25 JANUARY 11 2014 www.listener.co.

nz
R
ex Butterworth was doing very
nicely on his Matamata dairy
farm. Milk production was good,
prots were respectable and the
cows looked a picture as they
grazed on the lush green pasture
of the Waikato.
But beneath the surface, Butterworth was
aware that his pastoral idyll was leaving a
dirty mark on the environment. His cows,
like those of most other New Zealand dairy
farmers, were excreting at will on the pad-
docks. The excess nutrients were leaching
through the porous ground to the shallow
water table below. And their big hooves were
damaging the soils.
There was nothing extraordinary about
the environmental impact his operation
was having. Quite the contrary. The volume
of cow urine dumped on the soil and the
excess nitrogen that trickled down into the
THE DAIRY DILEMMA
NewZealandseconomyreliesondairyfarming,
buttheindustrypollutesrivers.Canthisconict
beresolved?by REBECCA MACFIE

photos by DAVID WHITE

SOMETHING
IN THE WATER
Cleaning up: Rex
Butterworth hoses
down his yard.
26 LISTENER JANUARY 11 2014
THE DAIRY DILEMMA
water table were less than on the average
Waikato dairy farm. No one was waving a
regulatory stick at him and ordering him to
reduce his farms environmental footprint.
Nevertheless, he has seen t to invest
$900,000 in new farm infrastructure that
has cut the volume of nitrogen leaching
through the soil to less than half the aver-
age in the region. Butterworths cows now
spend several hours each day in his two
herd homes, where they escape from the
heat and the cold, and where their urine
and faeces fall through the grated oor into
a huge concrete bunker. When soil and
climatic conditions are right, Butterworth
sprays the collected efuent onto his maize
a crop that is highly efcient at turning the
nutrients into fresh new growth.
The animals wander into the shelters at
about 3am each day for a feed before milk-
ing. They then head back to the paddock for
a few hours, and return to the shelter when
the sun is too erce or the wind and rain too
cold. In the depths of winter, when the soil
is wet and the grass cant take up the volume
of nutrients released from their urine, they
spend most of their time in the herd home.
They absolutely love it, says Butter-
worth. And so does he. At rst he built only
one herd home, large enough for 250 cows,
because he wasnt sure whether the benets
would outweigh the high capital cost. But he
was quickly convinced, and in recent days
he has completed a second.
Its making a huge difference, he says.
The volume of nitrogen leaching from his
paddocks has dropped to 40% below the
regional average; by returning the collected
efuent to the soil at times when it can be
taken up by the growing plants, hes saving
big money on articial fertiliser; because his
pasture doesnt get such a hammering from
the cows hooves, the grass grows better; and
because the animals are protected from the
extremes of heat and cold, they are under
less stress and produce more milk he esti-
mates his milk production has increased
about 25%. At this rate, his investment in
the herd homes will pay for itself in three
to ve years.
Before, we thought it was the natural
way for the cows to eat and excrete on the
paddocks, and it probably was ne when
there was a cow to the acre as in the 1950s.
But thats not the case now.
PRODUCTION DRIVE
In fact, it is far from the case. Not only have
hundreds of thousands of hectares of New
Zealands agricultural landscape been con-
verted from sheep farms to dairying over
the past two decades, but the relentless drive
for increased milk production has also led
to more cows excreting ever-increasing vol-
umes of nitrogen-rich urine that seeps into
groundwater, rivers and lakes.
Along with phosphorus, which mainly
enters rivers stuck to soil particles from erod-
ing hillsides and stream banks, the excess
nitrogen from animal urine promotes the
growth of river weeds and slime, and can
cause algae blooms. The population of may-
ies and small waterborne insects which
support sh and bird-life declines. Slugs
and snails, which like muddy, slimy envi-
ronments, thrive. Too much nitrogen can
also cause the water to become toxic to sh,
animals and humans who drink or come in
contact with it.
