This week, 18 Clutha dairy farmers or companies were stung with fines totalling more than $100,000 by Environment Court Judge Jeff Smith in the Balclutha District Court for breaching rules governing the disposal of effluent.
Does this reflect a much bigger problem in a sector that is the fastest-growing form of agriculture in the district? Clutha reporter Glenn Conway investigates.
South Otago dairy farmers may have been in the dock this week but some say the Otago Regional Council should stand accused of picking on an industry perceived to have wads of cash to pay fines they claim are unreasonable and unjustified in most cases.
Most of those prosecuted in court did not want to discuss the issue with the Otago Daily Times for fear of retribution from the council.
Those contacted were all fined several thousand dollars for breaching the council's water plan by discharging effluent on to land.
One, a long-time Inch Clutha farmer and company director, says the council was unjustified in taking so many farmers to court.
The farmer, who did not want to be named because of fear of the council, claimed its inspectors were not qualified or educated enough, the rules too blurry for many to understand and dairy farmers were too much of "an easy target".
The farmer said he found the prosecutions hard to accept, especially when any excess ponding on the farm tended to disappear into the ground within 24 hours.
The company met all council compliances when it installed a new shed about six seasons ago, although the effluent holding tank could only store two days' effluent.
Since then, a 30-day storage pond had been built "at great expense," he said.
Dairy farmers did not deserve the tag of being rich polluters of the district.
"Dairy farmers do care. We care greatly."
The farmer said there was an element of truth to the view authorities targeted dairy farmers because of their net worth and the rising commodity prices and record payouts that boost their bottom lines.
Another dairy farmer before the courts this week, who also did not want to be named, accepted his punishment but said the issue could not simply be sorted out by spending money on vast holding tanks.
He also believed a new "culture" was slowly sweeping through the industry that would result in standards lifting to the point where offences eventually became very rare.
But, he said, like most things, that would take time.
The recent Gypsy Day phenomenon - the first weekend in June when herds are relocated and new sharemilkers arrive - had brought a huge number of new people to the district and most were unfamiliar with the area's climate, soil structures and other elements different from other parts of the country.
"Soils down here are nowhere near as absorbent as those up north so the water tends to sit on top more.
"If you get some rainy days and you need to irrigate your effluent, that can cause all sorts of problems."
One of the men who helped drive the regional council prosecutions hopes the message is getting through that non-compliance of its water plan will not be tolerated.
Resource management director Selva Selvarajah is also confident a target of 100% compliance is possible in the coming 2008-09 milking season.
The council had always taken a pro-active educational approach about effluent disposal but had issued dozens of $750 infringement notices during the past five years.
But Dr Selvarajah said there was "a minority" of farmers who continued to breach its water plan by illegally discharging to land effluent which then ponded or potentially entered waterways.
Last season, the council issued between 40 and 50 infringement notices around Otago but, realising this approach was not helping the most serious cases, decided to take legal action.
"We saw the educational approach and the infringement approach wasn't working so we decided we needed to take a tougher stance."
It initiated criminal prosecutions against 24 farmers or companies in Otago.
That effort involved massive amounts of staff time to prepare all the evidence, and thousands of dollars in legal bills for a return of just over $100,000 once the Environment Court ordered 90% of all fines be paid to the authority.
Was it worth it?Dr Selvarajah emphatically believes so.
"Our ongoing educational approach, and the huge media coverage that this issue has been given, all helps let the farming community know this kind of offending is not acceptable."
But it was still too early to tell if this week's court prosecutions and the other recent cases in North Otago have made a difference.
That would become clear once calving and then milking cranks into life this spring.
It has recently sent a letter to all Otago farmers about its recent actions, summarising why it took those steps and reinforcing its stance that it would do so again in the coming season if more breaches were detected.
"I believe we are getting the message across to farmers and I'm actually hoping for 100% compliance this [2008-09] season."
Dairy farmers have the ability and now just need the will to reduce and even potentially eliminate effluent-related offending, according to Clutha Agricultural Development Board spokesman Graeme Pringle.
