Among them were a call for backing up of the science behind the decisions in the Essential Freshwater proposal, and many calling on the Government to increase the bottom line figure, considered unrealistic.
Ashburton District mayor Donna Favel kicked off question time with council's concern over the time available before submissions closed, given the running of local government elections.
She said the short turnaround period would limit the council's chance to advocate for the district.
Ministry for the Environment's (MFE) Amanda Moran said it was a common issue raised but the Government were ''keen to move forward with this, before and after the (local body) elections.''
''It is submissions on a discussion process,'' she said.
Waimate District Council's Tom O'Connor said farmers were already dealing with other technical regulations such as Environment Canterbury's Plan Change 7 and wanted to know how all the regulations would mesh together.
He was assured they would, with proposals sent for analysis for the minister to consider over summer and come into effect mid next year.
''From here regional councils will need to decide where they are at with their own plans, where there are gaps to comply with the national process.
''Then they will have five years to comply and fill those gaps.''
Arable farmer Ian Mackenzie, of Eiffelton, in Mid Canterbury, said some of the information was misleading because if the proposal was taken as written, the level of one milligram of nitrogen would need to be taken into effect immediately.
''Our issue with that is one milligram of dissolving inorganic nitrogen actually isn't something we can aspire to because it puts us all out of business. We can aspire to 6.9, and certainly for the Hinds plains it's a difficult target, but we know we can't ever get to one.''
''What you're actually proposing it's not innovation or tweaking of agriculture, it's actually closing down any type of industry in this district.''
Mr Mackenzie wanted to know how robust the discussion was on the science.
Ministry for the Environment's Martin Workman said among those in the group was a NIWA scientist saying that one milligram per litre was ''the bottom line that we should be moving towards''.
It was a bottom line for councils and their communities to work towards, and was not expected straight away, Mr Workman said.
Freshwater leaders group member Hugh Logan said the one milligram target was the level needed for aquatic health.
Farmer and district councillor Neil Brown questioned the levels of the Mid Canterbury's main rivers, and was informed the Rakaia, Ashburton and Rangitata rivers catchments were all under one milligram per litre level.
Other countries such as Australia, America, United Kingdom, and Europe, including China, had a standard that was similar or where the figure was in the same ball park.
Mr Logan said the details of reaching that target was up to government policy which had to consider the implications, which was what was happening now with the consultation proposals.
Others at the meeting questioned the cost of fencing, planting and the benefits of carbon credits, but were shot down with comments that ''compensation talk was not helpful''.
However they were encouraged to include the ''biodiversity benefits of planting and eco-system services being done on farm'' which were beneficial for wider New Zealand and needed to be considered.
And others still raised the issue that the Resource Management Act needed fixing before streamlining the system, and of the importance of economic analysis, especially for the downturn on small towns like Ashburton.
Ms Moran said the work going on right now was ''too important to wait for RMA reform, which was why the talks were going on now.''
And economic analysis was part of the discussion; however, there was costings and benefits data on stock exclusion and sediment.
There was more detailed work needed on nitrogen values for economic decisions.
The environmental outcomes had been considered first, which would be followed by economic costs - which would help with feasibility and timing considerations.
The comment drew the ire of attendees who said the rural community was already under pressure on farm, with the potential for increased levels of suicide.
But they were encouraged to ''put those considerations into their submissions''.
Irrigation companies staff Mel Brooks (MHV), and Rebecca Whillans (ALIL) spoke, as did Irrigo Centre's Eva Harris, who said constant rule changes were guaranteed to mean nothing was done, but consideration needed to be given to the social impacts a blanket approach would take.
Angela Cushnie agreed that rural wellbeing and social sustainability needed to be considered to eliminate stress, anxiety and uncertainty, especially in an area already impacted in that regard.
Everyone agreed the most important thing was not to lose sight of the people.
Mrs Brooks questioned whether the Hinds River was even included in the process due to its legal definition, and said the proposal was ''a little bit fluffy from an urban perspective'' with untreated storm water.
She questioned what the national bottom line was on heavy metal treatments and was assured those ''big issues'' mostly caused by building materials and vehicles were being worked on by government, councils and New Zealand Transport Agency in order to find solutions.
Mr Brown and fellow dairy farmer Willy Leferink also questioned the economic consequences for farmers and the district, with many farming to a five-year land use consent.
It would be difficult to plan around strict rules, especially with cautious financial lenders.
''You can only be environmentally friendly if in the black,'' Mr Leferink said.
Those leading the meeting said banks also had a key role to play in how they were going to support people through the changes.
-Submissions on the proposal officially close on October 17, at 5pm, but due to overwhelming demand, late submissions will be accepted up until October 31.