Thanks to a massive increase in the use
of feed supplements such as imported palm
kernel extract, and dramatically expanded
irrigation and urea fertiliser to extend the
grass-growing season, the industrys produc-
tivity has risen an astonishing 60% in the
past 20 years. Dairying has spread further
and further into traditional sheep country,
and farmers also carry more cows per hec-
tare. As Butterworth notes, stocking and
production rates have changed markedly
since the 1950s, but the traditional pastoral
model in which cows graze in the paddocks
and excrete directly onto the soil remains
largely unchanged. He is an outlier in an
industry that has expanded and intensied
at a rate that has far outstripped its willing-
ness and ability to manage the effect it is
having on the environment.
A major investigation by the Parliamen-
tary Commissioner for the Environment,
Jan Wright, spells out the threat this poses.
Between 1996 and 2008, nearly 300,000ha
of traditional sheep and beef farms, mostly
in Canterbury, Southland and Otago, were
converted to dairying.
Based on projected demand for dairy
protein internationally, this trend is set to
continue. Modelling done by independent
economic consultancy Motu indicates a fur-
ther 370,000ha will be converted to dairying
by 2020. And what water quality scientists
have shown is that wherever there is an
increase in dairying, there is a consequen-
tial decline in the health of rivers, streams
and lakes. Thats because cows urinate more
Butterworths investment in new herd shelters
looks set to pay itself o in three to ve years.
In midwinter, the cows
spend most of their
time in the herd home.
27 JANUARY 11 2014 www.listener.co.nz
D
A
V
I
D

W
H
I
T
E
than sheep, releasing far greater volumes of
nitrogen into the soil much of which slips
through the soil and into waterways.
Studies by the National Institute of Water
and Atmospheric Research (Niwa) show that
the national median rate of nitrogen leach-
ing from dairy farms is about 28kg a hectare
per year; from sheep farms its less than 5kg.
The volume of nitrogen that leaks through
the soil depends greatly on the landscape,
climate and soil type. On Canterburys
stony, free-draining soils, where irrigation
has helped dairying to treble since 1996,
annual nitrogen leaching rates can reach
90kg a hectare or even higher. One water-
quality scientist describes dairy farming on
these light soils as hydroponic farming.
But Wright has not based her predic-
tions on the high leaching rates common
in Canterbury. She has selected extremely
conservative rates, but her projections for
water quality if the expansion of dairying
continues as expected are deeply troubling.
The results of the modelling exercise
show that the amount of nitrogen enter-
ing fresh water every year in virtually every
region of the country will continue to rise
The impact of this ongoing and increas-
ing stress will generally be worsening water
quality more blooms of algae and cyano-
bacteria, more streams trailing metres of
brown slime, fewer stream insects and sh,
and more wells and waterways exceeding
nitrate toxicity limits, she writes.
All of us as New Zealanders face a difcult
dilemma. Our small country is a major sup-
plier of protein in the form of milk powder
to developing countries, and the dairy sector
is now the biggest single earner of export
dollars Rising farm costs without corre-
sponding price increases for wool and meat
are continuing to incentivise dairy-farm con-
versions. Unfortunately, this investigation
has shown the clear link between expanding
dairy farming and increasing stress on water
quality. Even with best-practice mitigation,
the large-scale conversion of more land to
dairy farming will generally result in more
degraded fresh water.
FAINT PRAISE
Wrights report has been greeted by Gov-
ernment and dairy industry leaders with a
chorus of faint praise. Environment Minister
Amy Adams describes it as helpful and a
salutary reminder of the need for action
on water quality, but says Wright has failed
to take account of the current suite of Gov-
ernment freshwater reforms (of which more
later). In the deep south, Federated Farmers
leader Russell MacPherson accused Wright
of presenting a worst-case scenario and fail-
ing to take into account existing or future
mitigation measures. He said dairy farmers
had greater awareness than ever before of
their environmental impact.
Todd Muller, Fonterras group director of
co-operative affairs, says the report forms
an important part of the discussion, but
adds that Wright has based the models
underlying her conclusions on past prac-
tices, and things have changed.
