Opinions vary but can you swim in it?

The Government's proposed amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management have received the backing of the agricultural industry.

Environment Minister Amy Adams and Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy released a discussion document on November 7 which detailed the Government's proposals for improving freshwater management.

The proposed amendments include the creation of a national framework for freshwater management, setting bottom lines for maintaining ecosystems and human health, the requirement for councils to account for all water takes and contaminant discharges and recognition of the value of freshwater to iwi.

The proposals are the result of the work of the Land and Water Forum and more than 60 freshwater scientists were involved in establishing the national bottom lines for freshwater health.

Federated Farmers environment spokesman Ian Mackenzie lauded the proposals as a ''collaborative response to what has been a collaborative process''.

''This also is about giving communities the power to set their own aspirations for water,'' Mr Mackenzie said.

''For the first time this will be scientifically, culturally and economically informed. It won't be easy and will need some sacrifice from agriculture and urban communities alike.''

While the framework was not complete, the proposals and consultation were ''important steps towards a more open and honest discussion about water'', he said.

Horticulture New Zealand resource management business manager Chris Keenan said national regulation would benefit the industry.

''That alone will make business much easier for growers and will keep costs down,'' Mr Keenan said.

The proposals were robust and allowed ''plenty of scope for communities to be as tough as they like'' in terms of local freshwater management, he said.

''The new framework only sets bottom limits and these are up to communities and their regional councils to debate and decide, according to what their values and needs are,'' Mr Keenan said.

However, Otago Regional Council chairman Stephen Woodhead and Environment Southland chairwoman Ali Timms were concerned about aspects of the proposals.

Mr Woodhead said ''the overall principal of improving or maintaining water quality is fine'', but believed the proposed national bottom lines were ''reasonably lax''.

The proposals dealt with recreational and secondary contact with freshwater, which was not strong enough, he said.

''Our community have told the ORC that they want to be able to swim and have contact with the water in Otago,'' Mr Woodhead said.

''The bottom lines in the amendments are focused on wading and boating, it's almost secondary contact or laxer than that.

''We are accountable to the people of Otago and our standards ... are way ahead of what is proposed here.''

While he was pleased the proposals gave ''some direction'', he was also concerned because the proposals dealt with overall water quality in a region, ''some waterways will be able to continue to degrade as long as some other waterways in the region improve''.

Ms Timms said she was concerned the proposals did not deal with the water quality of estuaries, as in Southland ''that's where most degraded water is''.

She shared Mr Woodhead's concern about overall water quality and believed more work needed to be done as it was ''just too broad''.

However, she felt the proposals were a ''good start''.

Green Party water spokeswoman Eugenie Sage said the ORC had not ''been leading the way'' in terms of freshwater management and, if Mr Woodhead felt the bottom lines were too soft, ''what's the point?'' of them.

It was a ''major problem'' that regional councils were not required to set bottom lines for freshwater quality for swimming, she said.

''Our major concern is that the Government is giving up on some of the rivers,'' Ms Sage said.

Ms Adams said this was ''the next step in a process that will take years''.

Add a Comment