharing of ideas
  • nutrient capping and nutrient budgeting
  • practical works such as fencing and planting in riparian areas
  • collection and treatment of discharges such as animal effluent
  • establishment of an independent scientific body to advise government and develop environmental bottom lines.

Action 9: Set requirements for regional plans

Central government could require regional councils to prepare plans in areas where water resources are under pressure. The implementation of regional plans could be linked to long-term council community plans. Key issues could include:

  • water allocation and quality
  • addressing the national interest in water
  • exploring the development of infrastructure.

This action builds on proposals in the current review of the RMA. Alternative and complementary actions were also suggested:

  • central government could be responsible for approving plans
  • model planning provisions could be developed to improve the management of the impacts of land use on water quality.

Is setting requirements for regional plans a good idea?

There was widespread support for developing regional freshwater plans. The view was raised across sectors that the RMA already allows for regional plans to be developed. Reasons for agreeing with the need for freshwater regional plans included the view that they provide certainty for resource users and may assist better decision-making about allocation and land use in water short areas. Problems raised with existing plans included a lack of clear methods for addressing water allocation issues, and a lack of flexibility to accommodate changing water needs.

The option for central government to direct the development of regional water plans was met with different views. Central government was seen by some as having a role in encouraging councils who do not have plans to develop them for their area. Submitters considered that regional plans 'should be mandatory to cover water allocation and quality (which includes limits on assimilative capacity), national interests in water and protection of drinking water'. [Submission 120]

A view was raised by a submitter from the science and research sector that the requirement to develop plans should not only be restricted to areas where water resources are under pressure. Increasing land intensification, urban and peri-urban development are unlikely to decrease significantly in the immediate future, and this will have an impact on water quantity and quality.

The option for central government to outline specific requirements for regional plans was also supported by many sectors. Suggestions were made for freshwater plans to:

  • address water quality issues
  • address the national interest
  • strengthen the decision-making framework for water allocation
  • include periodic whole of catchment assessments
  • develop infrastructure
  • include targets and timetables for meeting objectives
  • include a mechanism for evaluation of progress
  • include financial incentives.

The issue of planning for changes in freshwater supply and demand due to climate variability was raised by a submitter from the science and research sector. Central government was regarded as having a role in requiring regional councils to consider the medium and long-term issues relating to climate change when developing regional plans.

Suggestions were made by submitters from the community sector for central government to develop national outcomes and best practice. Central government was regarded as having a role in developing national guidelines and standards as a starting point for plan development. 'Where practicable we recommend that interagency/community studies be made with the aim of achieving nationally agreed benchmark indicators, starting with freshwater, soil and biodiversity, that will lead to an improvement in the health of river systems and lakes.' [Submission 89]

Submitters from the environmental sector also expressed the view that central government's role in regional planning should be to set policy guidelines so regional government can meet them using local knowledge.

Local government in general did not support the need for central government to set specific requirements for regional plans. A view was raised by one submitter that central government may have an intervention role in situations where the current regime is failing, but this course of action should be the exception. The common view was that the action is already provided for under the RMA and would not add value to plans and policies which have already been developed. This view as also shared by one submitter from the energy sector. The action is 'not required; the statutory authority is already available to central government and regional councils to undertake the proposed actions'. [Submission 148]

The fact that some councils are now developing second generation plans was raised, which led to questioning about the need for the action. Concern was also raised about the status of existing plan provisions if central government sets additional requirements, and the problems this could cause with existing section 32 analyses.

Support for a strategic approach

Some submitters viewed Action 9 as providing the necessary support to take a broad, strategic perspective to water management. Submitters from the agricultural and industrial sectors were of the view that councils should be directed by central government to adopt a broad perspective on water management rather than focusing on environmental effects only. Adopting a strategic approach to water management included the need for councils to plan for future water demand, gaining a better understanding of the health of water bodies, and providing in advance for water supply infrastructure.

The importance of developing a strategic approach in consultation with communities and industry was raised. 'All regions need a freshwater plan that is part of the region's strategic thinking. Anything that gets everyone involved in strategic thinking is good. [There needs to be] co-ordination between central, regional and local government to get all the plans aligned .... Regional issues must be decided regionally not centrally.' [Submission 16]

Other sectors also raised the importance of the involvement of government, iwi, industry and farming communities in the development of regional plans. Submitters from the environmental sector also mentioned the need for involvement from instream interest groups.

Particular concerns were raised by Māori submitters regarding participation in plan development. One submitter held the view that although cultural and spiritual connections are recognised in plans and policies, they are not always given expression in planning rules. This directly affects the kaitiaki responsibilities of Māori.

Plan development process needs to be cost effective

The costs of developing plans and making changes to align with central government requirements were raised as a concern by some. Submitters from the local government sector expressed the view that care needs to be taken not to overload regional councils, and in particular less well resourced councils. Central government was also regarded by one individual submitter as having a role in providing financial support to enable community groups to have input into regional plan development.