When we looked at the report, we
thought it was a very fair assessment of
where we have come from, but perhaps
not as robust a view to the future as we see
it. We accept that the era of unconstrained
growth is now over, and if you look back
over the past 15 to 20 years, it has been very
light-touch regulation.
Muller argues that pending central and
local government regulation and the will-
ingness of farmers in recent years to address
the issue, give us a lot of condence that
sustainable dairy growth is possible. But he
acknowledges that the dairy industry has
been in a state of denial about its impact
on waterways. I do accept that the way we
have engaged with the community on this
issue has been historically very defensive
and could be perceived as trying to preserve
the status quo for as long as possible.
But those days are gone, he says. For
instance, in recent years, dairy farmers have
fenced off some 20,000km of streams to
prevent stock from defecating in the water
and stomping around on banks, which
causes sediment and silt to spill into rivers.
Fonterra has also developed programmes
to help farmers improve the efciency with
which they use irrigation water, and to help
them comply with the requirements of their
28 LISTENER JANUARY 11 2014
THE DAIRY DILEMMA
T
he push for production in the
dairy industry over the past two
decades has seen a big increase
in farm stocking rates, aided by
a massive increase in the use of
nitrogen fertiliser and imported supple-
mentary feed.
But Mike and Lisa Parnwell have deed
the trend on their 250-cow operation in
the central North Island, running their
farm in much the same way that Mikes
father used to. Their stocking rate of 2.5
cows a hectare is lower than other dairy
farms in his area most have about three
cows to the hectare and they bring in
relatively little supplementary feed. They
use a small amount of palm-kernel extract
(although they are trying to move away
from it) and they apply very little urea
fertiliser. And instead of irrigating, jokes
Mike, we pray.
Last year they were hit by the drought
and milk production dropped 20%, but
they came through unscathed. You just
have to farm to the weather.
A few years ago, the owner of the land
that they farm, Swiss-born Dolphy Mathis,
decided he wasnt happy about the cows
being exposed to the heat and cold, so he
invested $300,000 in two herd homes.
Mike says the cows have done better since
the shelters have gone in, and he has
made savings on feed, much of which
used to get trampled into the ground.
With its light stocking rate and care-
ful pasture management, the Parnwells
property last year leached about 18kg of
nitrogen a hectare less than a third of
the average in his region. And their milk
production per cow is 40% above the New
Zealand average. Last year the Parnwells
won the farming business of the year
award for the Central Plateau.
To Alison Dewes, a former vet who is
part of the Headlands consultancy group
working with farmers to reduce their envi-
ronmental footprint while maintaining
their nancial viability, the Parnwells are
an exemplar of the farming system that
may help address New Zealands looming
water-quality crisis. She says they have
chosen stocking rates that would have
been common before the 1980s, when
nitrogen leaching rates were 30-40% lower
than todays average.
There was a paradigm shift in the
1980s, when a study was published that
linked higher stocking rates to higher pro-
duction, and since then the dairy industry
throughout New Zealand has joined that
trend. And then along with that came
nitrogen fertiliser sales to boost grass
growth, because the cows werent getting
fed properly. Then in 2003, New Zealand
started importing palm kernel extract, and
now we import 1.7 million tonnes a year
Less is more
Farmerscanreduce
theirenvironmental
footprintandmaintain
nancialviability.
to support the feed gaps for these high
stocking rates on these farms More
than 10% of New Zealands milk solids are
now reliant on imported
stock feeds.
Farmers do their
budgets based on output,
so they get locked into
these high-input-high-out-
put management systems.
Its a treadmill, and there
can be a high social cost
associated with it.
A byproduct of this
high-input-high-output
regime has been much
higher rates of nitrogen
leaching. But Dewes
says good farmers can
reduce their inputs
of fertiliser and palm
kernel, cut their stocking rates and, with
good pasture and animal management,
maintain their production and prot-
ability and cut nitrogen leaching by up
to 50%. Moreover, by cutting their cost of
production, including spreading efuent
as widely as they can across their land
when the pasture can make best use of the
nutrients, their businesses
can become more resilient
to nancial and climatic
stresses. Theres less pres-
sure on the land, and less
pressure on animal health.
