So where are we left? Dairy NZ is appealing the decision, so we can expect more in 2017, including their defence that 96 per cent of rivers and streams are fenced. Tell that to the people who regularly approach me to say they have seen cows grazing unfenced riverbeds and pooing in streams.
That said, we know many farmers are taking action, even if it's often subsidised or an operating requirement. And there are farms with lower impacts and ones which undertake voluntary action to improve water health (and I want to hear more about the latter).
As a new Horizons regional councillor, I'm facing the complex science, regulations and modelling tools behind the management of this issue.
It presents a cost to farmers (and ratepayers) - both in money and time - and puts pressure on some to modernise. I see it simply as a necessary part of running any business with recognised environmental impacts.
Another simple reality is we can't grow industrial dairy without increasing impacts on water. The statement that we can't reverse 150 years of damage overnight shouldn't need response - of course, the recovery of our water will take time, if indeed it can even happen in some places. But further expansion is nuts, especially in places that rely on intensive irrigation.
We need a trusted source to explain what's happening and, to me, that should be a public servant, bound by the law to serve without fear or favour. That's why I'm doubly disappointed with the early performance of the Environmental Protection Authority's new chief scientist Jacqueline Rowarth.
Late last year, Ms Rowarth was roundly criticised by the science community for claiming the Waikato River was one of the top five cleanest rivers in the world. Already this year, she has written in Rural News defending the exclusion of agriculture from the carbon emissions trading scheme and positioning farming on an "us and them" spectrum.
I fear that too much energy is going into defending the status quo, albeit with minor improvements under way, and cynically ponder whether this is to smooth the way for further expansion. This focus comes at the expense of embracing change, or taking a global leadership position and seizing a marketing niche that is more authentic than the damaged "100% Pure" brand.
Threat or opportunity, change is coming and it's been described as having the potential to make New Zealand the "Detroit of agriculture" - that is, the place left behind when technology moves faster than we can adapt.
Pure Advantage published a piece by Dr Rosie Bosworth in December that described the advances starting to deeply disrupt agriculture. This is not just other countries competing for milk production and pushing down prices, or a lack of diversification and value-add in our export products - it's the move away from animal products entirely.
We need government, business and environmental leadership to come together and create a vision for the future that gives us what we need to survive and thrive - yes, that means economic success, shared among all, and sustaining food production, but not at the cost of progress on fresh water.
As American professor Guy McPherson said: "If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while counting your money."
-Nicola Patrick is a Horizons regional councillor, a Sustainable Whanganui trustee and works for Te Kaahui o Rauru. A mother of two boys, she has a science degree and is a Green Party member
