Wellington Region By-election Alert

Wellington
24/08/2018

Horizons By-Election Alert

Fish & Game routinely canvasses political candidates ahead of regional and national elections on issues of interest to the organisation and our key stakeholders.

Given Wellington Fish & Game’s involvement in the Environment Court challenge to Horizons Regional Council’s implementation of the One Plan, and our interest in protecting and enhancing the habitat of sports fish and game in the region, we are encouraging you to take an interest in the looming by-election.

We have provided each of the five candidates standing in the Palmerston North Constituency By-Election – Ross Barber, Jack Dowds, Jono Naylor, Grant Seton and Chris Teo-Sherrell – the opportunity to pitch their case to you for election.

Candidates were asked five questions and given a maximum of 200 words to answer each. Following are the unedited, unchanged responses.

Regards,

Phil Teal
Manager
Wellington Fish & Game Council

.................................

1. What are your views on the state of water quality in the Horizons region?

Chris Teo-Sherrell:
In the upper reaches of the Oroua and Pohangina, and I suspect nearly all other rivers in the region, it’s nearly always great and, if it weren’t for Giardia, drinkable. But as soon as the rivers start passing through farmland, water quality begins to decline. By the time they reach even half way to the sea it’s doubtful that they’re safe to swim in. Once they pass the wastewater and storm water discharges of urban areas, like Feilding and Palmerston North, river water quality often isn’t even good enough for other organisms to survive in, never mind thrive. It shouldn’t be and needn’t be like this.

I have an aspiration that water quality should still be very high in the lower reaches of our rivers. Is that an unrealistic dream? No, it isn’t. Not if we do things differently. And we humans are able to change the way we do things. We can learn and modify our behaviour to achieve this goal in ways that other organisms that depend on the rivers cannot. Horizons should be the catalyst that makes it possible.

Grant Seton:
My perception may be different to reality and the existing councillors would be able to tell you what has been measured and if I am elected I will check how they do this and make recommendations for better and timely measures.

Ross Barber:
1080 and fluoride are poisoning the waterways, the other candidates support genocide.

Jack Dowds:

The water quality in the Horizons region is poor and this is unacceptable. I have fished the rivers in this region since 1990 when I came to New Zealand from Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, I have not seen a dramatic improvement in the presence of periphyton which is directly attributable to nitrates and phosphorus in the rivers. In fact, the problem has become worse during my almost 29 years residency. I need to say here that I am not an environmental scientist and depend for my information on what I read in the official publications, including those released by the regional authorities. It is clear that there is a direct relationship between the quality of the region’s waterways and land use. The regional council assures us that it is working on improving the situation and that there is no longer any untreated sewage or industrial effluent being released into the rivers and I accept that this is the case. Be that as it may, I am still seeing plenty of slime in the rivers that I fish across the region. I consider that it is not good enough that we have rivers that cannot be safely used for recreation.

Jono Naylor:
Water quality across the region is obviously varied depending on where you are. Overall, I am encouraged by the progress that has been made to improve it, but there is still a long way to go. I for one will not be happy until we reach a “swimmable” standard across the board and all of our waterways are capable of sustaining the flora and fauna we would expect to find in them.

2. There is a planned strategy for improvement in the Palmerston North wastewater treatment plant, is enough effort being put in by intensive farming operations in the rural sector to clean up pollution?

Ross Barber:
Not sure of the question but the Palmerston North wastewater plant is unacceptable.

Jack Dowds:
My opinion is that not enough effort is being put into cleaning up pollution by those involved in intensive farming operations. This is evidenced by the fact that rivers are often not clean enough to swim in and I would not be willing to ingest the water from most of the areas that I fish. The run-off from pasture and the failure to fence-off areas to keep farm animals out of the rivers is a major issue that needs to be more effectively managed and addressed.

Jono Naylor:
Clearly some intensive farming operations are making a concerted effort to clean up pollution and they should be applauded for this. However, there are still many who are dragging the chain. It is imperative that we ensure Horizons regulations and plans are reviewed to ensure they are enforceable and deliver the outcomes we are looking for.

Chris Teo-Sherrell:
Yes and no. There are farmers doing exemplary jobs decreasing the impact of their operations on waterways. They’re using riparian plantings (to decrease runoff, to shade streams and sometimes provide spawning habitat); they’re using feedpads and shelters to decrease pugging and nutrient loss from damaged pastures; some are de-intensifying by using once-a-day milking or lowering stock numbers and the amount of supplements used; some are diversifying their land use, matching crop (grass, trees, arable) to the land suitability; and a small number are creating or restoring wetlands on their properties to trap sediment and help decrease nutrient losses. We need more people like these.