Links to long-term council community plans

Some support was expressed for the option to link the implementation of regional plans to long-term council community plans. Linking regional plans to this process was seen as allowing for greater community and stakeholder involvement by the community sector. The process could also provide the opportunity to strengthen strategic water management through the development of community outcomes. Opposition to this approach was raised by the energy sector. '[Long-term council community plans] are formulated with inadequate consultation and their content is largely driven by local political concerns as opposed to the sound resource management principles that should underlie regional plans.' [Submission 258]

Water allocation

Specific comments about the need for water allocation provisions included providing certainty for applicants about rules, and the need for a system for comparing applications for water against each other and against community priorities. Regional plans were regarded by one local government submitter as more suitable for addressing water allocation issues than a national policy statement. Concern was raised by the energy sector that allocation plans could preclude the consideration of alternative regimes that promote sustainable development but may not be considered when developing the plan.

Integrated catchment management

Some submitters stated the need for an integrated catchment management approach to be used in regional freshwater plans. Comments from the energy sector included the need for local government to integrate natural resource management associated with water, with issues associated with soil, biota and ecosystems. The need for an integrated water strategy based on science was also raised by an individual. Expanding the scope of water plans to include the marine environment was also raised by an individual. 'A more strategic approach to regions' fresh and marine water environment is needed in regional plans ..., specific catchment plans underneath those regional plans would be a further suggestion.' [Submission 273]

Information about the resource is needed

The need for more information about the pressures on the quantity and quality of freshwater resources was raised by some submitters. A submitter from the local government sector stated that this action would need to ensure that central government could obtain information on why certain regional water resources are under pressure to enable central government funding to be allocated to particular regional problems.

Comments from the science and research sector included the need to link policy with particular research areas. One submitter suggested that any national requirement to address particular regional issues should include a trigger to support a programme of collaborative work with the relevant local government agencies, including support for any underpinning research required.

Addressing the national interest in water

Some support was expressed for central government to identify the national interest in freshwater. Developing whole of government submissions was regarded as one way of achieving this. The view was raised by a submitter from the science and research sector that central government should define the national interest within each region, and advocate for that interest. Central and local government would need to work together to determine the national interest to prevent tension between national and regional values. Another submitter suggested that the national interest can be determined by developing guidelines or a national policy statement.

The agricultural sector was concerned that regions could bear the costs of any national interest requirements. Another submitter from this sector stated that the RMA appropriately prescribes issues to be addressed in a regional plan and saw little value in central government providing additional direction. Submitters described central government's role as assisting the development of science and research to determine the problems.

Exploring the development of infrastructure

Support for the option for regional plans to explore the development of infrastructure was expressed from many sectors. The agricultural sector identified the need for a proactive approach to the designation and use of resources for water storage and irrigation. Regional councils could be given tools to designate and acquire land if sites of regional significance have been identified for water storage.

An individual view was that central government should encourage water harvesting by constructing large storage reservoirs, to ease the pressure on surface water and ground water.

A submitter from the local government sector noted that the option of exploring the development of infrastructure could be useful in bringing the roles and responsibilities of regional and district councils together with respect to infrastructure. This would require clear understanding of the responsibility of each council.

A suggestion was made by a submitter from the energy sector that exploring the development of infrastructure should be outside the regional plan process and may need to involve other government departments and local government in a collaborative effort.

Alternative and complementary actions

Central government responsible for approving plans

Most submitters did not support this option. The agricultural sector were concerned about limiting the flexibility of regional and district councils to address specific regional issues, and increases in costs and delays. Submitters from the local government sector also raised concerns about additional delays. The science and research sector regarded this option as adding additional costs and delays, and potentially undermining the role of regional government.

Some support for this option was expressed from the environmental sector; however submitters also acknowledged that central government approval of plans could be bureaucratic. An audit process was suggested as an alternative by the environmental and science/research sectors. Auditing could include ensuring national outcomes are achieved, and/or determining the extent to which regional plans address and meet the requirements of the RMA.

Model planning provisions

Wide support was expressed for this option across many sectors. Model planning provisions were regarded as part of a wider best practice programme, and could provide certainty and consistency for plan development. The agricultural sector suggested central government provide guidelines for regional government so that natural resource plans are consistent. They were also regarded as helpful for councils to achieve national objectives, policies and standards.

Support was expressed from the agricultural, energy, industry and local sectors for planning provisions to improve the management of adverse impacts of land use on water quality. A suggestion was made by one submitter for model planning provisions to be installed on a website for councils to access.

Action 10: Enhance Māori participation

The proposed action was consistent with the proposed amendments to the Resource Management Act, and included:

  • clarification of the involvement of Māori in planning at both regional and national levels
  • provision of guidance for better engagement between Māori and local government.

Should the participation of Māori be enhanced?

Submitters provided a broad range of views on whether or not participation of Māori in water management should be enhanced. Some submitters were strongly opposed to the suggestion of enhanced participation. Submitters stated that Māori should have the same opportunity to participate as other New Zealanders, and should not be singled out for special treatment.

Some submitters indicated there was no need to enhance participation, as the current arrangements are sufficient. Submitters noted that in their experience 'Māori seem to be consulted every step of the way'. [Submission 72] 'The current legislation, policies, and planning processes actively seek to involve Māori in the various aspects of resource management. Māori are provided with many opportunities to voice their concerns or raise issues within these provisions.' [Submission 114] Submitters were also concerned that protracted Māori involvement in water management adds substantial extra cost, for no gain.

Some local government submitters were concerned that:

  • any discussion around the relationship of iwi with water could raise the issue of ownership of water resources
  • there may be differences in the quality of participation between regions, and that Māori participation in their region is very effective
  • there is no need for further initiatives from central government to enhance engagement with Māori, as long as local government accepts its statutory responsibilities under the Local Government Act 2002.

