Environment Southland is keeping a close eye on a court case it says could have huge implications for farmers and regional councils.
Forest and Bird's Christchurch office wants the High Court to declare animal faeces and urine a discharge under national land and water management rules, in circumstances where excreta could enter waterways.
Environment Canterbury is named as the defendant, but the case has wide-ranging implications across the country.
If Forest and Bird wins, all farmers running livestock could potentially need resource consent, Environment Southland policy, planning and regulatory services director Vin Smith said.
That would result in a significant increase in workload for regional councils, whose staff would have to process and police consents, he said.
At present, only intensive operations such as dairy farms need effluent disposal consents.
The court action was lodged on July 30 and was not expected to be heard until next year, Mr Smith said in a report to a council meeting on Wednesday.
''Also, such a case is likely to be appealed beyond the High Court, given the wide-ranging implications.''
Forest and Bird has served notice on 22 parties it considers have an interest in the case, including Environment Southland and other regional councils, milk companies, the Ministry for the Environment, Ngai Tahu and Federated Farmers.
They have been invited to enter into preliminary discussions with Forest and Bird.
Environment Southland councillors decided at the meeting to keep a watching brief on court proceedings but not to enter into discussions.
Chairwoman Ali Timms said yesterday having to issue consents for all livestock operations ''was not something we want to be working through at all'', and farmers would be unhappy, too.
However, the council was taking a ''wait-and-see approach'' as the court action might not succeed.
''Personally, I can't imagine how anything like this could actually be enforced.''
Ms Timms said Environment Southland was working on its major Water and Land 2020 and Beyond plan to ensure Southland's water management rules were consistent with the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management.
The concept of all animal excreta needing to be regulated was an idea ''coming in from the side'' of that planning, she said.
In its documents lodged with the court, Forest and Bird said the question of whether excreta was a discharge under section 15 (1) of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and/or under the freshwater management policy was raised recently in an Environment Court hearing considering an application to irrigate farmland in the Canterbury high country to enable more intensive farming.
Forest and Bird wants the High Court to decide if excreta is covered by existing regulations in Environment Canterbury plans, or if it should be considered a discharge under national rules.
