It is a move that worried some of the farmers on the council with two electing not to support the proposal at a meeting of the regulatory committee on Thursday.
Sedimentation run-off was a concern because it could irritate fish, smother aquatic organisms, clog filters and render water unsuitable for animal and human consumption.
Resource management director Selva Selvarajah said the main causes of sedimentation run-off were poor practices in earthworks associated with farming, subdivision and poor in-stream work practices.
While the council had taken legal action against subdivision and in-stream work sediment run-off, it had not with farm run-off, he said.
"We want an even-handed approach to all sedimentation run-off in the region."
So it was recommended the council take more stringent enforcement action against all sedimentation incidents, including farm incidents, as well as increasing its education around the issue in collaboration with territorial authorities.
Cr Doug Brown, a Maheno farmer, said while he supported the concept of the proposals, he thought the paper was not robust or clear enough and he would vote against it.
Many farmers still used conventional cultivation and it was not possible to predict extreme weather events, he said.
"In high rainfall events it's impossible to control.
It's happened a me a number of times in my career."
Cr Gerry Eckhoff, a Roxburgh farmer, said while he had no sympathy for bad practice, he thought the recommendations were "too sweeping" as there were too many legitimate reasons for run-off to occur.
He would vote against it also.
"Natural events [happen] despite the best will in the world. It's terribly difficult to mitigate."
Chairman Stephen Woodhead, a South Otago farmer, said he was concerned the council was trying to incorporate too many issues.
Dr Selvarajah said if farmers had made attempts to minimise run-off and an extreme event occurred that would be taken into account by staff, but allowing stock to graze right up to waterway edges or cultivating soil without adequate margins was unacceptable.
There was no intention to create an inspection regime.
Instead staff would continue to action complaints.
Chief executive Graeme Martin said any decision to take enforcement action was taken by a group of people not an individual.
He suggested the report's triggers for enforcement be altered to cases where there had been conspicuous change in colour or clarity, significant potential for adverse effects on aquatic environment and/or aesthetics of the water, or they were reasonably amendable to control, mitigation or avoidance.
The motion includingamendments was carried.