The price of clean water 26 November 2017

The Price of Clean Water

1. Do we want clean water? Yes
2. Should we have clean water? Yes
3. What is clean water? NPSFWM  (National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management)
4. Can we afford clean water as proposed in PC1? No
5. Will PC1 give us clean water? No
6. Why not?

 

1. Water is a basic necessity for all life as we know it today and as such we require a supply of clean drinkable water to maintain life.

 

2. In New Zealand where we have numerous sources of water across the country a supply of clean drinkable water should be available to all citizens as of right.

 

3. Clean water attributes are set out in Appendix 2 of the National Policy Statement on Fresh Water Management which gives bottom line attributes for water across various water bodies.

 

4. PC1 is going to have significant economic impacts across the Waikato region in the first ten years of the proposed plan change.

 

The dairy sector is expected to have losses of approximately $2.0 Billion as a result of the total reduction in N discharge which is expected to be in the region of 5 – 6 % reduction.

 

This will result in a reduction in capital land value of the average dairy property by somewhere in the range of $150,000 to $190,000 per farm.

 

The drystock sector will have losses of approximately $300 to $400 Million as a result of the need to fence waterways to exclude stock and reticulate water.

 

There will also be a reduction in capital land value for the drystock sector of approximately $1200 to $1800 per hectare.

 

Overall this is expected to cost the dairy and drystock industries alone, losses of approximately $2.4 Billion dollars.

 

The impact on the horticulture sector is such that under the rule changes that came into effect in October 2016 when the PC1 was advertised for public submissions, the horticulture sector will over time disappear from the Waikato region.

 

When the downstream effects are taken into account such as;

1. Discouraging potentially environmentally sustainable farm business growth, which in turn drives economic and employment growth
2. Consequential negative economic impacts on small rural towns, which have already suffered significantly from rural depopulation and the erosion of community and social services.
3. The demise of smaller rural communities within the affected catchments, as farmers are forced off their land through a lack of financial sustainability;
4. Increased pressures and stress;
5. Closure of community facilities and schools;
6. Closure of community stores that support local communities;
7. Loss of local sports teams;
8. Loss of community spirit.
9. Loss of capital value of land

 

Total Negative Impact in Waikato region will be billions of dollars with the PC1 documents quoting figures of $500 to $600 million dollars per year for the eighty year time frame of the proposed plan change implementation.

This total negative economic impact on the Waikato region comes about even though only 15 of the sub-catchments in the Waikato and Waipa catchments are exceeding the standards proposed to be introduced through the enactment of PC1.

In other words there is going to be significant costs across the Waikato region with flow on effects across the country as a whole, for very little gain.

 

5. Based on the information that was currently available, the CSG concluded full achievement of the Vision and Strategy by 2096 is likely to be costly and difficult. The 80-year timeframe recognises the ‘innovation gap’ that means full achievement of water quality requires technologies or practices that are not yet available or economically feasible.

 

6. From the council figures, we know that 39per cent of Nitrogen and 55 per cent of Phosphorus comes from other sources than farming. The facts are that, yes, farming is a contributor, but it is not alone.

 

7 per cent of the N and 18 per cent of the P comes from point sources and the balance (32 per cent N and 37 per cent P) is from natural sources.

 

If the claims of the decline of territorial authorities and the increased growth of the main centres are correct (and this is exacerbated as expected under the enactment of PC1), then pollution from these other sources (e.g. stormwater and effluent discharge from urban areas) are only going to grow as a percentage of the total discharges.

 

Yet PC1 focuses solely on farming as the source of contaminants in the waterways and yet this is provably wrong.

 

Arguably the largest contributor to sediment loading in the rivers is ignored in this plan change – KOI CARP! When they feed they stir up the bottom of ponds, lakes and rivers, muddying the water and destroying native plant and fish habitat. Koi carp are opportunistic omnivores, which means they eat a wide range of food, including insects, fish eggs, juvenile fish of other species and a diverse range of plants and other organic matter.

They feed like a vacuum cleaner, sucking up everything and blowing out what isn’t wanted. Aquatic plants are dislodged in the process and are unlikely to re-establish. Koi carp cause habitat loss for plants, native fish, invertebrates and waterfowl.

Koi Carp produce approximately 14 times their own body weight of sediment each year through this feeding method.

 

In summary:

 

Without changes made by both rural and urban sectors to the contaminants being discharged into our waterways and controls being placed on invasive pests including pest fishes, we will not achieve any significant improvement in the quality of our water resources.

A. J. Loader.

Co-Chairperson

Primary Land Users Group