Lake Rotorua and surrounding farmland. Photo / File
Federated Farmers is threatening legal action against the district council in a protracted and bitter battle over controversial measures aimed at improving Lake Rotorua's water quality.
The lobby group and Rotorua Lakes Council have been at odds over how to dramatically reduce the amount of nitrogen entering the lake to improve lake water quality since Bay of Plenty Regional Council first consulted the public on new nitrogen limits in early 2016.
READ MORE:
• Premium - Plan Change 10: Regional council approach chosen over Rotorua council's for nitrogen
• Plan change 10 rules formally notified
• First resource consent issued under Plan Change 10 in Rotorua
• Plan change to improve Lake Rotorua water quality heads to mediation
A letter and legal opinion obtained by the Rotorua Daily Post show Federated Farmers chief executive Terry Copeland wrote to mayor Steve Chadwick and chief executive Geoff Williams about the process, called Plan Change 10, earlier this year.
Copeland's letter accused Rotorua Lakes Council staff and councillors of being secretive about their support for a nitrogen-management approach "that would be significantly detrimental to the rural pastoral sector" and actively consulting and supporting groups which sought that approach.
It also claims the council had spent $700,000 during the plan change process by April 2019.
He refers to a 16-page legal opinion from lawyer Bal Matheson attached to the letter, which states council staff and councillors failed to understand and apply the organisation's own engagement policy, acted unreasonably and failed to engage with affected communities about the nitrogen allocation decision and Environment Court costs.
Copeland states Federated Farmers is "very disappointed that the council has not been engaging transparently and fully with the rural sector" and that they "could not understand how the council could take a position so detrimental to the rural community... without consulting those in the rural community".
He threatened to "file judicial review proceedings" in the High Court unless the council issued an apology by September 30 and committed to apply its engagement policy "rationally and reasonably" in the future with consideration for the rural community in its decision making.
Copeland told the Rotorua Daily Post the apology was not issued "and council's reasons for not doing so were unconvincing".
"We are disappointed the council has not taken our members' concerns into account... We are going to take further legal advice, consider what our options are now, and consult with our members about the next steps."
Bal Matheson's legal opinion concluded the Rotorua Lakes Council failed to comply with the Local Government Act 2002 which led to it "making decisions that, had it complied with its obligations, it might not have done".
"While those decisions have been made and are irreversible (to the extent that the Environment Court hearing has been held and the costs incurred), the effect of those unlawful, unreasonable and irrational decisions will continue to influence the Rotorua Lakes Council."
When the Rotorua Daily Post approached Williams and Chadwick for comment on the letter and legal opinion, Williams said: "We are in the middle of a judicial process so I will not be commenting at this time."
Chadwick added, "It would be inappropriate for me to comment on legal matters that are still under way."
To meet water quality standards set by the community, nitrogen entering Lake Rotorua must reduce by 320 tonnes by 2032 under the Bay of Plenty Regional Council's regulations.
A 140-tonne reduction is expected from Plan Change 10 regardless of the nitrogen limit approach adopted.
The plan had been under mediation after four appeals were initially lodged in the Environment Court in 2017.
Federated Farmers and the regional council wanted land-use (drystock farming, dairy, bush or scrub, forestry or house lots) to determine nitrogen limits.
The groups says this approach would be cheaper and logistically easier for most Rotorua farmers.
Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus can come from animal waste, fertiliser use, geothermal activity, erosion, stormwater run-off, and sewerage leaks in the Lake Rotorua catchment.
The Rotorua Lakes Council, Central North Island Iwi Land Management Ltd and multiple forestry companies wanted the long-term production capacity of land areas to determine nitrogen limits.
Rotorua farmers described this approach as disastrous for their businesses.
In August, Federated Farmers' environment spokesperson Chris Allen said it "would have required nitrogen discharge reductions of 80 per cent by dairy farmers and 40 per cent by drystock farmers".
"In contrast, the allocation for forestry would have increased six-fold".
He said this meant most farmers would have had to lease forestry to have a nitrogen allocation high enough to keep farming other land.
Federated Farmers and the regional council wanted land-use (drystock farming, dairy, bush or scrub, forestry or house lots) to determine nitrogen limits.
This approach would be cheaper and logistically easier for most Rotorua farmers to adapt to.
Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus can come from animal waste, fertiliser use, geothermal activity, erosion, stormwater run-off, and sewerage leaks in the Lake Rotorua catchment.
Last month, the Environment Court published an interim decision ruling in favour of Federated Farmers' preferred approach.
The lobby group described it as a "slam dunk" for its members and "a win for the Rotorua community".
Paradise Valley farmer and Federated Farmers member Neil Heather said at the time, "farmers have effectively paid for this [Plan Change 10] three times over".
"Our district council rates funded the land use capability proposal that was found wanting by the Environment Court. We paid for the regional council to participate in the process through our regional rates, and we contributed to Federated Farmers' costs".
A large plume above Whakaari/White Island prompted questions.