Some non-Māori submitters felt the issue was not clearly defined. Their experience of Māori participation in water management at the local level had been positive and helpful. Submitters suggested the lack of participation was more of an issue at central government level. Submitters also noted that Māori have many interests in water, including commercial interests, and wanted to ensure that enhanced participation would lead to improved outcomes overall.

Many submitters were supportive of enhancing the participation of Māori in water management, with some submitters identifying this as the most important action. Submitters noted that Māori have a comprehensive understanding of water and that Māori make a valuable contribution to management. Some submitters felt the Māori view appeared to be consistent with the principles of sustainability and their own (non-Māori) views.

Submitters stated that 'Māori participation just must be enhanced,' [Submission 26] and that 'Māori need to be consulted at all times'. [Submission 46] Submitters noted that Māori have a very strong relationship with water, and in some situations this extended to ownership of the beds of water bodies. Submitters were concerned that successful consultation must be real, without preconceived outcomes, and that it must take place from an early stage.

Proposed actions

Many submitters who were supportive of enhancing Māori participation, considered the proposed actions to be an inadequate response - describing the actions as falling well short of submitters' views of partnership under the Treaty. Under the proposed actions submitters saw partnership being watered down, to be consultation. 'To simply focus on improving consultation with Māori, seriously undermines Māori as a Treaty partner and relegates them to merely being another stakeholder.' [Submission 255]

Submitters were concerned that the proposed actions effectively extinguish Māori participation, rather than enhancing it. 'The assumption that the RMA review will provide tools for enhancing Māori participation is misleading. The rationale behind the RMA review has nothing to do with the enhancing Māori participation and in fact will diminish the participation of Māori in Resource Management Act processes.' [Submission 188]

The proposed actions were seen to be limited to redefining the role of Māori and prescribing which iwi should be consulted and how. 'In our view these actions do not address the lack of meaningful involvement of Māori in water management to date, but simply further restrict the scope of any future involvement.' [Submission 229] Māori submitters were extremely concerned at the suggestion that iwi will always be the appropriate body to consult, as the rights and interests in freshwater often reside with hapū. 'Māori involvement in freshwater management should be driven by whose rights or interests are affected, not by the Crown's view that it is, for example, more expedient to deal with iwi.' [Submission 255]

Māori submitters suggested a more appropriate response would be for the Crown to enable the level of involvement that Māori choose to have, rather than restricting or defining it.

Other actions that could be taken

Many submitters suggested actions that could be taken to enhance Māori participation in water management. Submitters were very clear that central government should acknowledge customary rights associated with water, and support the participation of Māori in water management. Submitters noted that this will require clarification of the role of central government in consultation processes. Submitters were also very supportive of implementation of governance arrangements including co-management, delegated authority and power sharing between Māori, central government and local authorities. Submitters referred to provisions of the RMA for transfer of decision-making and the development of iwi management plans. Submitters considered that specialist advice, development of models, and practical tools in these areas would be beneficial. Provision of funding for Māori so that they have the capacity to be involved was also suggested.

Submitters suggested the following tools be developed:

  • effective mechanisms for Māori engagement in water management, including facilitation tools
  • mechanisms to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of Māori participation on the granting of consents
  • resources for local government to enhance Māori participation, including guidance and best practice (local government submitters indicated they would like to be involved in development of guidance)
  • assistance with implementation of the Local Government Act 2002
  • guidance on whether there should be a cost for Māori involvement, what the cost should be and who should pay.

Submitters identified the following solutions around capacity building:

  • strengthening council capabilities to engage with iwi by employing suitably trained and experienced liaison staff, and exposing elected councillors to the Māori world view
  • providing resources so iwi can develop policy statements on water resources significant to them
  • developing focus groups or a network of planners and consents staff across the country, for the purpose of exchanging information and comparing approaches and solutions on specific issues.

Submitters also suggested:

  • development of practical projects involving fencing, collecting seeds, and raising plants
  • the training of more Māori as technical professionals - scientists, engineers and planners - and encouraging Māori research.
  • development of strategies for engagement with urban Māori
  • improved education and understanding of cultural values by all interested parties; for example, through establishing cultural health indices for streams
  • clarification by central government of the status of iwi management plans in the water management framework.

Action 11: Enable councils to allocate water to priority uses

The action proposed that more strategic allocation of water could be achieved by allowing councils to:

  • compare applications for resource consents against each other and against community priorities
  • identify local priority uses for water, and develop criteria to guide allocation decisions within the comparative framework (for example, minimum efficiency criteria)
  • use market tools (for example, auctions or tenders) to allocate water as part of a wider comparative assessment of consent applications.

An alternative action was also proposed, requiring permit holders to annually return a fraction of their access to water, so that it can be allocated by the community.

Ownership of water

A number of submitters raised the question of ownership of water. Submitters were concerned that use of market tools (for example, tender or auction) had the potential to establish a form of private property rights in water resources. Submitters noted 'the RMA establishes a regime for the allocation of use rights in freshwater. What the RMA does not address are any underlying issues of ownership in freshwater as the assumption has been that, at common law, freshwater is not capable of being "owned"'. [Submission 229] Submitters stated 'our water is not for sale', [Submission 255] and questioned 'how can you sell or trade something that other people already hold as a property right under the Treaty'. [Submission 57]

Submitters were clear that they have not voluntarily extinguished their customary rights in freshwater [For example, Submission 229] and were concerned that there be proper recognition of customary rights. Submitters drew parallels with the creation of private rights in fisheries and aquaculture space, and referred to the potential for challenges in the courts and Waitangi Tribunal.

