There are in fact many other significant players, or entities, which seems to allow for a continuance of ``pass the parcel'' of responsibility.
The recent E coli outbreak at the Bendigo reach of Lake Dunstan is a case in point.
Fish & Game's ducks caused the problem but who is in charge of resolving this and other water-related problems appears mired in a bureaucratic muddle of motionless uncertainty.
Land Information New Zealand (Linz) has total ownership of the river bed. The Department of Conservation has control of the marginal strip alongside all water bodies. The ORC has responsibility for the quality and quantity of the water. Iwi appear to have a statutory, and therefore significant, interest in all water bodies.
Electricity generators have contractual rights and obligations. Fish & Game assumes a prior right to all fresh water, as its is a non-extractive interest. Somewhere else down the line are the social and industrial interests in water such as town water supply and irrigation - either directly from the surface waters, bores or from dedicated storage such as dams.
District councils and Doc have jurisdiction over so-called freedom camping which impinges on other users of a shoreline. Add in the unmeasurable public interest in fresh water and the impracticable becomes the impossible.
Legal challenges in the Environment Court to each others' interests continue and the existing dog's breakfast becomes a recipe for, and of, complete inertia.
It is unrealistic to expect all of the above to agree on water management during a regional council's nebulous consultation phase. Consultation is actually based on their (regional councils') predetermined position which also must be compliant with national policy statements, regardless of geographic need.
Every submitter to a council plan promotes their own cause as having a higher standing than all others. Few submitters will acknowledge the veracity of an alternative and competitive use let alone accept the need for a financial contribution.
In order to bring about some semblance of a solution to the administration of water, a review of the role played by the various agencies' statutory interests is necessary. Competing water users' needs and wants must be assessed by one entity only, separate from the oversight of a regional council which constantly sits in judgement on its own plans. It rarely ignores its own advice.
A new concept of a river authority consisting of representatives of competing interests in any given river or water body is worth exploring. It would be tasked with devising a management plan and strategy for all significant rivers - regardless of regional boundaries.
A regional council would then have to implement the authority's plan. The present system - perhaps inadvertently - cultivates a confrontational or adversarial procedure where so many different agencies and interest groups seek only to promote their own advantage.
Currently, when an issue arises, the same plaintive cry from all central and local government agencies is heard, "we are currently not fully funded by Government to carry out our statuary obligations'' or ``neither the council's annual nor long-term plan allows for any further funding'' or ``budgetary constraints preclude our involvement at this time''.
The ultimate in prevarication is, "we are seeking to meet with other stakeholders to see where we can reach some measure of agreement as to the long-term management and financial commitment''.
Because of the inertia surrounding river and lake management, weeds choke popular swimming, fishing and boating areas and pest (rabbits, stoats) control simply doesn't exist as noxious weeds spread along river banks and provide them with a perfect habitat.
Ad hoc approaches to camping along water bodies where few facilities are provided by the local ratepayer simply cannot and will not cope with the growth of tourism. There needs to be a complete rethink of managing these assets without constant redress to the Environment Court.
Fresh water is of vital importance to all, so it is essential a dedicated river/lake authority is formed to better manage the "great lakes'' and rivers of the South Island.
In 2010, the Waikato River Authority was set up with funding of $220 million over 30 years as part of the Tainui Treaty settlement. It has engaged in 200 projects and so far, has committed $31 million to that river system. The authority "set the vision and strategy and promotes an integrated, holistic, co-ordinated approach to the implementation of the vision and strategy''. This is done by the local Waikato Regional Council. Apparently, it works well with a high degree of unanimity between the various interest groups as represented by the authority.
There is no reason other than political will why something similar cannot be set up here in the South, from the Waitaki River to the Waiau.
All political constructs need reviewing from time to time to better serve the needs of the regions and to promote a high degree of social harmony through the removal of the current adversarial water management systems.
- Gerrard Eckhoff is a retired Central Otago farmer, a former Otago regional councillor and a former Act NZ MP.