She says the alternative
is to do as the likes of Rex
Butterworth (see main
story) have done main-
tain high stock rates, but
invest heavily in capital
infrastructure such as herd
homes or stand-off pads
that drastically reduce the
volume of uncontrolled
animal efuent deposited
on to the paddocks.
But if Dewes is becoming an inuential
voice of reason in farming and environ-
mental circles, much of the damage from
intensive dairying may already be done.
In the upper Waikato, tens of thousands
of hectares of pine plantations have been
removed to make way for pasture for cows
a massive land use change that Dewes
says will produce bacterial loads equiva-
lent to the untreated sewage of a city of
more than 800,000 people. In Canterbury,
land use change from sheep to dairy-
ing has left almost 70% of the regions
waterways damaged or at risk from high
nutrient loads, and has led to rising nitrate
levels at a third of monitored wells.
Environment Canterbury recently
moved to implement a new plan that sets
region-wide limits on water pollution and
will impose tighter rules for new dairy
conversions, but existing farmers with
high rates of nitrogen leaching will be
allowed to continue to pollute.
According to Massey University fresh-
water ecologist Russell Death, both the
Canterbury plan and a rule proposed by
the Hawkes Bay Regional Council for the
Tukituki catchment would allow these
waterways to become more polluted than
the Mississippi, yet still be compliant with
the regulations. Rebecca Mace
29 JANUARY 11 2014 www.listener.co.nz
Alison Dewes: A high social cost.
resource consents for the management of
dairy-shed efuent.
The co-operative has also introduced
a voluntary nitrogen-management pro-
gramme, under which farmers provide data
on their rate of nutrient leaching, so that
individuals can compare their performance
with others in their area. In the past, Muller,
notes, few farmers would have had any idea
of the volume of nutrients leaching through
their soils.
LOOMING CRISIS
But are these worthy-sounding initiatives to
encourage good farming practices enough
to deal with the looming crisis in water qual-
ity that Wright foresees? Research led by Bob
Wilcock of Niwa suggests not.
For the past 12 years, Wilcock has been
involved in monitoring the health of ve
streams to track the effects of the Clean
Streams Accord, the voluntary agreement
drawn up in 2003 that encourages farmers
to fence off streams, put bridges and culverts
over creeks where cows cross and develop
nutrient budgets. Each of the monitored
streams runs through dairy farming coun-
try: the Toenepi (Waikato), Waiokura (South
Taranaki), Waikakahi (South Canterbury),
Bog Burn (Southland) and Inchbonnie
(West Coast).
The results show that when farmers
complied with the accord, the amount
of phosphorus getting into streams
either stabilised or declined, water clarity
improved, and E coli levels fell. But nutrient
levels in the rivers remained much higher
than those in similar streams that had been
undisturbed by agriculture and nitrogen
levels continued to rise. Thats because fenc-
ing off streams and planting out the banks
helps stop sediment and phosphorus getting
into the water, but it does nothing to stop
highly soluble nitrogen from cow urine leak-
ing through the pasture and into waterways.
The problem with nitrogen is that the
methods known to reduce leaching rates
most dramatically the herd homes Rex
Butterworth built, concrete stand-off pads
to remove cows from the pasture for a few
hours each day and articial wetlands to
soak up excess nutrients are also extremely
expensive for farmers.
In a study underpinning Wrights report,
economists from Motu concluded that wide-
spread adoption of herd homes, stand-off
pads and articial wetlands was unlikely by
2020. Instead, they concluded, farmers were
likely to make smaller improvements more
efcient fertiliser use, improved cow genetics
and compliance with industry best-practice
guidelines as dened in the Sustainable Dair-
ying: Water Accord (which last year replaced
the old Clean Streams Accord). Wright con-
cludes farmers are likely to hold the line
on nutrient leaching, increasing productiv-
ity while keeping nutrient losses steady.
