Environmental monitoring and operations director Jeff Donaldson said diversion was often more effective and not a soft option.
Even when a landholder was convicted for a water quality offence, the fine was often paid through a rural insurance policy.
Despite a prosecution and conviction, improvements for inadequate farm work practices, such as for effluent ponds, did not necessarily result. But diversion required improvements, including any required spending, through a court monitored process, Mr Donaldson said.
There had been about eight Otago court related diversions in the past year.
But the ''integrity'' of the council system was being maintained. There was no ''backing off'' on the importance of rural water quality and on the council's ''statutory responsibilities''.
If landholders did not heed collaborative approaches aimed at raising awareness, prosecution could ultimately follow, he said.
Chairman Stephen Woodhead also said using diversions and exploring collaborative approaches to enforcement with groups such as Fonterra and Federated Farmers did not reduce the council's commitment to rural water quality standards.
In a report, tabled at a recent council meeting, chief executive Peter Bodeker said over the past two years the council had moved to use diversion, allowing the court to impose a requirement ''to make structural changes at farm level''.
At the meeting, Cr Bryan Scott warned a milder approach to water enforcement had been previously tried and had failed.
Dairy farms had a big ''environmental footprint'' which needed to be taken seriously and the ''rules, the responsibilities and the accountability'' needed to be clear, he added in an interview.
Mr Bodeker said Environment Southland used a ''collaborative system'' that engaged with dairy companies, Federated Farmers, Dairy NZ, and negotiated and agreed on changes on the farm, should the operator be in breach of consent conditions.
Under this model, the farm management or infrastructure changes recommended for the non compliant farmers was provided by Dairy NZ/Fonterra.
In exchange for this level of interaction, Environment Southland did not take enforcement action.
Mr Bodeker had met Otago Federated Farmers representatives to discuss the level of non compliance of Otago dairy farmers and discussed if the Southland option could be used in Otago.
