The Lake Waikare–Whangamarino Action Plan is intended to improve water quality across one of the Waikato’s most important catchments. But from the perspective of the primary land users who will be expected to implement and help pay for it, the plan risks imposing enormous economic and social costs while failing to address the problems landowners believe are driving the deterioration of the waterways.
This “Action Plan” is, in my opinion, nothing more than PC1 version two, made to fit this catchment alone. Just as the ineptitude surrounding PC1 created a huge level of angst in the community because of the lack of any real cost-benefit analysis, this Action Plan has ended up doing exactly the same.
It should have been remembered at the beginning: “You cannot subsidize stupidity and expect common sense as the outcome.”
It may be said that I am wrong in making this statement regarding the Action Plan, but I will set out my reasons for taking the position that the plan is nothing more than a complete waste of council time and ratepayers’ money.
Background to the Plan
The Waikato Regional Council appointed a working group to develop an Action Plan to clean up the waters in the Lake Waikare–Whangamarino Wetland catchment. Members of the working group came from Waikato Regional Council, Waikato River Authority, Department of Conservation, Fish & Game, community representatives, iwi, hapū, marae and landowners.
The community was represented by a paid person appointed by WRC who had easy access to the stakeholder group through their association with the council. The landowner group, however, was independent from WRC and the stakeholder group. Landowners believed their views on the Action Plan were not given sufficient weight, particularly considering they are the group that will mainly be required both to undertake the actions in the final plan and fund the outcomes of those actions.
What Landowners Said Needed to Be Fixed
At the beginning of the process, representative groups were expected to meet with their respective members and identify the issues they believed needed to be addressed. As part of this consultation, landowners made it clear that they supported action to improve water quality throughout the catchment.
Their feedback identified four issues requiring immediate attention:
- Flushing of Lake Waikare
- Sediment deposition and control, particularly the effects of koi carp
- The weir in the Whangamarino River
- Koi carp
When the landowner representatives took this feedback to the working group, there was already pushback. Some of the other sectors involved believed agricultural land use was the biggest factor in deteriorating water quality. They contended that hill country within the catchment should largely be reforested with native plantings and stocking consequently de-intensified.
Yet WRC has monitoring results available which, in the landowners’ view, show surrounding landowners have improved the quality of water leaving their properties, only for that water quality to deteriorate after entering the lake and wetland.
Landowners contend this degradation is connected to the four issues they identified from the beginning: the weir, koi carp, sediment deposition and flushing.
Address the Hard Problems First
This Action Plan will never work unless it addresses the hard issues first, the ones identified by landowners when their representatives went out and sought the views of their communities.
Instead, the Action Plan appears to put the onus back onto landowners. I believe the result will be the decimation of parts of the farming sector, damage to the local economy, the creation of another and larger bureaucracy with associated costs for ratepayers, and little significant improvement in catchment water quality.
There has not been, in my view, any true analysis of the benefits compared with the costs of implementing this plan. Yet there is confidence in proposing expenditure of approximately $1 billion over 25 years, with potentially significant ongoing costs thereafter.
Importantly, the Action Plan itself identifies actions where the potential impacts on other outcomes, including the regional economy, have not yet been fully considered. A Representative Panel assessed options and ranked actions according to overall environmental benefit, technical feasibility, rough implementation costs and the likely timeframes before benefits would accrue.
But one fundamental question remains: who pays?
A Billion-Dollar Bill
The proposed implementation has been costed at $1 billion for the first 25 years. The draft indicates that ratepayers, landowners and agencies would contribute.
If we assume the cost were spread across approximately 200,000 ratepayers in the region, the simple arithmetic produces a figure of $5,000 per ratepayer over 25 years, or approximately $200 per year. Any greater burden falling on a smaller number of ratepayers, landowners or particular sectors would obviously increase their individual exposure.
This is before considering other costs that may arise through implementation of other parts of PC1.