The problem is that, in the meantime,
another 370,000ha of farmland will be
converted from sheep or pine forests to
dairy ing, enabled by big irrigation schemes
such as the controversial Government-
backed Ruataniwha project in Hawkes Bay
and the Central Plains Water scheme in
Canterbury.
As Chris Kelly, the former chief execu-
tive of New Zealands biggest dairy farmer,
Landcorp, told Radio New Zealands Country
Life last year: More dairy means more cows,
more cows means more nitrogen because
its not the fertiliser that you put on, its the
urine from the cows and more nitrogen
potentially means more leaching into water-
ways, and you know the effects of that.
COMPLETE RETHINK
But Environment Minister Adams assures us
that the Government is on the case and that
Wrights report is unduly pessimistic. After
20 years of inaction on freshwater manage-
ment a period during which the Resource
Management Act enabled the explosion of
dairying in sensitive environments such as
Canterbury rules are being developed that,
she says, will protect the quality of our lakes
The dairy industry has
been in denial about its
impact on waterways.
From here, the Wairoa ows through
Dargaville and into the Kaipara Harbour.
These are the main arteries of the Kaipara
moana, the major nursery
of many species includ-
ing snapper. This harbour
is vital to the mauri (life
force) of our rivers and
coastal sheries. My
tupuna and most of my
dads whanau were born
and raised on these rivers.
Many lie buried there. The
rivers are us, and we are
the rivers. They are our
very sustenance.
Many Pakeha, par-
ticularly those whose
forefathers farmed the
land, share an afnity for
these rivers along with
the tangata whenua. Together, we are
their kaitiaki. And we are concerned that
intensive farming is too severe on the
sustainability of our waterways. We must
respond together, to halt and turn back
this serious decline.
In 2010, my uncle Henry and I visited
our old homestead on
the Wairua River. The
river was stagnant and
green and stank of cattle
efuent. Tuna (eels) and
whitebait are in severe
decline in waters too fetid
for them. Tuna were a
main sustenance for hapu
who live by the awa.
Massey University fresh-
water scientist Professor
Mike Joy has said that sh
such as tuna and white-
bait are the coal mine
canaries of our waterways.
This message resonated in
my mind and we decided
to do something about this decline in our
awa. We formed the Kaitiaki Tuna Heke
Aotearoa Trust to focus on water quality
in the Wairua River catchment and all
30 LISTENER JANUARY 11 2014
THE DAIRY DILEMMA
and rivers from further degradation.
We do have to completely rethink the
way we manage water, she acknowledges.
As a result of the work of the Land and
Water Forum a collaborative effort to
get farming, industry and environmental
groups to agree on a way forward on water
quality the Government introduced a
National Policy Statement for fresh water
in 2012. The statement expressed the
noble aim that the overall quality of fresh
water in all regions must be maintained
or improved.
The document offered little guidance as to
how this was to be achieved, but in Novem-
ber, Adams moved to back it up by releasing
a proposed National Objectives Framework
(referred to in policy and scientic circles as
the NOF) that set bottom-line standards
below which regional councils must not let
water quality fall. Regional councils are then
expected to work in a collaborative manner
with their communities to set local limits on
pollution that may be much stricter than
the national bottom lines.
Adam says the NOF is not a silver bullet;
its a start, and its not hard to nd those
who believe the NOF is an important step
forward. David Hamilton, professor of fresh-
water ecology at Waikato University and
a member of the science reference group
that advised ofcials on the NOF, says the
proposed rule book has gone further than
what had been expected. It is far from per-
fect, he says, but there had to be a line in
the sand drawn.
Scientists have been highly engaged in
this, and they have been asked to put their
necks on the line to some extent by putting
numbers on a limits-based system They
are providing a directive to regional coun-
cils: Here is the structure, now go away and
put together some limits.
But some critics fear the bottom-line
limits set by the NOF are so low that it may
cause more harm than good to water quality.