Submitters also referred to Waitangi Tribunal reports, and noted that commercial development of freshwater resources should not take place without addressing the existing property rights Māori hold. There were also requests that the ownership of rights to water be addressed in any future negotiations for Treaty Claims, and that properties returned as a result of settlement would have associated water rights.

A submitter also suggested that 'tangata whenua should have the power of veto over any allocation decisions considered by local bodies'. [Submission 154]

General views on market approaches

A broad range of submitters were supportive of the suggestion of market approaches. Market approaches were seen to be a practical way of allocating water, and ensuring it goes to the highest value use. Market approaches were also seen as encouraging efficient use of water. Submitters suggested that water management could be supported 'through an appropriately targeted levy or fee based on actual water use', [Submission 277] and that any charges reflect the true value of the resource. There were also suggestions of taxes and subsidies.

There were suggestions that market mechanisms could be introduced via a regional plan. The planning process would be used to determine values of water that are not economic, and set boundaries to protect those values. Thus market mechanisms would be used to allocate a portion of the resource, with various safeguards for the instream values.

Submitters were concerned that the use of market mechanisms needs a great deal more work. There were concerns about the nature of a property right, including security of tenure, reliability of supply, clear specification of consent parameters and compensation for any loss of use rights. A very clear understanding of water systems and the boundary conditions (for example, available resource and environmental flows) was considered to be essential. Submitters suggested that market tools should be tested through pilot projects prior to formal introduction, and that implementation be closely monitored. Education of those involved in the market was considered to be necessary.

Some submitters (particularly individuals and some environmental groups) were completely opposed to market-based approaches. Submitters were opposed to privatisation of water and to treating water as a tradable commodity. Market approaches were perceived as being unfair or biased. Submitters were concerned the use of market approaches would 'squeeze out smaller players'. [Submission 106] There were also concerns that the non-commercial or intangible values such as recreation, community and environmental values would miss out. Market approaches were considered to be 'woefully unable to assess non-economic values or values that have indirect or non-immediate economic value'. [Submission 210]

Market approaches were also considered to be in conflict with the principles of the RMA, 'that was set up for the sustainability of natural resources. The RMA was not set up to exploit all the available resources'. [Submission 191] There were also concerns that mechanisms to sell or trade water will create unsustainable practices, and suggestions that the amount of investment should not be the factor that is used to decide who should be allocated water.

Strategic planning

Submitters commented on the need for strategic planning at the regional level. For some submitters, integrated catchment management plans were seen to be the way forward. Elements of an integrated catchment plan were identified:

  • inclusion of upstream users as well as down stream users and the use of natural water where no consent is currently required (including forestry and dryland farming)
  • a comparison of the net benefits of different land uses (e.g. erosion prevention, sediment reduction and flood management benefits of forestry) rather than gross returns.

Submitters suggested councils could determine the extent of irrigable land for a catchment and then prioritise water allocation within that area based on soil structure, fertility and the impacts of water use. The largest allocations could then be made to areas capable of productive land use (but only after human and stock water supplies were satisfied).

There were also suggestions that regional councils should be able to identify where further infrastructure is needed, and encourage landowners to construct and use small dams. There was also a call for central government to protect and/or fund the development of infrastructure. Research was considered to be an essential part of strategic planning. Submitters also referred to the potential for long-term council community plans to be used as part of a strategic planning process and to identify priorities for water use.

First-in, first-served

Many submitters were supportive of retaining the first-in, first-served approach to allocating water, and believed concerns about the approach to be unsubstantiated. The first-in, first-served approach was considered to:

  • ensure equitable outcomes and allow fair process to be applied. Any difference in treatment from one applicant to the next is only on the basis of diminishing water resources
  • be transparent and reliable
  • provide certainty for existing investors, particularly if considerable investment is needed to develop a proposal
  • be largely self policing
  • maintain the social and economic fabric that supports New Zealand's numerous communities of interest.

Some submitters noted problems with the first-in, first-served approach in that it does not recognise the finite and valuable nature of the freshwater resource, encourages applicants to apply for more water than they need, and is inflexible.

Identifying priority uses

Some submitters were supportive of councils identifying priority uses for water. For some submitters support was limited to uses such as domestic, fire fighting and stock drinking water. A number of local government submitters considered they already had sufficient powers under the RMA, to identify priority uses through their policy statements and plans.

There was support for identifying the following as priority uses:

  • environmental needs [This may include compliance with water conservation orders as a priority.]
  • domestic supply
  • stock drinking water
  • fire fighting.

There were also suggestions that projects that benefit the community (for example, tourism) and irrigation projects should be identified as priority uses. Other submitters suggested priority uses should be limited to allocations for instream environmental flows and community water supply - the market should be allowed to determine allocations for commercial uses.

Some submitters were concerned that determining the priority uses would be a highly subjective process, fraught with difficulty and that priorities would change over time. Submitters were concerned that priority uses may be biased towards economic or abstractive uses, and the instream flows would be reduced. There was also a concern that the priorities may simply reinforce the status quo.

