Getting balance right for water

National has announced national standards for water quality which balance economic development and environmental sustainability.

The Government has today announced clear, robust national standards for freshwater that will make a significant improvement to the way freshwater is managed.

Environment Minister Amy Adams and Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy say the changes announced today are a critical milestone in the Government’s drive to improve water quality.

“Ensuring an on-going and reliable supply of healthy water is one of the most important environmental and economic issues facing New Zealand today,” Ms Adams says.

“It is critical that we protect and improve the water quality that we all care so much about.”

Mr Guy says the changes balance economic growth with environmental sustainability.

“It’s not an either-or situation – we need both.

This is very important.

We can have, and we need, both economic growth and environmental sustainability.

Primary industries contribute more than 76 per cent of our merchandise exports and largely depend on freshwater, while tourism also relies on the beauty of New Zealand’s water bodies.

“We all want sustainable and profitable primary industries. That will mean changes to some of our farming practices, but I know farmers are up for the challenge.”

Among the changes announced today, is the introduction of national standards for freshwater in New Zealand.

This means, for the first time, New Zealand rivers and lakes will have minimum requirements that must be achieved so the water quality is suitable for ecosystem and human health.

More than 60 freshwater scientists from public, private and academic sectors across New Zealand have come up with numeric values proposed for the national standards.

“In 2011, the Government required Councils to maintain or improve the water quality in their lakes, rivers, wetlands and aquifers across their region. If their water quality is already above the national standard it cannot be allowed to deteriorate,” Ms Adams says.

“However, where a water body currently falls below the national standard, councils and communities will need to ensure that the standard is met over sensible and realistic timeframes.”

To help councils with the implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, Ms Adams is currently considering applications from regional councils for $1.1m of funding for activities that support regional planning and community participation in freshwater management. Decisions will be announced shortly.

The Government has today also released a high level snapshot of the freshwater reform programme.

Delivering Freshwater Reform provides the history and context for the reforms, outlines why they need to take place and what the desired outcomes are, in an accessible and understandable way.

“Recent freshwater reform documents have had to include sufficient detail for the stakeholders who have a strong level of engagement and acceptance of the reforms,” Ms Adams says.

“This document focuses on providing information to a wide range of New Zealanders who care deeply about water quality and are unlikely to be participating in the more detailed consultation phases.” . . .

Irrigation NZ has welcomed the policy:

. . .  INZ agrees that New Zealand’s fresh water needs nationally consistent, better, more direct and clearer policy to ensure it is sustainably and effectively managed for the benefit of all.

“By having national bottom lines and allowing for regional and local circumstances, the NPS and NOF will prevent situations where unrealistic conditions are set on water quality for irrigation schemes,” says Andrew Curtis, INZ CEO. “Having everyone work off the same page will mean that resource consent processes will be less onerous and less time and money will be wasted reaching acceptable outcomes.”

INZ is pleased that the updated NPS seems to have broadened its measures of water quality and now requires a fuller understanding of issues which impact a body of water before setting limits. “The NPS now suggests that biotic indicators such as the Macro-invertebrate Community Index (MCI), should be included as performance measures – this is a good thing,” says Mr Curtis.

INZ believes that if community freshwater values, as now set out in Appendix 1, are to be realised, attention needs to be paid to an inclusive range of factors such as pest management, habitat restoration, sediment loads, as well as nutrients, to maintain and improve river health.

 “There are many examples around the country which show how habitat restoration alongside stock exclusion and phosphate management have created thriving rivers – despite relatively high nitrate levels – such as the Wakakahi stream in south Canterbury,” says Mr Curtis.

“New Zealanders need to understand maintaining and improving water quality is complex and can be achieved in many different ways – sticking a number on it and regulating everyone to this does not achieve outcomes,” he says.

Additionally, INZ believes that the exceptions provisions may pose a future risk and looks forward to greater clarification.

“Healthy waterways are the responsibility of both urban as well as rural New Zealand, and we must face New Zealand’s water quality challenges as a nation. Farmers are not solely responsible for issues with waterways and should not be picked on to solve these problems on their own.”

INZ is committed to finding a way for New Zealand to develop sustainably managed irrigation schemes within acceptable environmental limits.

“Water is our most valuable renewable resource and we believe that irrigation in New Zealand is essential to protect against climatic variations and to enhance the country’s ability to feed its population and to contribute to feeding the world,” says Mr Curtis.

Fonterra welcomes the framework too:

Fonterra says the Government’s announcement on changes to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management lays the groundwork for consistent and robust decisions about the management of New Zealand’s freshwater.