Good rivers would be allowed to get
worse under the NOF, says Neil Deans of
advocacy group Fish & Game. He says the
rules are written in such a way that regional
councils will be able to let some rivers dete-
riorate, offsetting the damage by improving
the quality of other rivers, so that the overall
water quality in the area is maintained.
The rules require regions to account for
water quality in terms of freshwater man-
agement units (FMUs), which can be as
large or small as they choose. Deans says
this would allow, for instance, increasing
pollution of the Ashley River catchment
in North Canterbury to be cancelled out
by an improvement in a catchment in the
Mackenzie Country. The ability to trade
off like this makes a nonsense of the goal of
protecting [water quality] values.
Wright agrees the NOF lacks any guid-
ance as to how councils are to establish the
boundaries of their freshwater management
units, leaving the way open for the kind of
outcome Deans describes.
She says the National Policy Statement
requires all councils to set objectives for
water quality by 2030, but there is no time-
line for when those objectives must be
achieved. And as her report predicts, water
quality in many parts of the country will
already be in a bad way by 2020 as a result
of the continued expansion of dairying.
Even if regional councils do bring in
stricter local rules, conversions of sheep and
forestry land to dairying that are currently
under way or occur in the near future will
not be reversed, Wright points out.
INSECT HEALTH
Another major aw in the NOF, say critics,
is that two of the most important measures
of ecosystem health in rivers and lakes have
been left out. It fails to include requirements
regarding the health of insects and aquatic
creatures living in and on a river measured
by the long-established Macroinvertebrate
Community Index despite this being a
direct and clear measure of the health of
the freshwater environment.
And instead of imposing a limit on nitrate
levels that protects the health of the aquatic
ecosystem, the proposed bottom-line limit
The rivers are
us; we are
the rivers
Wemustworktohalt
andreversetheserious
dropinwaterquality,
saysMillanRuka.
Ruka: gathering the evidence.
We do have to
completely rethink the
way we manage water.
He waka eke noa. A canoe that we are all in
with no exception. We are all in this together.
M
y awa are the Wairua and
Mangakahia Rivers of North-
land, which journey from
their catchments to become
the Northern Wairoa River.
the other waterways in Tai Tokerau. We
changed our name to Environment River
Patrol Aotearoa (ERP-A) and developed
assessment methods and skills in GPS
photography to provide evidence of detri-
mental effects to the Northland Regional
and Whangarei District councils, Fonterra
and Federated Farmers.
Our philosophy is to be compassionate,
patient and professional in our work. All
reports are sent to the Northland Regional
Council (NRC) and farmers organisations.
ERP-A does not engage with farmers on
the waterways and we do not trespass. The
mission is to ensure the council performs
its mandated duty to look after our envi-
ronment and its waterways.
Fonterra has evolved to respond directly
to reports, but its self-regulation needs
independent assessment. Fonterra says a
stream must be more than 300mm deep
and 1m wide to be fenced, but it is based
on a summer assessment, even though
there may be twice the ow in winter.
ERP-As reports have been instrumental
in gaining many kilometres of fenc-
ing and creating public awareness that
authorities need to do better to cope with
the expected expansion of dairy farming.
Environment Commissioner Jan Wrights
well-researched and accessible Water Qual-
ity New Zealand forecasts further declines.
Increasingly, beef and dairy breeding
stock are replacing dairy stock on the pas-
ture bordering waterways. Photographic
evidence clearly shows unfenced cattle,
with few if any water troughs, fouling near
or directly in the water.
Our campaign to date has emphasised
respect and non-confrontation but the
lack of response in the new NRC Policy
Statement suggests that complacency will
prevail; ERP-A responded in November by
posting online GPS-tagged photos show-
ing where these events happen. We do not
name farmers, but seek to create pressure
by identifying exactly detrimental effects
are happening.
