Finding consensus for water

Environmental protection and economic development are two sides of the same coin according to a top Federated Farmers member.

A recent report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has informed the debate about the quality of water and particularly the issue of nitrate run-off following large-scale conversions to dairy farming. Lynda Murchison, Federated Farmers' North Canterbury president, says that when it comes to water, economic and environmental considerations are two sides of the same coin.

"It's a classic case of environment versus economics," commented Parliamentary Commissioner Jan Wright in her recent report into water quality.

Economics certainly play a part in addressing water quality issues but, as a geographer, environmental planner and farmer, I cannot look at fresh water as a choice between economics and the environment.

The notion that environmental protection and economic development are potentially conflicting goals is not, in my view, a recipe for success.

It removes any expectation that businesses should take responsibility for protecting the environment and suggests that environmentalists need not consider social or economic costs of environmental outcomes.

In my world, economic and environmental considerations are two sides of the same coin. It is hard to be green if you are in the red but you cannot have long-term social or economic prosperity if you undermine the natural capital you rely on to create it.

This link between economics and the environment is recognised in the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991, the main statute that manages natural and physical resources in New Zealand.

The purpose of the act is not about economic development or environmental protection. It is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources - a concept that encompasses environmental, economic, cultural and social wellbeing.

Currently water quality is a pressing concern for many of us but if we are really going to get beyond that first hurdle of frustrated finger-pointing, I suggest we need to think beyond a choice between economics and the environment.

We need to understand the severity of the issues and long-term trends. Most regional councils have been monitoring water quality only for the last 10 to 15 years and it is not comprehensive monitoring of all contaminants in all catchments. Similarly, we do not seem to have a national record of how sewerage systems in New Zealand are managed, including our largest cities.

Some waterways are recording concentrations of contaminants above desired levels and where this is the case we need to act. There are also many examples where long-term water quality is improving due to better land management or waste disposal practices.

To keep improving, we need to look at all water quality issues and understand cause and effect. To date the debate has focused on nitrates and farming but there are other causes of poor water quality - E.coli, phosphorous, sediment, heavy metals and didymo, to name some of the more common ones - and they come from urban, rural, industrial and recreational sources.

E.coli is a significant water quality issue, which affects drinking water, swimming and mahinga kai. The main cause of E.coli is poop, which can come from several sources such as wildlife, livestock and humans.

There are towns in our country that either discharge sewage directly into waterways or have design overflow systems to allow this to happen in wet weather. Environment Canterbury's consent database shows 15 towns in the region have resource consents to do this, including our largest city, Christchurch.

While this has been an accepted practice for many years, it begs the question, is it simply a case of economics versus the environment or are the issues more complex?

In evidence on the Proposed Canterbury Regional Land and Water Plan, Christchurch City Council estimated it would cost $1.6 billion to redesign the city's sewage system to prevent overflows of raw sewage into the Avon and Heathcote rivers. Even then the city's topography means there would still likely be overflows in low-lying areas during flooding.

When finding remedies to address water quality issues in urban and rural areas, many factors come into play such as established infrastructure, technical feasibility, cost, social values and priorities.

We do not start from a clean slate. We start with pre-determined practices and infrastructure developed from the information and values available at the time.

I am not suggesting we are forever bound to the permissions of the past. Whether it is a town sewage system, an industrial discharge or a farming practice, it is not always a simple fix and it is not always instant. In my mind that does not mean we stop looking for solutions but we do need to allow people a reasonable timeframe and path to adjust.

Can we do it with water? If history is anything to go by farmers certainly can.

Over the past year, many farmers in Canterbury have gone from "what on earth are nitrates?" to doing overseer budgets, estimating nitrate loss and working out how to reduce it.

This takes me to my final point - the importance of time.

A Ngai Tahu kaumatua said, when describing Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere to me: "It took 150 years to get the lake to the state it is in now, it will not be fixed overnight."

We have made a start on a path of continual improvement - a community working together to make it better each and every year. I have not heard one single farmer tell me they won't commit to that but, if we are going to make a real difference, we need that commitment across the board.

"Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success" - Henry Ford.