Local Govt | National News Video | Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Search

 


Will the Tukituki get better?

Will the Tukituki get better?

Tom Belford
July 3 2014

www.baybuzz.co.nz/archives/7485

Maybe. Maybe not.

The Board of Inquiry (BOI), in its final decision, appears to think it has rescued the Tukituki.

It has required Farm Environmental Management Plans (FEMPs) in which farmers must commit to how they will meet specified nutrient (nitrogen) leaching limits deemed acceptable for their soil conditions (as indicated by the so-called LUC system). Farmers will need to use farming practices that best enable them to meet the limits.

In turn, the cumulative nutrient load in the river (measured most critically in terms of dissolved inorganic nitrogen, DIN) associated with all farming cannot exceed 0.8 mg/L. This compares to DIN limits of 0.44 mg/L set for the Manawatu-Wanganui and Otago regions. So it’s a good limit, not the best.

This limit – opposed by HBRC – was accepted by the BOI on the basis of evidence from environmentalists, who argued that the overall biological health of the river ecosystem was already harmfully affected by current nutrient run-off in the river. HBRC had argued for significantly higher nitrogen limits based on a more narrow measure – fish toxicity. The higher HBRC limit was seen as an enabler of farming intensification in the catchment (i.e., an enabler of the dam).

That the BOI accepted the case for a DIN limit is a victory for the health of the Tukituki.

Some measuring points in the Tukituki catchment presently exceed the 0.8 DIN limit; some do not. In its own calculations, the BOI considered that a small amount of ‘headroom’ for more nitrogen in the river presently existed and therefore the DIN limit was not unduly harsh.

The individual on-farm leaching limits and the overall catchment DIN limit are intended to work together. As the BOI sees it:

“Effective nitrogen management requires a two-pronged approach. The first component involves the setting of on-land root zone leaching limits which will serve as an important control at the source of the leaching process (the fence at the top of the cliff). The other component involves the setting of in-stream nitrate-nitrogen and DIN limits which will serve as a check as to the effectiveness of the LUC leaching rate control.”

Will this approach improve water quality in the Tukituki?
Environmental advocates believe the on-farm leaching limits will ultimately need to be ratcheted lower and embedded in consents in order to meet the DIN limit … and that the DIN limit itself might need to be lowered.

In its final decision, the BOI seemed to anticipate that outcome, saying:

“It is the responsibility of HBRC to avoid the exceedence of DIN limits in the receiving water by regulating the level of nitrogen discharged at the root zone by the farmer and monitoring subsequent DIN concentration in the receiving water. If observed DIN levels are too high then future adjustment by HBRC of the LUC root zone leaching rates may be required.”

And further, in its reasoning for not now setting a lower/tougher DIN limit, the BOI says:

“As water quality science advances a different DIN limit may emerge as a more appropriate level. In the meantime the Board sees the DIN limit of 0.8 mg/L as a pragmatic level that appropriately protects ecological health while enabling more intensive land use.”

But can we, as the “pragmatic” BOI hopes, both have our cake and eat it too? Or has the BOI simply pushed back the day of reckoning when we finally actually decide whether, as Councillor Rex Graham says, “It’s time for farmers to adapt to the river instead of the river adapting to the farmers”?

In all likelihood, if the BOI-ordered regime stands (at this writing, the involved parties have 10 more working days to file legal appeals), sooner or later the Regional Council will have the same political hot potato back on its hands.

If the DIN limit is exceeded a few years down the road, environmentalists will argue for ratcheting down the on-farm leaching rates, as the BOI foresees. But the HBRC, if it maintains its historic and current mindset, can be expected to say: NO, we can’t do that … we’ve already built a dam and farmers have borrowed millions to irrigate and intensify. We must raise the DIN limit instead … or better still, toss that approach entirely, and switch to more accommodating fish toxicity limits.

Surely, you say, that’s not a possibility. Hasn’t the BOI, having studied the matter for over a year, definitively ordered a regime based on DIN limits?

Yes, they did. But, for all practical purposes, the BOI is already history. The political wheel is already turning.

Today, the Government announced its new National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (download here). It’s a wimpy disappointment, as expected. And what measure does this NPS adopt for assessing and protecting water quality – fish toxicity! Exactly what the BOI rejected.

So stay tuned folks, the Tukituki ain’t getting better yet. And that’s without the farming intensification a potential dam will encourage.

The BOI might well turn out to be a minor bump in the road — mere road kill — for the dam juggernaut.

ENDS

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

2040 Target And Lower Standards: “Swimmable” Rivers Five Times More Likely To Make You Sick

Forest & Bird has condemned the government’s new water quality standards, warning New Zealanders that they lock in current levels of water pollution and allow for a 5-fold increase in the chance of getting sick from swimming in a river.

“Despite an explicit assurance from Minister Smith that the new water standards would provide for human and ecosystem health, he has failed to deliver on either of these things,” says Forest & Bird CEO Kevin Hague. More>>

ALSO:

 
 

Immigration: Clampdown On Rogue Employers Good First Step

The Human Trafficking Research Coalition is pleased at the new clampdown on rouge employers who exploit migrants announced by Minister Woodhouse this morning, and believes this is a step in the right direction. More>>

ALSO:

Mayor: 750 New Social And Affordable Homes For Wellington (Over A Decade)

The next stage of Wellington’s Housing Upgrade Programme will see at least 750 new units of social and affordable housing built over the next decade, Mayor Justin Lester has announced. More>>

ALSO:

22/2: Christchurch Quake Memorial Unveiled

A city, a region, a nation and an international community impacted by the Canterbury Earthquakes will come together to mark the sixth anniversary of the deadly quake and dedicate Oi Manawa Canterbury Earthquake National Memorial. More>>

ALSO:


November Quakes:

Gordon Campbell: On The Mana-Maori Party Deal

If the self-interest involved wasn’t so blatant, the electorate deal between the Maori Party and Hone Harawira would be kind of poignant. It’s a bit like seeing the remaining members of Guns’n’Roses or the Eagles back on the road touring the nostalgia circuit… playing all the old hits of Maori unity and kaupapa Maori politics. More>>

ALSO:

Private Provision: First Social Bond To Focus On Mental Health

New Zealand’s first social bond will help around 1700 people with mental illness into work, Finance Minister Steven Joyce and Social Investment Minister Amy Adams say. More>>

ALSO:

Immigration: Short Reprieve For Nine Indian Students

A temporary hold on deportations of nine Indian students is a step in the right direction but the Government urgently needs to implement safeguards to stop further injustices to more international students, the Green Party says. More>>

EARLIER:


Megaupload Case: High Court Rules Dotcom, Co-Accused Eligible For Extradion

Internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom and his three co-accused are eligible for extradition to the United States, New Zealand's High Court ruled... Justice Murray Gilbert upheld a decision by the District Court that there were grounds for Dotcom, Mathias Ortmann, Bram van der Kolk and Finn Batato to be extradited. More>>

ALSO:

PREVIOUSLY:

Port Hills Fire: Midday Update, Monday 20 February

• 9 homes destroyed
• 2 homes with partial damage. Damage includes things like cracked windows, heat damage.
• 3 properties with damage to other external structures e.g sheds or outbuildings More>>

ALSO:

Get More From Scoop

 

LATEST HEADLINES

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Regional
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news