Action for healthy waterways: A discussion document on national direction for our essential freshwater Local Government New Zealand’s submission to the Ministry for the Environment 31 October 2019 1 2 We are. LGNZ. LGNZ is the national organisation of local authorities in New Zealand and all 78 councils are members. We represent the interests of councils and lead best practice in the local government sector. LGNZ provides advocacy and policy services, business support, advice and training to our members to assist them to build successful communities throughout New Zealand. Our purpose is to deliver our sector’s Vision: “Local democracy powering community and national success.” This final submission was endorsed under delegated authority by Dave Cull, President, Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) and Doug Leeder, Chair of LGNZ’s Regional Sector. This submission has been prepared by the Regional Sector Water Subgroup (RSWG)] on behalf of wider local government sector, comprising regional councils, unitary authorities and territorial authorities (the Sector)]. All those parties have been consulted and have actively contributed to the development of this submission. It represents their collective and common position on the merits and challenges of the Essential Freshwater Reform package (EFW package) as set out in the discussion document Action for Healthy Waterways and the accompanying draft national instruments1. To the extent that individual councils have made their own submissions, those submissions should be read as being in addition to the matters raised here. Individual councils’ submissions inevitably address matters of particular interest and relevance to their respective regions and districts that may not be addressed in this sector-wide submission. In preparing this submission, the Sector is very aware that it wears several ‘hats’ in the national freshwater conversation. • Regional councils, unitary authorities and city and territorial authorities all have a responsibility under the Local Government Act (LGA) to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future. • Regional councils also have the regulatory function of managing water under the Resource Management Act (RMA) towards the specific purpose of promoting sustainable management and to achieve a range of environmental outcomes. • Both the regional councils and the wider local government sector also wear the hat of a resource user in terms of their service delivery responsibilities for, in particular, flood management and the provision of ‘three waters’ services. Where relevant this submission distinguishes between submission points made wearing these different hats. Where “regional councils” are referred to throughout this submission this also includes unitary authorities discharging their regional council functions. 1 Draft Freshwater NES, Draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and Stock Exclusion Regulations. 3 Foreword Kia ora There are very few matters of public policy where all the stakeholders aspire to the same outcome, but freshwater appears to be one of those exceptions. Everyone wants to see the quality of our lakes, rivers, wetlands and steams improve, be they central government, councils, iwi/Māori, farmers, industry, environmental groups, and rural and urban communities. Where the views differ is in how we deliver on this outcome. Any significant policy change will, by its nature, give rise to costs and benefits, which will be hotly debated among stakeholders. This is to be expected and welcomed as part of the democratic process, one that improves policy development by inviting critical assessment and new ideas into the discussion. That is the spirit with which LGNZ has engaged with the Essential Freshwater Package. Regional councils have worked closely with Government and committed significant resources to help inform the thinking on freshwater policy. Using their extensive on-the-ground experience as water regulators, regional councils have also tested whether the proposed package will deliver on the intended goals, outlined the trade-offs, and looked at how the costs and benefits are likely to be distributed across the country. The results of this work can be found in this submission. Our intent is to constructively and collaboratively help develop the new regulatory framework that delivers on the freshwater outcomes that all New Zealanders want as a key driver of their well-being. We look forward to engaging with you as the policy development process proceeds. Dave Cull Doug Leeder President Chair LGNZ LGNZ Regional Sector 4 Key messages In responding to the Government’s substantial body of reform proposals, the wider sector is committed to work together with the Government, tangata whenua and stakeholders to deliver healthy freshwater for all our communities. The Regional Sector sees itself as a partner in the management of New Zealand’s freshwater not as just an implementer or just another stakeholder. The comments made in this submission are made as part of a genuine desire to deliver the fastest possible progress towards achieving sustainable and durable solutions to the issues we face. Overall, we believe that the best way to deliver on that ambition is to build on what has already been agreed with our communities and what we know to be successful. In that regard, the Regional Sector welcomes a reform package that offers us clear direction, empowerment and the provision of tools. It does not support prescription that limits how councils can respond or which redirects our effort in ways that make us less effective as freshwater managers. The following key messages need to be read in that context. • In its role as both promoter of well-being and as environmental regulator, local government strongly supports the reform objectives and the desire to improve water quality and ecosystem health. In principle, we support many aspects of the package including building on the Te Mana o te Wai framework, strengthening management of freshwater ecosystem health, and national regulation to manage contaminant losses from high risk rural land use practices. • While the support for the reform objectives is strong, local government is very conscious of its responsibility under both the Local Government Act and the Resource Management Act to manage land and freshwater in a way and at a rate that enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being. • Commitments to halt decline and secure improvements in water quality and ecosystem health are already reflected in the work programmes (and in many cases operative statutory plans) across regional and unitary councils. There is no shortage of commitment by all of local government to maintaining and improving water quality and the values we all share in water2. Despite that, we accept that there are many elements of the existing policy and legal framework that could be amended or augmented to help the Regional Sector do its job as environmental regulator more efficiently and effectively. The EFW package includes many of those changes and those proposals are commented on in this submission. Overall though, we think the reform package lacks a clear and accurate problem definition. • One of our biggest concerns with the package is that it seems based on a premise that the issues are severe and urgent everywhere and, accordingly, that there is the same need for management intervention everywhere, in the same way and in the same timeframes. That is not our analysis of the challenge in front of us. Our information clearly indicates that freshwater problems remain highly variable around the country. In many respects, responses need to be far more bespoke than the EFW package suggests. Furthermore, opportunities exist for national resources to be prioritised to get the most benefit the fastest by targeting priority issues and catchments. • We are concerned that the new and additional obligations and, in particular, the emphasis on increasing measurability, accounting and reporting of instream outcomes, will distract councils from taking the practical measures that will make a material difference for freshwater outcomes. While there is truth in the saying that ‘you cannot manage what you cannot measure’, in a world of limited resources there is a balance that needs to be struck. The EFW package has not got that balance right. We believe that delivering an increased emphasis on monitoring and reporting will occur at the expense of delivering practical on-the-ground programmes that we know, from decades of experience, will drive real change. The management of sediment is a 2 See the Sector’s declaration at: https://www.lgnz.co.nz/our-work/publications/local-government-leaders-water-declaration/ 5 particular case in point. We can spend a lot of time and money trying to measure sediment in streams but no matter what we find we know the answer lies in land management programmes that deliver tangible action. • Our scientists advise that there is not the requisite rigour behind all the proposed attributes and monitoring proposals. It appears that application of some of the proposed 23 attributes will be inappropriate in certain circumstances. The DIN/DRP attributes in particular, have been developed on a basis that means the national bottom lines will be not necessarily applicable at the regional or catchment scale. Other attributes such, and Fish-IBI, LakeSPI and ecosystem metabolism