Some submitters commented on the use of criteria to guide decision-making. There was some support for use of efficiency based criteria, however submitters cautioned that additional factors must be taken into account. The wider impacts of land use (including social and economic impacts, and impacts on water quality) were also suggested as potential criteria.

The importance of involving the community in identifying priority uses was raised by submitters. Submitters also requested guidance on how to identify priority uses.

Assessment of applications against priorities

Some submitters were supportive of councils assessing applications against priorities, identifying this action as a big step forward and very important. Submitters suggested that the council must take responsibility for the allocation processes. Some local government submitters were supportive of enabling regional councils to allocate water to priority uses, and considered the ability to do so was already provided for through the RMA.

Many submitters were opposed to allowing councils to compare applications against priorities. Submitters raised the following concerns:

  • priorities change over time
  • potential for misuse, vested interests and factionalism
  • risks to investment certainty
  • gaps in information
  • impact on existing consents
  • equity
  • potential conflict between local, regional and national priorities
  • lack of skills and experience of decision makers.

Comparing consents against each other - picking winners

Very few submitters supported having councils compare consents applications against each other.

Local government submitters were extremely concerned about the prospect of comparing consent applications against each other, and were very reluctant to pick winners. Concerns of local government included the:

  • potential for increased tension in water user communities, and between district and regional councils
  • impacts on land use planning and patterns of land use, and potential social impacts
  • potential for inequity
  • increased uncertainty for communities
  • difficulties with acknowledging existing investment and infrastructure
  • difficulties with implementation, including compliance with RMA time frames, development of robust methodologies to enable comparison, and managing impacts on existing users
  • requirement for changes to be made to the RMA, and consequential changes would be required for policy statements and plans.

There was also a desire that water allocation processes be as simple as possible, that comparative assessment would increase the complexity of the regulatory system, and that communities may struggle to participate in planning and consenting processes.

There was a suggestion that any changes be tested through pilot studies, in consultation with regional councils, prior to wider introduction. Some local government submitters also expressed a preference for first-in, first-served with enhanced transfer of consents, rather than comparative assessment.

In addition to local government submitters, a broad range of submitters had strong reservations about the prospect of comparative assessment. Submitters expressed concerns about the lack of certainty for existing consent holders, and the impacts on future applications. 'While the first in, first served method of dealing with consent applications has been criticised the alternatives are fraught with difficulties. Resource consent applicants face high costs (the Trust is about to spend $4 million attempting to obtain consents) and they need some certainty that these applications will not be set aside in favour of a subsequent application that appears to have more merit. Financing applications already entails high risk (of not obtaining the consent) and exacerbating this risk by allowing other unforeseen applications to supplant the original application increases the risk to intolerable levels.' [Submission 260]

Submitters were also concerned about the:

  • impact on existing investment and willingness to invest in the future
  • potential for conflict in communities
  • prospect of endless litigation
  • lack of information, expertise in regional councils and appropriate methodologies to choose one consent application over another - accurately predicting the needs of various sectors was considered to be all but impossible
  • inflexible nature of the proposed approach and inability to account for external variables.

Many submitters would prefer to have greater security of supply and enhanced transfer of permits, rather than councils picking winners. The energy sector was supportive of allocations being global rather than specified to a particular use. The energy sector considered the introduction of global allocations would put the focus on environmental effects, and the rights of existing users would be protected. The energy sector was supportive of the first-in, first-served approach, as it provides some protection for existing investment and incentive for exploring feasibility of investment in new activities requiring infrastructure (compared to tendering). [Submission 264]

Auctions and tendering

A broad range of submitters was opposed to the suggestion of auctioning and tendering. Water allocation was described as too important to be managed by auction. Treating water as a commodity was not acceptable to some submitters. Submitters were concerned that auctions and tenders would disadvantage small users, potential users with less money and instream values. Concerns about monopolies were also raised. Some submitters stated that auctions and tendering would not result in increased efficiency, and may create an artificial demand for water. Auctions and tendering were also seen as providing less certainty for business, and possibly a disincentive to invest in investigations.

Some submitters were supportive of auctions and tendering, with the following provisos:

  • Transfer arrangements would still be needed for dynamic efficiency.
  • Environmental values and drinking water sources must have been catered for.
  • More investigation, development and consultation is required prior to further exploration of these tools.
  • The value of existing consents must be the property of existing consent holders as this will allow for and protect current investment.
  • Such mechanisms would need to be accompanied by protective instruments to avoid adverse effects on the environment.

Consent holders return access to water for community allocation

Many submitters were strongly opposed to requiring permit holders to annually return a fraction of their access to water, so that it can be allocated by the community. Submitters indicated the proposal:

  • would be inefficient and inequitable
  • increases the level of uncertainty for investors (including banks)
  • would impact on economic development
  • does not recognise existing investment
  • is impractical, complex, expensive to administer and makes no sense.

Submitters preferred that the initial allocation to users be sound, and the need for clawback be avoided.

Some submitters noted that the approach could result in benefits to the environment, and improve efficiency of water use. One submitter was concerned the approach does not go far enough for effective claw back. One submitter noted that their current resource consent conditions require that a percentage of water be returned to the community.