We started by self-funding all our equip-
ment, including vehicles, kayaks, river
motorboat, cameras and computers and
were later blessed to receive operational
funding from a Maori-funded agency. But
this funding will soon expire, and we will
need an alternative source. We have no
idea what this will be but the work will
continue regardless. It is surprising that
the Government will fund research into
the problem, but provides nothing for
monitoring patrols to assess and report on
waterways or monitor the performance
of regional councils to ensure they are
performing to best-practice standards.
Millan Ruka (Te Uriroroi/Te Mahure) is a ranger
with Environment River Patrol Aotearoa.
31 JANUARY 11 2014 www.listener.co.nz
J
O
H
N

S
T
O
N
E
My tupuna and most
of my dads large whanau
were born and raised
on these rivers.
in the NOF is set at the level of nitrate tox-
icity. That means the rule will have been
breached only when the level of nitrates in
the water reaches the point where 20% of
aquatic species start to be poisoned.
Deans says most rivers are nowhere near
this level of nitrate contamination, and the
NOF therefore allows for a signicant dete-
rioration. Remember, this is attempting
to dene the life-supporting capacity [of a
waterway] and yet its dening it in terms
of toxicity. Thats inherently absurd. Its like
trying to dene species threat in terms of
extinction.
The risk, says Deans, is that people will
seize on the numbers [set in the NOF] and
say Oh, we are nowhere near that level
yet.
Adams is unfazed by such criticism;
indeed, she appears to agree with it. I agree
that a Macroinvertebrate Community Index
and total dissolved nitrogen level would be
useful things to have, and work is going on
with those. But when you say I havent
included this or I havent done that, I
havent done any of these things. This is
what the science reference panel have come
up with. They said this is what we can agree
on so far, and this is where we think is a
sensible place to start, and we are still work-
ing on the rest.
But some of the leading lights on the
scientic reference group to which Adams
refers think the absence of the Macroin-
vertebrate Community Index and tighter
nitrogen limits are serious omissions. David
Hamilton, who was a member of the panel
and also chairs the New Zealand Society of
Freshwater Scientists, agrees the absence of
the index a measure that scientists have
worked with for 20 years is a aw. And hes
also uneasy about the use of nitrate toxic-
ity limits because if you are to have streams
throughout New Zealand that are close to
those toxicity levels, then you have really
completely let the brakes off on nitrogen.
If you look at where New Zealand sits
with regard to nitrate levels through its
streams pretty much throughout the coun-
try, you would be looking at that and saying
theres a lot of headroom. If we were to use
that toxicity limit without [tighter] council
limits, then we would have a major issue and
nitrate would be going up very strongly.
MASSIVE TASK
He says theres wide variance in the ability of
waterways to tolerate different nitrate levels,
and regional councils will have to urgently
get their acts together and develop local
limits that are appropriate.
But the task is massive. Canterbury, which
four years ago began a collaborative process
of drawing up local water-quality plans for
the 10 key catchments in the region, has
so far completed just two of those plans
one for the Hurunui catchment and one for
Selwyn/Te Waihora, an area that includes
the severely degraded Lake Ellesmere (Te
Waihora).
In the meantime, as the technically
demanding and excruciatingly slow process
of setting local rules continues, thousands
of hectares continue to be converted to
dairying.
Hamilton: That really concerns me in
some cases [where there is strong pressure
for further dairy conversions], its almost as
if there should be a moratorium to say, Lets
hold development for two or three years,
lets see what our systems are doing and
monitor them closely, and if we are going
to develop community-based limits, lets get
those limits in place rst before these very
big investments in dairy infrastructure and
irrigation take place.
He warns that aquatic systems dont
degrade in a linear and predictable pattern.
Many of our systems are quite resilient up
to a point, and beyond that point, which
we call a tipping point or a regime shift,
they can degrade very quickly. And pulling
them back once they have gone through
that degradation is a huge challenge.
You only have to look at [the heavily
polluted] Te Waihora (Lake Ellesmere) or
Lake Horowhenua to see just what those
challenges involve. They are huge. l
Beyond a certain
tipping point, rivers
degrade very quickly.