His organisation had worked hard in the past five years to look at all the issues surrounding the explosion of dairying in South and West Otago.
Where once there were about 100 dairy operations in the district, that number is thought to have more than doubled in recent years.
With that growth came environmental issues that needed addressed.
The board developed a plan for a newly converted dairy farm to improve its water quality from the dairy shed right through the property.
Tree plantings and riparian strips were added, while correct levels of irrigation in the right places all contributed to improving water quality.
But he admitted the onus was still on the farmer to make the right decisions.
Help was never too far away, Mr Pringle said.
The board had been proactive at looking at how effluent systems could be changed so ponding and leaching into waterways could be avoided.
It was pushing for travelling irrigators to be replaced by K-line systems which were more reliable and tended to give farmers more control over their effluent applications.
Growing willow trees in key parts of farms was also something to be considered.
Trials in South Otago showed these trees soaked up a lot of effluent for their own good which also reduced ponding.
He admitted it was easier for farmers planning dairy conversions to introduce effective systems rather than existing dairy farmers to change.
But change was needed, he said.
Another problem the board was trying to help with was the influx of dairy workers from other parts of New Zealand who were unfamiliar with local soils, climate and other factors that affect effluent applications.
Pressure is also coming from the official guardians of Otago's waterways who this week pushed for the regional council to get tougher on all farmers, not just dairy, who have the potential to permanently damage the region's lakes, rivers and streams.
Otago Fish and Game Council chairman John Barlow said while the council had taken a tougher stance on dairy pollution, the escalating number of conversions made the issue a moving target.
The council had reported about 30 farmers contacting it in the past 18 months seeking advice on environmental requirements for dairy conversion.
The concept of paying dairy farmers for cleaning up their act rather than punishing them financially for polluting the environment was suggested by Federated Farmers.
But the idea was quickly slammed by Green Party co-leader Russel Norman who said giving cash to dairy polluters was like saying taxpayers should pay big manufacturers to stop anti-community activities such as dangerous work practices.
"It could lead to factories and big industrial farming complexes being officially encouraged to boost the amount of environmental harm they cause in the hope of more taxpayer dollars."
What the Judge said
"There was totally inadequate storage . . . this should not have been operating as a dairy farm with that amount of storage." - Judge Jeff Smith addressing Ted Wong of Guy Wong and Son Ltd after hearing the Inch Clutha property had effluent holding capacity of one and a-half days.
"The system was clearly inadequate from day one and you would have been breaching the rules anyway." - Judge Smith addressing Milton dairy company director John Anthony Lloyd Hewitt.
"I have said it once and I will say it again; if you are using a travelling irrigator, it will break down. That's a given." - Judge Smith, who made several similar comments during the two-day hearing.
The Verdict
Inadequate effluent storage facilities and unreliable irrigators were the two key factors in almost every one of the 18 prosecutions to go before Judge Smith this week.
Another complicating factor, he said during the two-day hearing, was the milking season started about the same time as the rainy period in Southland and Otago which created both natural and effluent ponding on farms.
He was concerned some farms to come before him had effluent storage capabilities of only a few days and believed all should have at least 30 days holding.
The council has been advocating for 90-day storage tanks.
Judge Smith also criticised farmers for failing to regularly check their irrigators, some of which were extremely unreliable.
Irrigators needed to be properly maintained regularly and checked after each and every application, he said.
The Fines
Those Clutha dairy farmers and companies before Judge Smith this week are collectively $114,080 out of pocket after two days of prosecutions.
That figure includes fines, costs for investigations conducted by council staff, solicitors' fees and court costs.
Long-time Kaitangata dairy farmer Tom Finch (75) and his company, George Finch (Farmers) Ltd were hardest hit with more than $21,000 in fines and costs.
They both admitted two charges each of discharging effluent on to land on October 15 and 23 last year.
The company's total financial penalty was $8486, while Mr Finch will have to pay $12,686 for his offending.