Unfortunately, there are others who are doing none of these things and are even increasing the intensity of their operations through irrigation, supplements, and high stock levels. Some are expanding the amount of brassicas grown and then strip grazing, leaving the land completely bare and highly susceptible to runoff and leaching at the wettest time of the year. Many are highly dependent on subsurface drains to lower the water table and to carry excess rainfall along with nutrients into waterways without passing through any form of nutrient-stripping device such as denitrification walls.

3. The Manawatu River got its reputation as being one of the most polluted in the Western World because of the nitrogen input from intensive agricultural land use. While some efforts have been made by Horizons Regional Council to clean up some contaminants entering the water, has the council done enough to address the main cause of freshwater pollution – nitrogen inputs from intensive farming?

Ross Barber:
No.

Jack Dowds:
That the Manawatu River is one of the most polluted in the Western World should cause Horizons to feel intense shame. I have to believe the science that informs these reports and I would like to hear an explanation from Horizons and scientific authorities as to why I should not believe that this is the case. Intensive farming, specifically dairy farming, has been a significant contributor to the problem of declining water quality. I have to depend on the science that underpins this conclusion and, if elected to the regional council, I would be pleased to listen to the views of others on this matter. As an economist and accountant I am aware that farming makes a major contribution to GDP. I am also aware of the externalities that attach to intensive farming and the cleanup costs that are associated with this activity. I am certainly not opposed to dairy farming – it is too important to the economic welfare of this country. However, it is essential that rules are enforced and it is the regional council’s role and duty to adequately monitor and enforce the rules. This means effectively policing consenting conditions at all times.

Jono Naylor:
Until we get nitrogen under control in the Manawatu River then the answer is no, not enough is being done. That said, it is a complex issue and the current levels on the land have built up over time. It is therefore realistic to expect that the strategies already in place will take some time to deliver the outcomes we desire.

Chris Teo-Sherrell:
No. No. No! It has the framework (the One Plan) and the specific measures (the nitrogen leaching maxima targets in Table 14-2 of the Plan) that should enable it to, over time, really get on top of this issue. But it seems to lack the will to do so.

Last year’s Environment Court declaration showed Horizons wasn’t doing its job properly. It wasn’t requiring proper environmental impact assessments for new or expanding intensive operations and it wasn’t requiring farmers to get on a pathway to meeting the year-20 nitrogen-leaching targets.

Now Horizons seems intent on changing the Plan. It says it wants ‘to ensure a workable pathway exists through Rule 14-2’. But there are already workable pathways that allow farmers up to 20 years to reach the nutrient leaching targets for their class of land. That is plenty of time to make changes and amortise expenditure. One of Horizons’ roles should be to help farmers make the necessary changes.

We already have a problem with water quality due mostly to excess nutrient loss from farmland. Allowing more intensification and even allowing business-as-usual isn’t going to solve that problem. So Horizons should just get on and implement the Plan as intended.

4. How much should urban ratepayers contribute to the clean-up of waterways emanating from rural land use?

Jack Dowds:
The question of how much urban ratepayers should pay to the clean-up of waterways polluted by rural land use is an interesting one. I would need to consider this in more depth but prima facie I take the view that the polluter should pay. Since the profit from the intensive farming activity accrues to the business owner I can see no reason why the cost of the clean up should fall on the urban ratepayer who derives no direct economic benefit from the activity. The mechanism by which this might be done would require further research and consideration. It could be achieved by a targeted rate or through the taxation system with a transfer of funding from central government to the regional authority.

Jono Naylor:
The trickiest issue for any taxing or rating system is who should pay for what and how is the fairest way to distribute costs. I believe that in some way we all contribute to the pollution of our waterways through the national economic benefits of the agricultural sector and will also all clearly benefit from improved water quality. It is therefore reasonable that some of the costs associated with improving our waterways are spread right across the rating base. However it is also critical to have a ‘polluter pays’ component.

Chris Teo-Sherrell:
This raises a big philosophical question about people’s right to pollute and who should bear the costs of the pollution or the efforts to decrease it. I don’t think our society has reached an agreed position on this.

Philosophically, I think the costs should be borne by those causing the pollution. It seems the most direct way to improve the way things are done, encouraging desirable actions and discouraging undesirable ones. But pragmatically, the goal of clean waterways may be achieved more quickly if the costs are shared across all ratepayers.

Already, urban ratepayers contribute, along with rural ones, to the costs of various programmes (SLUI, stream fencing and planting etc) aimed at improving water quality. These programmes do not, however, seem particularly well-funded but should be. Urban ratepayers across the region are having to pay more for upgrading their wastewater treatment plants to decrease their impact on water quality and this should be factored into who pays what.

So, although I can’t currently give a definite response to this question I believe Horizons contribution (financed by both urban and rural ratepayers) needs to be increased.