Implementation

Many submitters made suggestions about implementation of any changes to the way water is allocated, including the need for:

  • metering of all water takes
  • considering the mining rights in Otago
  • excellent regional planning processes and outcomes
  • community consultation during planning processes
  • requiring efficient use of water through consent conditions
  • consistent standards across the regions
  • water budgets and annual audits of required use
  • research
  • providing water users with information and technology to achieve target gains in water use efficiency
  • adequate monitoring and a sound information base - demand, supply, who, when, where
  • sensible guidelines and protocols
  • pilot projects
  • targeted assistance of local government.

Other things central government could do

Submitters also identified a number of other actions central government could take, including:

  • provide funding and resources to support iwi participation
  • expand the comparative assessment approach to resource consents for discharges to water, or discharges that potentially can reach water
  • prepare resource reports which can be used to develop policy frameworks for catchments
  • establish a presumption that existing consent holders who demonstrate wise use of water will have expiring consents renewed, in preference to other users
  • introduce mechanisms that encourage restoration of water bodies
  • provide financial assistance to existing users to encourage uptake of efficient technology
  • improve community participation in management (eg through questionnaires)
  • investigate desalination
  • demand management including installation of water tanks and education programmes to encourage efficient use of water
  • encourage consideration of the energy requirements to abstract water and support of gravity fed schemes
  • require a fee to support research.

Action 12: Raising awareness and promoting solutions

The proposed action included central government, in collaboration with key stakeholders, developing communication and education programmes which raise public awareness of issues and promote local action.

An alternative approach was also suggested, of central government providing resources enabling coordinated education programmes to be developed by others (for example, Landcare Trust, Māori, regional councils).

General support

The approach of raising awareness was widely supported across the full range of submitters. Many submitters were strongly supportive of establishing a comprehensive communication and education plan, to raise awareness of the water issues. Some submitters identified this action as the number one priority, and it was generally regarded as being an essential component of any package. While there was a range of views on the current level of community awareness, many agreed that increased understanding was useful. Submitters noted that communication and education programmes can play a critical role in changing attitudes and behaviours. Community education was considered to be vital in determining understanding and local buy-in.

The collaborative aspect of the proposed action was supported. Submitters noted that collaboration would reduce tensions at the local level and improve the standard of management.

Some of the local government sector was supportive of central government adopting a leadership role in this area.

Submitters were concerned about the potential for duplication, conflict and competition with regional council initiatives. Submitters noted that regional councils may have better networks and relationships to implement these initiatives than central government. Submitters also suggested a review of existing programmes is required, rather than development of a whole new body of work.

Some submitters were sceptical of the impact of awareness raising on behaviour change, and that promoting solutions is not enough. There were also concerns that national level campaigns may lack regional or local relevance.

The alternative approach of providing resources to other groups, so that they could develop programmes, was also supported. Some submitters saw this as a complementary approach rather than an alternative. However, submitters cautioned that central government must be careful that money is not wasted.

Some submitters did not support the alternative approach. Concerns raised by submitters included that:

  • local programmes place central government at a distance, rather than being directly involved
  • there is potential for lack of co-ordination, resulting in duplication
  • resourcing participation of any one sector is inequitable.

Some submitters identified the need for strengthened communication and networking between programmes to enable each to benefit from the experience of others.

Submitters commented on the suggestion of voluntary agreements. Some submitters suggested voluntary agreements to encourage water users to change behaviour should be encouraged. While others suggested voluntary agreements may not be a strong enough mechanism to deal with water quality issues, and that theyare unlikely to succeed. Submitters noted the need for effective consultation processes to ensure that the structure of any voluntary agreement is equitable, robust, and appropriately targeted.

Part of a package

While the proposed action was widely supported, it was seen as part of a package rather than the whole solution. Submitters suggested awareness raising is an important part of the toolbox but will be most effective in conjunction with other actions. Additional tools included:

  • statutory measures including setting and enforcing water standards at national and regional levels, controlling the demands of irrigation needs, allowing only the most efficient application of water to land, controlling non-point discharges
  • incentives for land users to finance water preservation projects; and rewards, awards and national recognition for resource users who take active steps towards solving freshwater problems
  • learning approaches including development and dissemination of best practice to regional councils, effective science and improved understanding at central government level
  • development of innovative approaches that integrate conservation values with production potential of water
  • a combination of local and national action, including provision of information and engagement with communities, support of community groups, and practical local initiatives (for example, riparian planting)
  • market instruments including charging
  • funding.

Implementation

Submitters suggested a three to five year planned approach to any awareness raising project. Key elements of the plan were considered to be clear milestones, links to the long-term council community plans, monitoring and evaluation. The approach could also be responsive to current issues. Submitters suggested development of an educational and communication programme, rather than an advertising campaign.

Submitters commented on the nature of the messages to be included in an awareness raising approach, and were concerned that the messages be balanced. Submitters noted the information should be suitable for a wide range of audiences, science-based, acknowledge cultural values, and take into account regional differences. Demonstration of practical results and actions was also considered to be important.

Submitters suggested a range of delivery mechanisms for awareness raising, including:

  • one-to one-delivery at the local level for householders, land owners and polluters
  • a school-based education programme, and inclusions in the school curriculum at all levels
  • programmes targeting urban communities
  • catchment level programmes and site visits, possibly connecting to community based monitoring programmes
  • distribution of information through established networks; for example, schools, service clubs, chambers of commerce
  • television
  • billboards
  • radio
  • development of educational material
  • farmer land care groups
  • publications.