Fonterra Acting Group Director Cooperative Affairs, Sarah Paterson, says, “Today’s announcement is an important step towards a nationally consistent approach to managing freshwater. At the same time, it gives communities the tools they need to make decisions about their waterways.”

Ms Paterson says regions across the country have been grappling with the challenge of setting workable environmental limits. Setting national standards for freshwater will provide greater clarity on the science that needs to underpin environmental limits.

“Fonterra and our farmers have been taking part in a collaborative community approach to develop environmental limits. We want these discussions to be based on sound science and economic analysis, and we believe these national standards will help achieve this.”

“We are absolutely committed to lifting environmental performance and improving water quality in New Zealand. Fonterra’s farmers have mapped every waterway and fenced over 23,500km of waterways. Nutrient data has been collected from nearly 4,000 farms to provide information on mitigating the impact of nutrients,” says Ms Paterson.

“We recognise the huge amount of work that has so far gone into preparing these national standards, and we welcome the continuing efforts being made to complete the task.”

Regional councils are supportive of the standards:

The establishment of National Water Standards are being welcomed by the regional sector as bringing valuable guidance to local decision making.

Chair of the regional sector, Fran Wilde, says the standards provide a clear direction from central government while allowing local democracy to do its job.

“All sectors of the community rely on freshwater for one reason or another. Regional councils are responsible for managing the country’s lakes and rivers and, in doing so, must balance the needs of the community.

“New Zealand’s geography alone results in the nature of rivers and lakes being vastly different depending on where in the country you are. Just as the alpine rivers of the south are valued for their aesthetic beauty, so too are the lowland river flats valued for their agricultural productivity.

“As a sector we believe it’s critical for local people to have a say in how their waterways are managed and to what level.”

Ms Wilde says that minimum standards provide a solid foundation to begin conversations with communities about the values they place on a waterway and whether any changes are needed in the way it’s used and looked after.

“Until now, we haven’t had central government direction around how our rivers and lakes should be managed. The establishment of minimum standards provides clear guidance without disregarding the views of the community should they wish to go beyond these standards.”

Ms Wilde says the maintenance of New Zealand’s freshwater relies on a strong partnership with central and regional government and this is evident in the number of restoration initiatives underway around the country.

“Regional councils and our communities are working closely with central government through programmes like A Fresh Start for Freshwater to improve rivers and lakes throughout the country. In many cases government funding is being met with regional funding with over half a billion dollars from taxes, rates and private initiatives going towards cleaning up and protecting our lakes and rivers since 2000.”

These are minimum standards, not a ceiling.

Councils and communities will want better quality in many places and will need to work together to achieve it.

The Minister made this point in question time yesterday:

Hon AMY ADAMS: At the moment, of course, the counterfactual is that there is no requirement for any particular standard for human health. Actually putting in place a minimum requirement that at the very least every fresh water area must be safe for wading and boating is a big step forward. What we have done today is confirm that every council must consider whether it is appropriate to also manage for swimmability. What has to be understood is that each time we move the bar up through that ladder, it brings considerable extra cost on to communities and councils. If the member is campaigning that her party will set the standard there and not leave that choice to local communities, it is welcome to do so, but I look forward to seeing those billions of dollars included in its financial estimates.

Eugenie Sage: Why is the Minister leaving it to regional councils to consider swimmability, and does she not think that it is a national issue and a central government responsibility to ensure that rivers across New Zealand are clean and safe for swimming?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, I had always thought that that member was a proponent of local decision-making, but actually we do think it is for communities to decide—above that minimum standard, which is brand new and has never been there before—which areas are to be used for swimming and are to be protected for that, and which are not. We are not going to impose billions of dollars of costs on ratepayers and communities in areas where they do not seek it. What we have put in place is a considerable step forward from what Labour and the Greens were happy to live with, and we are very proud of it.

Eugenie Sage: What does she say to the Otago Regional Council, which said that the bottom line for human health should be contact recreation because such a low standard as secondary contact, where rivers are fit for only wading and boating, is “not consistent with the national identity New Zealand associates with its clean image of its water resources”?

Hon AMY ADAMS: What I would say to the Otago Regional Council is that it is very welcome to set that standard across its water bodies if that is what its community chooses. The difference now is that we have a national expectation of a minimum standard, which has never been there before. That alone is going to impose some costs on communities, but the extent to which they want to go beyond that is up to them. It would be a nonsense to impose costs on water bodies that no one wants to use for swimming or that no one has contemplated for swimming. That is why regional decision-making then becomes important.

