Council slammed for springs' Environment Court submission as 'scandalous'

Wednesday, 20 May 2020

The appearance of green algae at the Te Waikoropupū Springs in Golden Bay has alarmed locals. The crystal clear springs are one of the region's biggest drawcards (video first published November 2019).

A campaigner fighting to save a famous freshwater springs has slammed the Tasman District Council's submission to the Environment Court, which he says seeks a higher nitrate limit.

Save Our Springs coordinator Kevin Moran has labelled the council submission appealing a Water Conservation Order for Te Waikoropupū Springs in Golden Bay 'scandalous' and says he's considering legal action against it.

However, the council has said it's not seeking a higher nitrate limit—but following the law, which says a WCO only allows an order to be made to protect what is currently there, in its current state.

The nitrate level readings at the springs are currently higher than the recommended limit.

**READ MORE:

The Te Waikoropupu Springs are located near Takaka at the top of the South Island.

* Ten appeals over protection of world-famous springs

* Applicants for Springs protection to examine report 'with fine-tooth comb'

* Te Waikoropupū Springs campaigners concerned at water report delay

Save our Springs campaign co-ordinator Kevin Moran holds up a petition signed by more than 13,000 people that calls on Tasman District Council to put a moratorium on new water consents in the recharge area of the Arthur Marble Aquifer.

The council is one of 10 parties to have lodged appeals with the Environment Court over a special tribunal’s report recommending the springs' protection.

After a hearing in 2018, the special tribunal released its report in March recommending the order be granted.

In its submission to the Environment Court, the council has asked for the removal of the 0.44 mg/l safe nitrate limit set by the special tribunal.

At present, nitrate levels measured at the springs are averaging 0.52 mg/l.

It is believed that high nitrate levels may damage the organisms that live in the aquifer, which are responsible for the water's exceptional clarity.

The council has asked for the limit to be set at the level that nitrate levels read when the water conservation order would be made law—instead of the 0.44 mg/l recommended limit.

Just three years ago, Moran said the nitrate level at the Springs were 0.4 mg/l but had risen to 0.52 mg/l in a 'steady upward trend'.

“Over and over again, I've written to the TDC warning them what's going on and asking them to act urgently. They have done absolutely nothing to work with farmers to lower nitrate levels.”

He believed the council was in 'legal jeopardy' because they had a legal responsibility to 'maintain or improve' the waters of the springs.

'It’s absolutely scandalous,” Moran said.

Moran said the council wanted to ditch 0.44 mg/l limit and get rid of the three-year wait.

But the council's communications advisor Chris Choat said he 'could not reiterate enough' how much the council wanted the springs to be protected, just like Moran.

However, any WCO had to be practically implementable with the freshwater management plan.'

He said the law around WCOs only allowed an order to be made to protect what was 'currently there, in its current state'.

A WCO cannot, for example, require improvements in water quality or conversely allow a degradation in water quality. This meant that water quality was set at the date the order was gazetted.

Council’s concern as the implementer of the WCO, was that the nitrate limit of 0.44 mg/l was based on what the current state was more than a year ago.

'The WCO process, including the environment court process that could take a number of years and can’t necessarily anticipate what the nitrate levels in the springs will be in the future,' he said.

If the nitrate levels were different when the WCO was finally gazetted, then it wouldn't reflect current state.

If nitrate levels were higher than 0.44 mg/l, then the Council is immediately in breach of the WCO.

If nitrate levels were lower than 0.44 mg/l then it created a “pollute up to” situation, where the discharge of additional nitrates into the aquifer could foreseeably be allowed.

A date for the Environment Court hearing has not yet been confirmed.