Grant Seton:
I will not be supporter of urban giving a cross-subsidy to rural.

Ross Barber:
Nothing.

5. In 2017, the Environment Court found that Horizons Regional Council was unlawfully issuing consents for land-use intensification and was not correctly implementing the nutrient leaching requirements of the One Plan, and that the potential environmental impact of the council’s actions were “very significant”. How should Horizons be responding to the Environment Court's findings?

Jono Naylor:
There is a huge amount of work to be done here to ensure that firstly we have a plan that delivers the desirable outcomes, secondly is enforceable, and thirdly is enforced correctly. This will involve reviewing the relevant sections of the One Plan and then implementing it properly. In order to do this there needs to be significant effort made to involve affected parties and stakeholders to ensure that the plan is workable, to avoid further adverse effects and legal bills.

Chris Teo-Sherrell:
I’ve already covered this in my response to question 3. Horizons should get on and implement the One Plan as intended.

It shouldn’t be issuing any consents for new or increased intensification until proper impact assessments are provided by applicants. It should be requiring applicants, as well as those who want to just keep doing what they have been doing in already over-allocated catchments such as the Mangatainoka, to show how they will decrease the nutrient leaching from their properties over time.

Horizons could play an important role in facilitating the changes needed. But it also needs to hold land owners to the pathways they propose, with regular assessments of progress and support to help farmers succeed.

Grant Seton:
A stocktake as to what has been done by Horizons management and council, since the determination, will be done if I'm elected and my recommendations made if I feel it necessary.

Ross Barber:
I have had extensive legal actions with Horizons and [potentially defamatory statement deleted].

Jack Dowds:
Horizons Regional Council should accept the Environment Courts ruling and it should seek to address the issues that have given rise to the Court’s findings. Nutrient leaching is clearly a major contributor to poor water quality and the Council’s role is to act to remedy the problem and to prevent it becoming worse. Personally, I am opposed to further land-use intensification and would encourage the Council to rigorously apply the requirements of the One Plan. I have made very clear my opinion of how Horizons approaches inspections of Dairy Farms to ensure compliance with consent conditions. I spoke about this at the Meet the Candidates Meeting and made it clear that Council needs to change its approach to inspections and that such inspections should always be unannounced and unexpected.

Horizons By-Election Alert

Dear licence holder,

Fish & Game routinely canvasses political candidates ahead of regional and national elections on issues of interest to the organisation and our key stakeholders.

Candidates were asked five questions and given a maximum of 200 words to answer each. Following are the unedited, unchanged responses.

Regards,

Phil Teal
Manager
Wellington Fish & Game Council

1. What are your views on the state of water quality in the Horizons region?

Chris Teo-Sherrell:

In the upper reaches of the Oroua and Pohangina, and I suspect nearly all other rivers in the region, it’s nearly always great and, if it weren’t for Giardia, drinkable. But as soon as the rivers start passing through farmland, water quality begins to decline. By the time they reach even half way to the sea it’s doubtful that they’re safe to swim in. Once they pass the wastewater and storm water discharges of urban areas, like Feilding and Palmerston North, river water quality often isn’t even good enough for other organisms to survive in, never mind thrive. It shouldn’t be and needn’t be like this.

Grant Seton:

My perception may be different to reality and the existing councillors would be able to tell you what has been measured and if I am elected I will check how they do this and make recommendations for better and timely measures.

Ross Barber:

1080 and fluoride are poisoning the waterways, the other candidates support genocide.

Jack Dowds:

Jono Naylor:

Water quality across the region is obviously varied depending on where you are. Overall, I am encouraged by the progress that has been made to improve it, but there is still a long way to go. I for one will not be happy until we reach a “swimmable” standard across the board and all of our waterways are capable of sustaining the flora and fauna we would expect to find in them.

Grant Seton:

Ross Barber:

Not sure of the question but the Palmerston North wastewater plant is unacceptable.

Jack Dowds:

My opinion is that not enough effort is being put into cleaning up pollution by those involved in intensive farming operations. This is evidenced by the fact that rivers are often not clean enough to swim in and I would not be willing to ingest the water from most of the areas that I fish. The run-off from pasture and the failure to fence-off areas to keep farm animals out of the rivers is a major issue that needs to be more effectively managed and addressed.

Jono Naylor:

Clearly some intensive farming operations are making a concerted effort to clean up pollution and they should be applauded for this. However, there are still many who are dragging the chain. It is imperative that we ensure Horizons regulations and plans are reviewed to ensure they are enforceable and deliver the outcomes we are looking for.