Eugenie Sage: Why did the Minister ignore the approximately 90 percent of submitters who wanted the bottom line for human health to be rivers that are clean and safe for swimming?

Hon AMY ADAMS: We have not ignored it. What we have done is made it compulsory now for every council to consider whether swimming is the appropriate standard for that water body. That was not in the draft, and the reason we have done that is that we understand the cost impact that goes with that. As I have said, if those members want to include the billions of dollars of impact from putting that standard in, I look forward to seeing that in their alternative budgets.

Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister still claim that no river quality is allowed to deteriorate, when the Freshwater Sciences Society said that the proposed limits on nitrate in her proposals last November have the potential for “New Zealand’s rivers to become some of the most nitrogen-polluted amongst OECD countries whilst still remaining compliant” and her announcements today have not changed the nitrate limit?

Hon AMY ADAMS: I do not accept that, because, as that member well knows, there is already a requirement for water quality in a region to be maintained or improved. There is no ability—and nor do I imagine there is any desire—for councils to suddenly rush downwards in their water quality. In my experience, communities and councils are absolutely focused on improving water quality, but the important point is this: today there is nothing stopping our lakes and rivers from being completely dead environments. That is what Labour and the Greens were happy with. We are not. This is a step forward, no matter how the member tries to spin it. . .

New Zealand’s water standards aren’t as good as they used to be.

That’s because we used to have pristine water and it’s important to remember while that is no longer the case in all but a very few secluded places, our water quality is still very high by world standards.

That said, some waterways are of unacceptable quality and need to be cleaned up.

Most are okay and that standard should be at the very least maintained and preferably improved.

We can and must learn from other countries and the best practice here to ensure that happens.

There’s more information on the Government’s freshwater reforms, including the updated National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management here.

 

We’re taking action to improve freshwater quality for all New Zealanders. http://ntnl.org.nz/1opocYo #Working4NZ

20 Responses to Getting balance right for water

  1. “Today there is nothing stopping our lakes and rivers from being completely dead environments. That is what Labour and the Greens were happy with. We are not.”

    Goodness, Minister Adams. You are not being truthful.
    Nothing stopping …but earlier you said,
    “there is already a requirement for water quality in a region to be maintained or improved. There is no ability—and nor do I imagine there is any desire—for councils to suddenly rush downwards in their water quality.”

    Odd.

  2. Marc Williams says:

    So we get it RG, you are not happy with the Government’s drawing a line and starting with achievable goals as set out in new regulations. What we now need to see from you is the Green Party policy AND costings to achieve your goals – drinkable water in all NZ waterways without exception – no ifs, no buts, no exceptions. Then we can credibly decide if your utopia is practical and affordable in the medium to long term, and vote accordingly. Those who criticise without alternative rational arguments are usually easily dismissed I might add.

  3. Dave Kennedy says:

    We are currently adding around 550 cattle a day to our stock numbers and no matter what National spends on improving water quality it is a fraction to what is being spent to subsidise the growth of the dairy industry. We can no longer feed our cows on what we can grow ourselves and are having to import over 1 million tonnes of palm kernel a year and we also import a similar tonnage of phosphate. Phosphate contains cadmium and we now have levels of the toxic heavy metal reaching the upper limits of what is safe. Many farms are already considered toxic and offal from stock is not allowed to be consumed by people or animals because of it.

    “Conservatively, the average cadmium concentration in Waikato dairy soils is projected to reach the recommended guideline in under 16 years.” http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/Services/Publications/Technical-Reports/TR-200551/

    Practically all fresh water scientists, our Environment Commissioner and many farmers agree that the current expansion of dairying isn’t sustainable and is creating serious environmental damage. The problem is also cumulative, so that the effects of today may not become fully apparent for ten or more years and yet the eutrophication our estuaries is already happening at a rapid rate.

    90% of our lowland rivers and 40% of our lakes are already showing serious damage. There is no likelihood that this will improve with these standards and while quality is supposed to be maintained or improved there is actually the facility in the rules to allow rivers to get worse. As Eugenie said, 90% of submitters wanted rivers we can swim in, just having them safe for wading is unacceptable.

    Southland has been seriously focused on improving our water quality for a number of years now but whatever improvements farmers are making (and many are making a great effort) it is being negated by the growing stock numbers (around 30,000 in the past year http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/business/9501233/Farmers-achieving-higher-production).

