Dairy effluent ponding on one of Big Sky Dairy Farms' holdings was at the "higher end" of the carelessness spectrum rather than deliberate, Environment Court Judge Gordon Whiting, of Auckland, said in Dunedin this week.
Following an inspection by the Otago Regional Council, Big Sky Dairy, which is in receivership, admitted one charge of discharging dairy herd effluent to land on its Saran Dairy Farm in Ranfurly on October 9, 2008, Counsel Allie Cunninghame said the discharge was relatively minor and the resulting ponding did not affect neighbouring properties.
There was no evidence a long-lasting environmental effect had occurred.
The land was intensively farmed and the area had been affected by higher than normal rainfall which saturated the ground, contributing to the ponding.
Part of the land was hardened, as it was a former cattle track, making it difficult for the effluent to dissipate, she said.
It was not a deliberate attempt to breach the rule but the result of insufficient storage making irrigation necessary, she said.
The company had since spent $30,000 to increase the farm's effluent storage.
Judge Whiting said he accepted the ponding had not found its way into any waterway.
There was a lack of foresight on the farm manager's part in deciding to turn on the irrigator, despite the rain, to avoid the pond overflowing, he said.
"It's [at] the higher end of the carelessness spectrum."
The receivers had sought advice from the regional council.
Big Sky Dairy was convicted and fined $8500, court costs $130, solicitors' fees $113, analyst's fees $295.43 and disbursements $70.58.
He directed 90% of the fee to go to the regional council.
In another dairy herd effluent case brought by the regional council, Mark Kingsley Brockett (35), farm manager of Kelso, Gore, was convicted and fined $8000 for discharging dairy effluent to land where it might have entered the water in a farm drain leading to a tributary of the Waikoikoi Stream.
He was convicted and discharged on a second charge of discharging effluent on to saturated soils, resulting in ponding.
Counsel Rachel Kennard said her client had assumed that as it had not rained for three to four days it was safe to irrigate and did not check the regional council's soil moisture site.
He did not realise the soil was saturated and run-off had entered the drain which lead to the stream.
The regional council's suggested $25,000 fine was not appropriate for a first offence.
The discharge did not adversely affect the environment as the effluent did not reach the stream.
Council counsel Alastair Logan said the offending was unintentional but careless.
Judge Whiting said there was a lesson to be learnt from this case - if Brockett had checked the council website, he would not be appearing in court.
Brockett was also fined court costs $130, solicitors' fees $113, analyst's fees $724.50 and disbursements $252.22.
Judge Whiting directed 90% of the fee to go to the regional council.
