Government rejects & opposition embraces campaigners' calls for fresh waterways to be made 'swimmable' at the very least

Government rejects & opposition embraces campaigners' calls for fresh waterways to be made 'swimmable' at the very least

The Government has shut the door on the 12,000 people who have signed a petition calling for a requirement for our fresh waterways to be “swimmable” at the very least.

The Minister for the Environment Nick Smith says it’s “not realistic nor achievable” for the Government to legislate that all freshwater in lakes, rivers, streams, groundwater, wetlands and estuaries, be “swimmable” rather than “wadeable”, as is currently the case.

Yet the Labour Party is committing to making “swimmable” the minimum standard if it was to be elected into power.

The issue has been debated in Parliament as campaigners have delivered the Choose Fresh Water petition, backed by the Tourism Export Council, to the Beehive.

It’s pertinent as the Government’s reforming the way it regulates fresh water. It’s seeking public submissions (up until April 22) on proposals it has made to improve the management of fresh water in New Zealand.

In its consultation document, ‘Next steps for fresh water’, it says: “This issue is more complex than just requiring all water bodies to be swimmable all of the time.

“Water bodies frequently – in natural as well as developed catchments – breach swimmable water standards during high rainfall events, and achieving such an absolute standard would come at a cost way beyond what is realistic.

“Nor do people want to swim every day of the year, including when rivers are in flood.

“We need a more sophisticated approach... We want an approach that improves water quality but is also realistic about the time, cost and impacts of achieving this important goal.”

National: Why spend billions making waterways we don’t swim in “swimmable”?

Smith repeated this rhetoric during question time in Parliament today, adding:

“Of the 425,000km of rivers and streams, only about 11% physically are able to be swum in, and it would cost billions and billions of dollars to make some of those streams swimmable when no one ever has, and no one ever will swim there.

“We also have water bodies which have significant bird populations where the only way to make them swimmable would be to cull the bird life.”

Smith suggested that is some cases communities would have to choose between having swimmable waterways or healthy bird life.

He avoided commenting on Greens MP, Catherine Delahunty’s, suggestion fresh water contaminated by natural occurrences likes birds, volcanic ash and floods, could be exempt from the “swimmable” standard.

He said the Government had spent $115 million on improving water quality over the last seven years, noting only $20 million had been spent during the previous seven years.

Furthermore, “Over the last 25 years, the amount of pollution from point source – factories, dairy sheds, council municipal systems – has actually reduced by about 90%,” he said.

Smith responded to a question from Labour’s Spokesperson for the Environment David Parker, saying all fresh waterways are currently required to be improved, or maintained at the very least.

Labour: Beef farms risk dirtying waterways as dairy farms have

Speaking to interest.co.nz, Parker said Smith was wrong.

“The problem with the current National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, is it has a baseline, “wadeability” rather than “swimmability”, so it allows existing clean waterways to be degraded to the point they’re no longer clean enough to swim in. And it doesn’t require – once they have already been degraded – to be cleaned up to the swimmable standard,” he said.

Parker called for the Statement to specifically include controls on land use intensity, saying this was the issue, rather than effluent from the likes of factories and council municipals.    

He admitted intensive dairying has been the problem, but suggested beef farming is what we need to keep an eye on now. He said it’s not a matter of ‘if we fix dairy, we fix the problem’.

“The greatest increase in nutrients in effluent and nutrient load on rivers in the last two decades has come from dairy. But that’s changing now. The increases will be coming from beef.

“The dairy boom is over, and the beef boom is on.”

Parker pointed out the Government isn’t planning to require waterways around some dairy, beef and other beef cattle farms to be fenced off until various dates as late as 2030.

“The Government should be learning from the fact the dairy boom got out of control in terms of its effects on water quality, and now they’re allowing the same thing to happen in respect of beef.”

Parker didn’t accept Smith’s view that making our waterways swimmable was too expensive.

He wouldn’t put a price tag on reaching this standard over time, but said, “It ought not to cost taxpayers”.

“It is perfectly proper for New Zealanders to expect that those who are using water and farming close to waterways, to do so in a way that stops the rivers from being polluted. And if farmers can’t do that, their method of farming needs to change.

“There’s some really good [farming] practice and there’s some poor practice, and the poor practice needs to be improved.”

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

10 Comments

Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).

Labour thinks that making all water ways swimmable won't cost the tax payer. Don't know who is going to pick up the tab for treating urban stormwater discharges containing oil, rubber and dog crap. Don't think it will be beef farmers. Maybe ratepayers.....

10
up

Smith is just being a big Richard. At least have a debate about it his arguement was just bollocks. The bodies of water. He refers to as unswimable are also unwadeable, stop being an idiot and get cleaning.

What adds strategic longterm economic value? having polluted water ways/rivers/lakes? or .......NOT having...?

This is our country's (fast becoming was) greatest natural wealth and National can deny it or shift the blame or delay the consequences all they like.
IF they fail to act or any other future government then it is on their heads the public reaction going forward.

I would agree with the beef farming thing. But it has been that way for a long time. Generally stock are grazed in much smaller numbers than dairy cow herds so the effects are more minimal. But there are farmers out there pushing the limits.

It is obfuscation to start pointing at beef when dairy is still going to get a whole lot worse in terms of impact upon water quality....witness e.coli outbreaks slready experienced in Canterbury communities water supplies......riparian strips are not going to cut it as preventative boxes sufficient to tick off and claim "all done....nothing to see here..." Restocking and intensity reduction is the only way forward...but watch the industry fight tooth and nail to avoid that...while claiming its doing enough and it should be allowed to continue business as usual......why else would Theo Speiring talk openly last week about the need for continuing volume growth.

It is obfuscation to start pointing at beef when dairy is still going to get a whole lot worse in terms of impact upon water quality....witness e.coli outbreaks slready experienced in Canterbury communities water supplies......riparian strips are not going to cut it as preventative boxes sufficient to tick off and claim "all done....nothing to see here..." Restocking and intensity reduction is the only way forward...but watch the industry fight tooth and nail to avoid that...while claiming its doing enough and it should be allowed to continue business as usual......why else would Theo Speiring talk openly last week about the need for continuing volume growth.

Fair enough Rimu. Its going to be a battle alright. I was rapt to see on the news the other night young teens getting in on the protesting. Other farming systems have to pull their weight too. And we are getting some very industrial beef farming practises these days. Large numbers are going on crops to winter. We should look at the whole picture.

The cost he talks about improving water quality is rubbish. That might be a remedial cost. What we want is for the pollution not to occur...to stop now. That has no cost...Stop it before it happens, no allow it to continue as this stupid, short sighted greedy moronic govt is intent on doing.

Fiddling while NZ burns in a big pile of shite, urine and chemicals.

Do any of you kiwis remember the Kamahl hit - "One Hundred Children"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiFgoIA37pg

Don't blow up the world, don't kill all the flowers
Today this is your world, tomorrow it's ours
Leave us pure water and forest uncut
Think of tomorrow, leave something for us

Can someone help me please.

I'm looking for a sensible explanation of why our rivers should be so polluted. I'm having trouble. After all, we managed to clean up the Waiwhetu Stream, didn't we?

And it used to catch fire!