    When Russel asked if Key could name one scientist who agreed with the Government’s approach to water quality, he couldn’t name one.

  4. Well said, Dave. Marc – a line, drawn by a Government should be a good thing, but can be done badly, don’t you agree?

  5. “Those who criticise without alternative rational arguments are usually easily dismissed I might add.”
    Marc – are you referring to when Key criticised Mike Joy’s findings, and was unable to provide any “alternative rational argument”?
    If so, I’m with you there!
    Or perhaps it was, as Dave describes, Key dismissing Russel Norman’s claims in the House, when all he could do was block and avoid answering – you might be referring to that. There are many instances that fit the description you gave.

  6. farmerbraun says:

    Dave and Robert, you both seem to be missing the point.
    It is not dairying per se, or its expansion that is the problem; rather it is the type of dairying viz seasonal production of low value commodities.
    As someone who has been practising added-value , low-impact, high- profit dairying for over 30 years, I can tell you that there is a perfectly practical and well -documented alternative available which would be to the economic , environmental and social advantage of Godzone.

    The new water standards alone make it more likely that this alternative will slowly come about , but much more can be done. Personally I favour banning the use of ” milking- platforms” , aka dairy feedlots , without a resource consent which would limit the number of animals held on the dairy platform , or feed lot.
    This is the problem ; too many animals on too small an area.

  7. Dave Kennedy says:

    Farmerbraun, I actually agree with you regarding the style of farming and adding value rather than going for quantity. We have some excellent farms down here that have managed their environmental impact very well. When I talk about the expansion of the dairy industry I am referring to the numbers of cows. That is why I also mentioned the palm kernel and the phosphate. When making farming less intensive, the external costs drop and profitability can often remain the same. We have never had the discussion about how many cows are too many and the point at which we can say that we have too much reliance on one industry. Many believe we have well passed that point.

    What will happen if dairy prices continue to fall or we have another major health scare…

  8. “This is the problem ; too many animals on too small an area.”
    Agreed, farmerbraun.
    Perhaps you will agree with me when I say that the problem you describe is rapidly getting worse. Cow numbers are increasing significantly but land available is not.

  9. Marc Williams says:

    So apart from restricting cow numbers (or banning them altogether), no actual COSTED water quality policy then.

  10. You haven’t checked the Greens website for policy.
    I’m not your mummy, Marc, and won’t spoon-feed you.

  11. Dave Kennedy says:

    Marc, try comparing the government’s subsidies for irrigation and the expansion of dairy farming and compare that with the money being spent on cleaning rivers. Then factor in the lost value of ecosystem services that have been wiped and see how the ‘balance’ works.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem_services

  12. We must employ science, not emotion, says Ele:

    Conor English wasn’t listening…
    On Ruataniwha:

    “Prefacing his comments by saying he had not read the board’s final report, he said “in over-simplistic terms, the board has said you can build the dam but you can’t use the water”.

    “We need to look into an 11-year-old’s eyes and say we are looking after her future. The 11-year-olds of Hawke’s Bay will now be looking elsewhere.”

  13. Marc Williams says:

    So still NO COSTED water policy – I can read the policy (or what I would call dreamworld) on the Green website ’till the cows come home, but still no accounting for the costs. And don’t try the old “but look at what they do” argument DK, grow some and tell me your costs.

  14. robertguyton says:

    Yeah, Dave, tell us the COST, just as National have always done with roads.

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    (Some one give Gerry a medal – his blockheaded responses to questions about costings for roading projects are un-precedented. He makes JulieAnne Genter look considered, well-researched, intelligent and on top of his own portfolio, which, come Septemeber, she will be 🙂

  15. Marc Williams says:

    I say don’t try the old “but look at what they do” argument, so what do you do RG – divert the argument with “just as National have always done…”

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    You’re a joke man(?).

  16. robertguyton says:

    True, I needn’t have dragged National and it’s mad ‘damn the torpedoes, build it at any cost’ argument into it. ‘Cause everyone can see what Brownlee does on behalf of the roading industry and there’s no need to tease the big guy, is there. It is irksome though, for National to be using money from the asset sales to pump up their roading obsession, isn’t it? That’s just ill.
    I’m still not going to spoon-feed you though. Dave might. He’s kinder than I am.

  17. JC says:

    Fortunately the rest of the world isn’t infected with the craziness often seen here.. NZ is rated 5th in the world overall as a net contributor to Man and the planet and 7th on environmental issues.

    http://www.goodcountry.org/

    JC

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: