Such decisions should always be left up to staff. What I would say is that given both cases are now before the courts we should await the outcomes before commenting on any further action that needs to be taken, regardless of what we might feel about the strength of any case presented. Trial by media is unhelpful in my opinion.
To my mind what the election of fresh faces around the council table has done has given staff more confidence to take action against breaches of resource consents and the enforcement of them.
It was something that I campaigned on. It is pleasing to see that staff appear to be picking up on this change in stance by your elected councillors.
For example feedlots have been a major bone of contention for the people of Hawkes Bay. So they should have been.
To not have a proper discharge regime for the waste from cattle farmed in an extremely intensive manner always seemed morally and ethically wrong to me.
Along with the environmental risks posed by such farming systems something needed to change.
Why should feedlots be exempt from having to apply for resource consents to deal with their effluent, and dairy sheds not?
That's why I was ecstatic to see in a report to council that staff acknowledged that "the majority of feedlots visited were non-compliant with existing rules in the Regional Resource Management Plan" and that "Council will be taking a zero tolerance approach next season, and will also be advising operators what the alternatives to their current way of operating are".
Staff have recognised there was a problem and that they will deal with it.
To put it simply, I think that staff have acknowledged that the softly softly approach was not having the desired effect and that resource consents for feedlots will now be required.
I have little sympathy for the cowboy feedlot operators. They had an opportunity to prove that they could operate satisfactorily without consents and have failed.
However, we must be careful not to tar all farmers with the same brush. Many understand the need to farm within their environmental limits and are working hard to achieve this.
It's just that they are being let down by the few. I do have sympathy for those feedlot operators who have been doing the right thing.
Unfortunately they will now be penalised with regulation because of the cowboys.
Since my election I have had a number of very interesting discussions with different farmers.
In discussing feedlots it is clear that in many cases if they were considered a stand alone operation they would be unprofitable.
Putting it simply the returns for cattle are less than the cost of feed used to fatten them.
Now, with regulation of the disposal of effluent being considered the costs of such operations will only rise. This is the cost of doing business in a non-polluting manner.
No longer should the polluters be given a free lunch by regional council. (A message I received loud and clear during the recent elections and subsequently).
Breaches of the Regional Resource Management Plan and resource consents should be taken, and treated seriously.
There is a place for a softly softly approach, but only if it achieves quick results and the breach is minor or technical in nature. There is also a place for coming to some sort of resolution outside the legal process.
I would imagine a transparent and suitable donation to an environmental NGO or to a community facility could go a long way to keeping a consent breach out of the courts.
I see legal action being action of the last resort, but an action HBRC should always be prepared to use.
But the important thing is that polluters, no matter if they are farmers, industry, or another council need to take on board that pollution of our environment will no longer be tolerated.
What recent weeks have shown is the HBRC can be expected to be far more proactive with enforcement of resource consent conditions.
If you can't play by the rules then you deserve to be pinged.
- Paul Bailey is a Hawke's Bay regional councillor.
