Environment Court: Southland water bodies 'below minimum acceptable state'

Friday, 6 January 2023

An interim decision on the proposed Southland Water and Land Plan has been made by the Environment Court.

Many of Southland’s water bodies are likely degraded, with water quality falling below the minimum acceptable state, an interim Environment Court decision says.

The reference to the region’s degraded water bodies is included in an interim decision concerning appeals on the proposed Southland Water and Land Plan, which decides most of the disputed topics of interest to the primary sector.

The proposed plan seeks to address activities known to have a significant effect on water quality, such as land use intensification, urban discharges, wintering and stock access to waterways.

This week, Environment Court Judge Jane Borthwick and environment commissioner Ross Dunlop provided their decision on Topic B, which largely focused on the rules around farming, including intensive winter grazing and water management.

* Coronavirus: Solution for Southland farmers' winter consents

* Judge questions Environment Southland's thinking

A summary of the key court findings says many of Southland’s water bodies are likely degraded with water quality falling below the national bottom line, or below the minimum acceptable state.

“The discharge of contaminants incidental to farming and other activities is resulting in significant adverse effect on aquatic life,” the findings say.

“The regulation of farming activities having disproportionately greater adverse effect on water quality is confirmed; namely intensive winter grazing, pasture-based wintering and sacrifice paddocks.”

It was beyond the scope of the proposed plan to establish limits on resource use to achieve target attribute states, or to support other environmental outcomes, the findings say.

The plan’s rules do not manage the potential for farming activities to intensify, including intensive winter grazing and pasture based wintering.

Consequently, a reduction in nitrogen leachate is unlikely. That said, the rules and methods may reduce the incidence of contaminant losses to surface water run-off, including phosphorous and sediments, the summary of key findings says.

“It is the court’s view it does not have jurisdiction [under the Resource Management Act] to approve of a rule permitting the discharge of contaminants incidental to farming activities.”

All parties agreed farm environmental management plans should be the key method for delivering on the proposed plan’s policies and objectives, as they adopted a risk management process.

Environment Southland chairman Nicol Horrell said councillors had not been briefed by staff on the lengthy court decision, which came out two days before Christmas.

However, of the summary, he said the plan was never intended to set limits, and he added that intensification was now “extremely difficult” unless a farmer could prove it wouldn’t have a higher environmental effect.

Horrell said urban discharges were also significant in relation to water degradation.

“We need to put it in context, we know everyone contributes to degradation of fresh water … everyone’s got to own their own issues.”

He was frustrated at the years it was taking to get the plan through, and said farmers were already changing their practices.

Federated Farmers Southland deputy president Bernadette Hunt said she had not read the rules in the lengthy decision, but the Feds agreed farm plans were the best way to manage the risks associated with farming.

Farm plans catered to the individual nature of each farm, whereas a set of regimented rules for everyone did not provide the outcomes sought, she said.

Research out of Environment Southland indicated the vast majority of sediment reaching estuaries did not come from intensive winter grazing, Hunt said.

The Feds would look into the detail of the decision next week.

Environment Southland chief executive Wilma Falconer said staff and the appeals team were carefully considering the court decision to determine what it meant for the council and the community.

Final decisions on the plan would not be made until the remainder of the appeals topics had been heard.

- Full Environment Court decision can be read here.