The role of central government

Some submitters considered central government should be leading the way in raising awareness of water management issues and providing funding and resources for coordinated education programmes. Central government was also considered to have a role in sharing best practice and information dissemination; and in sponsoring the development of reliable scientific knowledge.

Some submitters suggested that central government should focus on national issues, and leave local issues to regional councils. Submitters also proposed that central government could provide funding for standard messages to be promoted across all regions (possibly a television campaign).

Who to work with

Submitters identified groups to be included in an awareness raising project, including:

  • regional councils
  • health organisations
  • non-governmental organisations (for example, Living Rivers campaign)
  • water users
  • industry groups (for example, dairy farmers, mining and forestry companies)
  • communities
  • Māori
  • Landcare Trust.

Some submitters were not supportive of an inclusive approach, preferring that only regional councils be included; and that key stakeholders, pressure groups and Māori not be specifically included in awareness raising projects.

Suggested content

Potential content of an awareness raising programme was also discussed by submitters. Suggestions included:

  • non-point source discharges - sources, mechanisms, impacts and mitigation approaches
  • practical land management suggestions and new technology for farmers
  • the importance of freshwater ecosytems, including wetlands
  • the value of water
  • efficient and wise water use for both urban and rural users, domestic and industrial
  • integration of water quality management initiatives across the terrestrial/marine boundary
  • a broad understanding of water and how the issues relate to social and economic concerns
  • Māori values
  • the connections between soil conservation, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and social, economic and environmental risk.

Other things central government could do

Submitters also identified a number of other actions central government could take, including:

  • encouraging regional councils to fund a Chair in Lakes Science (refers to the example of Bay of Plenty)
  • encouraging approaches such as the Guardians of Lake Manapouri
  • developing standard protocols for monitoring stream health for school students' use
  • encourage on farm workshops for riparian management.

Action 13: Collaborative projects

The proposed action included collaborative projects between central and local government, scientists and key stakeholders, to demonstrate and test new approaches to water management. Projects could demonstrate innovative approaches to managing the impacts of land use on water quality, and evaluate the effectiveness of management techniques. Interdisciplinary approaches and integration from farm scale to catchment level were also suggested.

General support

There was very strong support for the proposed action. Submitters were particularly supportive of a collaborative and multidisciplinary approach. The action was considered to be essential, important, and addressed the issues identified. Information and knowledge were considered to be the key to making progress and developing innovative solutions in the longer term. One submitter gave full support for 'central government facilitation and resourcing of pilot studies, development of innovative processes, collaborative efforts, and information sharing'. [Submission 52]

However, some submitters felt collaboration on pilot projects was not going to deliver results in the short term, and would not necessarily address the deficit of technical expertise that is available to water management in New Zealand. [One submitter noted that regional council staff tend to have generic planning or environmental training and lack understanding of the more technical aspects of water management (Submission 120).] Submitters were concerned that the results of pilot projects would not be applicable across the whole country, and that the action should not be a priority.

Part of a package

While collaborative pilot projects were widely supported, they were seen as part of an effective package rather than a whole solution. Many submitters linked this action to education, best practice, awareness raising and information sharing. Pilot projects were identified as a key part of implementation planning for the programme, especially if central government were to adopt other actions such as submitting on council plans, developing mechanisms for clawback and increasing transfer of consents.

Some submitters suggested the collaborative approach go wider than pilot projects, and extend to information for Water Conservation Orders and resource consent hearings. The collaboration could be extended to addressing gaps in research and developing accepted methodology for measurement and evaluation. Submitters also saw a role for central government in coordination of basic research.

Benefits of proposed action

Submitters identified benefits of the proposed action, including:

  • development of a strategic and integrated approach to funding of research
  • development of a whole of government approach
  • improvement of relationships between central government and industry, communities and local government; and increasing central government understanding of local needs
  • identification of cost effective and practical solutions
  • establishment of certainty about what needs to be done or where a new idea needs to be introduced slowly
  • increased understanding and cooperation of individuals and groups within a catchment, of the economic, social and environmental impacts of the proposed change
  • strengthened decision-making framework
  • achievement of good environmental outcomes
  • shared financial burden of implementing new policies
  • delivery of financial benefits to communities through abstraction of water
  • improvement of the integration of water quality management initiatives across the terrestrial/marine boundary.

Critical success factors

Submitters identified a number of factors that are critical for the success of the proposed action. Factors include:

  • effective project management, so that linkages are made at the development and funding stage, and then at the results demonstration stage, between all of the groups who have an interest in the outcome
  • provision for peer review and debate
  • consistency with Resource Management Act principles and a strong sustainability model
  • flexibility to allow for different solutions for different catchments
  • consistency in direction and leadership throughout New Zealand
  • an inclusive approach on a partnership basis
  • delivery of results in a way that is practical, accessible and cost efficient
  • a sense of ownership by communities
  • scientifically robust and defensible information
  • evaluation of existing pilot projects
  • clear specification of research needs and provision of funding.

A few submitters noted that allocation limits and constraints on development should be established prior to addressing the scientific issues.

Implementation

A broad range of submitters commented on implementation aspects of the pilot projects. Comments were made on the role of central government, with some submitters preferring this role to be limited to initiation, information dissemination and funding. Others were comfortable with central government providing a leadership role.

