I went to the local schools and many of our friends came from Taieri farming families.
We knew who the farming families were, but we were all part of the Taieri community.
Whether your parents were sheep farmers, dairy farmers, railway workers, or cleaners was not an issue.
The question that needs to be asked is - why is dairying an issue today? Why are so many in the community concerned and even scared of the impacts of dairying? An article in the Otago Daily Times, headlined "Dairy operators feel persecuted" (29.3.10) quoted Mike Lord, President of Federated Farmer Otago, suggesting that farmers and townies should be treated equally - with respect to water use and waste disposal. I agree, in part, with Mr Lord that urban users (including domestic users) and farmers be treated the same.
But let's examine where the inequality lies.
I am an urban user.
Actually I now live on the outskirts of Mosgiel and use tanks for my water supply and a septic tank for the waste.
However I have lived most of my life dependent on town water supply and a sewerage scheme, so I write in that context.
As an urban user, I use water for my own personal needs.
I established a low-maintenance garden (of native species, rocks and woodchips) at my home because I would never hose my garden if rivers were at low levels.
If irrigators were on restrictions, I believe that I am entitled to a supply of water to cover my basic needs but I would be hard pressed to justify watering a garden of roses.
So, here is our first point of difference.
I take water for my personal needs, and I pay for that privilege in my rates.
Aside from my health and wellbeing, I make no personal gain from using water.
Farmers are entitled to take water for their basic needs, but that is not the crux of the issue.
I do not know what the rates bill of a farmer looks like but I assume that they, too, pay for their personal use of water in their rates, just as urban users do.
However, let's not ignore the fact that dairy farmers use water for private commercial use.
They derive their income from dairying, which is dependent on access to and use of water. The second point of difference relates to the management of wastewater.
In reality, this is the contentious issue.
For urban users, waste is fed through a system of pipes to one point - the local treatment plant.
It is therefore the discharge from this one point that is managed. The DCC, like other councils, has to meet stringent tests to discharge water from this one point.
In our rates we have paid for the upgrades and will be paying for quite a while.
I am willing to pay my contribution as it is waste from my property that is being treated to a standard that makes the least practicable impact on the environment.
So how is this different from dairy farmers? Waste from a cow shed could be managed as a point source but can we please be told of the instances where this is happening? In fact, many farmers collect the water in effluent ponds and spray the waste on the land. All this does is turn a point source discharge into a non-point discharge.
Resource managers, scientists, technicians, etc, know that it is easier to manage point discharges but much harder to manage non-point sources. I support the suggestion of equality between rural and urban users, but would this mean that dairy farmers would want to stop spraying waste on fields, collect their waste, and send it to a point (equivalent to an urban treatment plant), with the expectation that the waste would meet the same stringent tests that are imposed on urban treatment plants.
This is what equality would mean in practice.
In fact, the issue is not one of equality but one of cost - the cost of pollution.
Dairying pollutes but although the finger is pointed at dairy farmers they don't really bear all the cost.
They derive a personal benefit from dairying but the costs are borne by the public.
That is why many urban users are disgruntled.
"Polluter pays" is a phrase that is often bandied around.
It sounds good in principle but is it equitable? I suggest that the inequality is borne by the urban user.
As long as our pollution goes into the council infrastructure, with stringent tests to be applied at one point of discharge, we are bearing the costs of our domestic use.
But dairy farmers spraying waste on their land, and thus creating a non-point discharge that is hard to manage, means they are unlikely to bear the true costs associated with this practice.
So what is the solution? I suggest that members in the community ask if equality is now the official position of Federated Farmers.
If it is, and that means that they want their waste from cow sheds to be managed as a point source, I suggest this be supported by community members.
The options for treatment infrastructure are available - just imagine if we had a wastewater plant on the Taieri to convert dairy wastewater to bio-fuel.
The water would be cleaner and we would have a new industry on the Taieri - clearly a public environmental benefit.
But alas, dairying at present results in environmental costs, not benefits, being borne by the community.
Many good farmers in Otago are trying to make a difference environmentally.
Living on the Taieri, our friends and our families include farmers.
It is not easy and probably not fair to make a distinction on the basis of employment or water use.
But let's not hide behind the issue of "inequality".
It is not that simple.
The ODT clearly wants to explore this issue, and is to be applauded for doing so, but please let's hear from all perspectives, including those of urban community members, so that we can all engage in an informed manner.
• Gail Tipa is a long-term Taieri resident.