The point is not that nothing should be done. The council needs to be certain, based on an in-depth economic and environmental analysis, that what is proposed is affordable, practicable and capable of achieving the desired improvements in water quality before recommending implementation.
Who Is Responsible?
Having identified the four major issues they believed needed to be tackled, landowners also identified the organisations they considered responsible for them.
They regard DOC as responsible for koi carp management, while responsibility for the weir is attributed jointly to DOC and Fish & Game. Landowners also believe the water quality and sediment problems in Lake Waikare have become a government responsibility because of unforeseen consequences arising from flood protection schemes installed during the 1960s.
The effects of koi carp cannot simply be put to one side. They disturb sediments while feeding, muddy the water, dislodge aquatic plants and damage habitat for native fish, invertebrates and waterfowl.
This is why I believe the Action Plan's focus on agriculture is misplaced. Council figures cited in the Action Plan process indicate that 39 percent of nitrogen and 55 percent of phosphorus comes from sources other than farming. Of those totals, 7 percent of nitrogen and 18 percent of phosphorus are attributed to point sources, with 32 percent of nitrogen and 37 percent of phosphorus attributed to natural sources.
Farming contributes, but it is not the only contributor.
The Koi Carp Problem
Arguably one of the largest contributors to sediment disturbance in the waterways is being inadequately addressed: koi carp.
Koi carp feed by disturbing the bottom of ponds, lakes and rivers. They consume a wide range of material, including insects, fish eggs, juvenile fish, plants and organic matter. Their feeding behaviour can dislodge aquatic plants and contribute to habitat degradation.
Until an effective method of koi carp control is found, I believe water quality will continue to decline. At the same time, the legal obligations surrounding restoration of the Waikato River mean Waikato Regional Council will remain under pressure to take action to improve water quality.
If the underlying causes are not properly addressed, that pressure will inevitably fall somewhere. Under the current approach, I fear it will continue to fall disproportionately on agriculture and surrounding land users.
The Economic Consequences Could Be Enormous
The consequences will not necessarily stop at the catchment boundary.
The economic estimates considered by landowner representatives suggest potential losses to the Waikato dairy and drystock industries alone of approximately $2.4 billion. If those estimates prove accurate, the effects would extend beyond individual farms into employment, servicing businesses, food production and New Zealand's export earnings.
There are also downstream social consequences that cannot simply be entered into a spreadsheet. Restrictions that undermine financially sustainable farming can accelerate rural depopulation and weaken already vulnerable communities. Farmers forced from uneconomic properties mean fewer families supporting schools, stores, sports clubs and community organisations.
There is also the potential loss of land value, increased financial stress and the gradual erosion of community spirit.
These are real consequences and must form part of any genuine cost-benefit analysis.
A Healthy River and Prosperous Communities
The vision for the Waikato River is officially expressed through Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato, which envisages a future in which a healthy Waikato River sustains abundant life and prosperous communities dedicated to restoring and protecting its health and wellbeing.
Those two objectives should not be treated as mutually exclusive.
Waikato Regional Council is supposed to represent all sectors of the region and maintain a balanced view when making decisions affecting them. From the landowners' perspective, that balance has been missing from this process.
The council appeared unwilling to challenge its partners, including DOC, Fish & Game, Waikato River Authority and iwi, while the landowner representatives increasingly felt they were present to provide the appearance of inclusion rather than genuinely influence the outcome.
Ultimately, the landowner representatives refused to endorse the final Action Plan proposal because they did not believe their concerns had been adequately incorporated.
Unless effective control of koi carp and the other fundamental problems identified by landowners are addressed, I believe we will continue to see declining water quality accompanied by increasing pressure on agriculture.
Nobody I represent is arguing for doing nothing.
We are arguing that if the Waikato is going to spend enormous amounts of public and private money restoring Lake Waikare and the Whangamarino, then it should first establish exactly what is causing the problem, what interventions will produce measurable improvements, what those interventions will cost, and what they will do to the communities expected to pay for them.
Anything less risks spending a billion dollars treating the symptoms while leaving the causes untouched.