Submitters highlighted the need for different skill sets when working in an interdisciplinary approach. While the growing demand for interdisciplinary approaches is internationally recognised, best practice in this area is still underdeveloped. 'This is new territory in terms of ways of working and action, across multi-agencies and multi-scientific disciplines ... what will be key is acceptance by all that new ways of thinking and working are needed.' [Submission 207]

Funding was raised by a number of submitters. There were concerns that funding would be insufficient, and that industry may be required to provide funds. The need for sound information (for example, science, engineering, policy) was also recognised. Submitters were also concerned that adopting a pilot project may lead to a 'do nothing' attitude in a region.

In terms of the more specific aspects of implementation, submitters noted that 'there are already excellent models of such collaboration in the local government sector that avoid duplication of effort and efficiently deliver research of interest to all participants'. [Submission 260] Submitters were also keen that the demonstration aspect of the proposed action not be lost. Having the focus on new initiatives was thought to be unreasonably restrictive as 'the use of existing initiatives and the promotion of these can also be as effective'. [Submission 259]

The location of pilot projects was widely commented on. Submitters suggested priority be given to catchments that:

  • are well spread through the country so that they sample the array of challenges
  • require a small investment
  • face less drastic water resource issues
  • are iconic, but not at the expense of other catchments.

One submitter suggested that each region identify five priority projects, and that one of those be selected from each region.

Submitters also suggested practical trials, learning from overseas examples, a national forum, a cooperative research centre (based on Australian experience), opportunities for discussion and sharing of information. Submitters were also concerned that the pilot projects be time bound and provide working results.

Evaluation

Evaluation of the effectiveness of pilot projects and peer review was considered to be an important part of implementation. A critical assessment of uptake and use of any new tools was considered to be essential. The need for an ongoing commitment to ensure tools are regularly upgraded in light of new technical knowledge was also identified. Submitters recommended continuity planning be considered in the programme's implementation plan.

Who to involve

Many submitters identified key groups to be involved in collaborative pilot projects, including:

  • central government
  • local government (including operational management, policy, and science teams)
  • iwi, whanau, hapū [Integrated catchment management plans were identified as an effective collaborative model.]
  • a broad range of scientists
  • recreational users of water
  • communities and community groups
  • growers
  • farmers
  • foresters
  • Fish and Game
  • Forest and Bird
  • instream interest groups such as the Living Rivers group
  • non-government organisations
  • energy companies
  • landscape architects.

Suggested content

Many submitters suggested particular pilot projects be undertaken. Subject areas included:

  • the impact of soil management on water quality, assessment of best practice and development of innovative ways to assess the impacts of land use and management techniques on water quality
  • the impacts of tile drainage under dairy farming over a small unconfined aquifer
  • implementing recommendations in the recent report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment
  • developing and testing a framework for use of market mechanisms for water allocation
  • aquifer recharge
  • water harvesting
  • the impacts of land use such as exotic forestry on water flows
  • wetlands
  • the needs of threatened species and special habitats
  • the Chatham Islands
  • assessment of improvement in riparian habitats
  • an urban focused project
  • assessing the impacts of potential climate change on water resources
  • integrated catchment management and investigation of what is meant by 'life-supporting capacity' with respect to surface water and how this can be measured
  • use of minerals to mitigate environmental effects
  • monitoring and evaluation of demand-reduction strategies in various settings
  • marine protection
  • carbon sequestration
  • benchmark indicators for freshwater, soil and biodiversity
  • potential use of portable desalination plants
  • water tanks for buildings.

Science

Many submitters commented on research and science more generally. There were calls for adoption of a more collaborative approach to science funding. There were also concerns that the competitive model for funding science does not assist with integrated approaches to water management.

There were calls for greater input from end users to set policy directions for water-related research through Ministry of Research Science and Technology and Foundation for Research Science and Technology, particularly from local government. Water managers identified the need to be able to influence decisions on practical research to address real problems. There were concerns that research-funding mechanisms are not aligned with the budget process of regional councils. Councils wanted to be involved as early in the process as possible (for example, development of research proposals), so as to have the best opportunity to influence research design.

Submitters also identified a lack of coordination, auditing, and prioritising of research. Investments through the Foundation for Research Science and Technology were perceived to be uncoordinated and rarely provided region-specific information. Submitters suggested Ministry for the Environment and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry should be assisting to prioritise research needs in the contestable funding environment. 'This would provide clear signals to research providers and should ensure that the research undertaken is focused on actual need.' [Submission 172] Submitters also suggested that central government require the sharing of research methodologies on projects involving water management.

A number of submitters were concerned funding for water-related projects (including biodiversity and soils) was currently insufficient and that it needed to be increased. This was considered to be a priority area. Submitters were also concerned about the current priorities in research funding and questioned the transparency of the process. [Submission 276] It was suggested 'central government and its various ministries need to seriously reappraise and increase the resourcing of practical ground-work'. [Submission 27]

Submitters suggested that regions should be able to bid for funding for research into water resource studies. There were also calls for a whole of government approach to water related science, and that resources should be available for auditing and reviewing regional information on water resources.

Additional actions

Submitters also identified a number of other actions central government could take, including:

  • installing solar panels into houses to heat water
  • requiring installation of tanks for rainwater for domestic supply
  • requiring all asbestos pipes be replaced with plastic.

[ | ]