Chris Teo-Sherrell:

Yes and no. There are farmers doing exemplary jobs decreasing the impact of their operations on waterways. They’re using riparian plantings (to decrease runoff, to shade streams and sometimes provide spawning habitat); they’re using feedpads and shelters to decrease pugging and nutrient loss from damaged pastures; some are de-intensifying by using once-a-day milking or lowering stock numbers and the amount of supplements used; some are diversifying their land use, matching crop (grass, trees, arable) to the land suitability; and a small number are creating or restoring wetlands on their properties to trap sediment and help decrease nutrient losses. We need more people like these.

Ross Barber:

No.

Jack Dowds:

That the Manawatu River is one of the most polluted in the Western World should cause Horizons to feel intense shame. I have to believe the science that informs these reports and I would like to hear an explanation from Horizons and scientific authorities as to why I should not believe that this is the case. Intensive farming, specifically dairy farming, has been a significant contributor to the problem of declining water quality. I have to depend on the science that underpins this conclusion and, if elected to the regional council, I would be pleased to listen to the views of others on this matter. As an economist and accountant I am aware that farming makes a major contribution to GDP. I am also aware of the externalities that attach to intensive farming and the cleanup costs that are associated with this activity. I am certainly not opposed to dairy farming – it is too important to the economic welfare of this country. However, it is essential that rules are enforced and it is the regional council’s role and duty to adequately monitor and enforce the rules. This means effectively policing consenting conditions at all times.

Jono Naylor:

Until we get nitrogen under control in the Manawatu River then the answer is no, not enough is being done. That said, it is a complex issue and the current levels on the land have built up over time. It is therefore realistic to expect that the strategies already in place will take some time to deliver the outcomes we desire.

Chris Teo-Sherrell:

No. No. No! It has the framework (the One Plan) and the specific measures (the nitrogen leaching maxima targets in Table 14-2 of the Plan) that should enable it to, over time, really get on top of this issue. But it seems to lack the will to do so.

Grant Seton:

4. How much should urban ratepayers contribute to the clean-up of waterways emanating from rural land use?

Jack Dowds:

The question of how much urban ratepayers should pay to the clean-up of waterways polluted by rural land use is an interesting one. I would need to consider this in more depth but prima facie I take the view that the polluter should pay. Since the profit from the intensive farming activity accrues to the business owner I can see no reason why the cost of the clean up should fall on the urban ratepayer who derives no direct economic benefit from the activity. The mechanism by which this might be done would require further research and consideration. It could be achieved by a targeted rate or through the taxation system with a transfer of funding from central government to the regional authority.

Jono Naylor:

The trickiest issue for any taxing or rating system is who should pay for what and how is the fairest way to distribute costs. I believe that in some way we all contribute to the pollution of our waterways through the national economic benefits of the agricultural sector and will also all clearly benefit from improved water quality. It is therefore reasonable that some of the costs associated with improving our waterways are spread right across the rating base. However it is also critical to have a ‘polluter pays’ component.

Chris Teo-Sherrell:

This raises a big philosophical question about people’s right to pollute and who should bear the costs of the pollution or the efforts to decrease it. I don’t think our society has reached an agreed position on this.

So, although I can’t currently give a definite response to this question I believe Horizons contribution (financed by both urban and rural ratepayers) needs to be increased.

Grant Seton:

I will not be supporter of urban giving a cross-subsidy to rural.

Ross Barber:

Nothing.

Jono Naylor:

There is a huge amount of work to be done here to ensure that firstly we have a plan that delivers the desirable outcomes, secondly is enforceable, and thirdly is enforced correctly. This will involve reviewing the relevant sections of the One Plan and then implementing it properly. In order to do this there needs to be significant effort made to involve affected parties and stakeholders to ensure that the plan is workable, to avoid further adverse effects and legal bills.

Chris Teo-Sherrell:

I’ve already covered this in my response to question 3. Horizons should get on and implement the One Plan as intended.

Grant Seton:

A stocktake as to what has been done by Horizons management and council, since the determination, will be done if I'm elected and my recommendations made if I feel it necessary.

Ross Barber:

I have had extensive legal actions with Horizons and [potentially defamatory statement deleted].

Jack Dowds:

Horizons Regional Council should accept the Environment Courts ruling and it should seek to address the issues that have given rise to the Court’s findings. Nutrient leaching is clearly a major contributor to poor water quality and the Council’s role is to act to remedy the problem and to prevent it becoming worse. Personally, I am opposed to further land-use intensification and would encourage the Council to rigorously apply the requirements of the One Plan. I have made very clear my opinion of how Horizons approaches inspections of Dairy Farms to ensure compliance with consent conditions. I spoke about this at the Meet the Candidates Meeting and made it clear that Council needs to change its approach to inspections and that such inspections should always be unannounced and unexpected.