Bruce Bisset: Hold your nose and swallow

Bruce Bisset.

Nick Smith's myth about making waterways "swimmable" is turning out to be a bigger slice of preposterousness than even I at first thought, with the proposed rules only applying to about 10 per cent of our lakes and rivers rather than the 90 per cent boasted.

Yep, you read that right. Because only "fourth tier" rivers - ones fed by at least three tributaries - and only lakes with a perimeter of 1.5 kilometres or more are targeted for improvement to "Smithable" standard.

Which in any event, as pointed out last week, involves doubling the "allowable" limits for E.coli in rivers and algae in lakes to magically "improve" the true state of our most precious resource. In short, masking the pollution by pretending it's okay.

Smith's argument in defence of this approach and his "90 per cent swimmable" claim is twofold.

First, unsurprisingly, the Minister says only targeting larger rivers will keep monitoring costs down. Very true.

That it won't tell us anything about the state of individual smaller streams also goes without saying.

Second, to see improvement in a larger river, inherently councils will have to clean up the smaller ones that feed it.

This is partially true, but there are significant problems with this logic: Most councils have neither the money nor the manpower to undertake the implied job being asked of them.

And the government does not intend to give them more. Or should I say, nowhere near enough.

See, according to a comprehensive Environmental Defence Society report, of the 78 territorial or regional authorities in the country, 10 have no compliance monitoring staff for RMA matters. More than 40 have one or less (ie, a part-timer).

No or hardly any compliance monitoring for any RMA matters across half the country?

Astounding.

Especially bearing in mind the RMA covers a great deal more than water.

So how, exactly, does J Public have any faith whatsoever that the family favourite waterhole has been tested (chances are, it hasn't), is safe to swim in (chances are, it isn't), or that anyone knows the state of the waterways, let alone say whether it's improving (chances are, they don't and can't).

But we are expected to believe anyone critical of this farce must be using "junk science", and I suppose they must, since the real science appears relatively scarce, and swallow the election year line that 90 per cent of rivers will be swimmable by 2040.

When a moment's reflection tells you that's complete nonsense; it's neither planned nor attainable.

Yet, as EDS researcher Dr Marie Brown says of the lack of monitoring: "It's not a victimless crime; it's borne by everyone".

No wonder the farmers are laughing. Without testing and monitoring of smaller streams, no one knows where most of the pollution comes from, let alone who to hit up to fix it.

Besides which, government subsidies for planting and fencing larger streams and rivers, one small positive part of the policy, although some farmers still can't help grizzling about it, doesn't measure or stop nitrogen leaching into groundwater, creating a "legacy" load that is, since the post-WWII era, already starting to affect the 40 per cent of drinking water supplies taken from aquifers.

As here in Hawke's Bay. And, as we've also discovered in the Bay (and several other spots recently), bacteria like E.coli are entering the aquifers, too.

What worries me is that despite all the evidence that we have a problem of crisis proportions on our hands which this new regime won't begin to fix, voters will hear that "90 per cent by 2040" slogan and believe it.

Because it's easier than the truth.

- Bruce Bisset is a freelance writer and poet.

- This column is the opinion of the columnist on a matter of public interest and does not necessarily represent the view of Hawke's Bay Today.