Concerns in Otago about how much new freshwater rules could cost.
A case study by Federated Farmers Otago reckons it could cost as much as $110 million for two small Otago towns – roughly $50,000 per ratepayer.
They’ve since written to councillors, district mayors and ministers demanding that this information gets made public.
Otago Regional Council Planning and Transport General Manager Anita Dawe joined Heather du Plessis-Allan.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now there are concerns in O Targo about how much
new freshwater rules could cost. Federated Farmers of Targo reckons
it could be as much as one hundred and ten
million dollars for two small Otago towns, which equates to
around fifty thousand dollars per rate payer. This is a
case study. They've written to counselors district mayor's ministers demanding
that the information be made public. And eat Adore is
the general manager of Planning and Transport at Otago Regional Council.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
And with us.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Now, Hey, Anita, hey, Heather, I mean, are they right?
Is it going to potentially cost that much money for ratepayers?
Speaker 2 (00:29):
That's actually information we don't have. We haven't been provided
that by the city and District Council, so I genuinely
can't tell you, but I'd be surprised if it were
that much.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Do you have any idea how much these new rules
are going to cost anywhere in the in the region.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
The challenge with the rules is they're going to impact
everybody differently, so there's not a uniform cost. So it'll
depend on when you need new content, whether you need
a consent at all. So there's a whole lot of
permitted activities that you won't need a consent for, and
then you know, so there's a bunch of different factors.
Also depends on what you're doing, so different landowners will
(01:06):
be impacted.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Different Presumably there will also have to be some some
changes in the way that that treated water is discharged.
Have you looked into how much that will cost?
Speaker 2 (01:16):
So there will be changes in any sence. What we
will be asking out city industrict councilors is for standards
that mean that water quality is an impact because what
we know is our community really wants good water quality.
So that's what the plan is driving towards.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
Let's just understand the rules are eater. So we've been
told that that Nightahoo's rules say that no water can
pass through a human body and then be discharged directly
into a body of water. Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Look, I can't speak for Nightahoo, but it's not Notahoo's plan.
At sorc's plan, and at the moment the plan is
drafted doesn't say that.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
What does it say about that?
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Then? So what the plan does is that differentiates between
raw waste water basically treated and then a differentiates between
discharges to land and discharges to.
Speaker 1 (02:05):
Water and is treated water treated water able to be
discharged under the plan into water.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
There's a consent pathway for it, so there's an an
ability to apply for a content if you get the consent.
Depends on the reason you're going to water, the treatment
options that you've got. You know that, you know if
there's a justification for why you can't discharge the land.
But there's absolutely a pathway there, and it just depends
on each set of circumstances.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
Is that is there a preference to discharge onto land
rather than into water?
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Yeah, preference absolutely, yep, but not it's not an absolute.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
But you if you you would only be granted the
consent to discharge into water if you cannot discharge onto land. Correct.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Not necessarily, It just it depends and it's one of
those difficulties without an application in front of a consense team,
it's really hard to determine. But all we can do
is say there's a pathway there, we've got a preference
for to land. But we're also really aware that in
Face is like Central Tago, it's leases for a whole
lot of the year, and so you can't judge end.
So you know, there's practicalities in the plan, and then
(03:08):
there's also the community expectations in terms of getting water
quality that we can drink, consume and.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
You would accept you would accept anita that if the
consent was not granted to discharge into water when you
exist existing, you do discharge into water, there will be
a cost attached to that which could be quite significant.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Right absolutely, Okay.
Speaker 1 (03:27):
Is the second part of the rules that you cannot
now take water from one water body and discharge it
into another water body.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
So what we've got there is there's some policy direction
around cross mixing of waters, and basically what it says is, hey,
this is a thing that's occurred in the past, and
we know that it's going to occur, and it's really
hard to untangle, so let's not worry about that. Let's
try to avoid any of that happening in the future.
So it differentiates between what we already know is happening,
(03:58):
is existing supports, you know, So if you've got.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
It worded, for example, that is currently taking water out
of one water body, one stream, let's say, and then
they're discharging into another stream and they're doing it already,
they can continue.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
To do it so that can apply for consent, and
the plan will to apply for a consent.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Anita, the mere fact that they need to apply for
a consent suggests that you might say.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
No, so most consents. Most people need consent to take water,
so that the contents for the tape for water, not
for where it's coming from and discharging too.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
So are you telling me that, even if they're doing
this thing already, the moment these rules come in, there
will need to be a new application under these rules
for consent.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
Absolutely, not just when the consent expires. There's a typical
in every content, So when there's a new policy framework,
there's a new set of considerations and it will be
assessed accordingly.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
You said to me earlier that you don't have that
case study that somebody else has got, that case study
that Federated Farmers were referring to. Who's got it?
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Don't know, don't know. I'd be speculating, and I don't know.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
So is a whole bunch of district councils and city
councils and stuff doing their own case studies and looking
at how much things are going to cost potentially.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
So part of what we do when we develop plans
is we're required to do some computation before we notify it,
and we did that in January and February this year,
and all of our five tas were through out of
a coffee. We've got some feedback from two of our tas,
but not all five. And I had a quick look
and I couldn't see that information in there. And the
(05:37):
situation in the Federated Farmers seem to describe as a
different peratory authority one we didn't get feedback from.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Yeah, well, I mean essentially what they want to know
Federated Farmers is what is in the latest draft of
the Land and Water Plan. When are you going to
make that public?
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Yeah, so we're going to be public when it's notified
and we've been working. Well, it's subject to a council decision,
so we will be taking too council in October and
council will make that decision.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
But don't the rules need to come in in October?
Speaker 2 (06:06):
No, Well, the plan is notified and then you get
really technical and then old We'll say this very policy
wants saying that the rules will have legal effect. But
there's a natural justice presumption in the RAMA that says
if you're doing an activity today and it doesn't need
a consent, and then you're going to do it tomorrow
and it might need a consent. Then we're not going
to make you get a consent until we've been righting.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
So is that fair? So it's going to go to
Council and it's going to basically be enacted before anybody
who was affected by this stuff can actually see what
it says.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
So lots of the groups have already seen it. So
as I said, which grades and very notification consultation. We
consulted fifty different parties, including Federated Farmers, and my staff
have been working with Federated Farmers on some day.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Okay, they've seen it. Have they seen the final draft?
Have they seen the latest draft?
Speaker 2 (07:00):
I've seen the final draft. There isn't the final draft yet,
we're still working on it.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
And okay, So that's what I'm asking you, though, Is
it fair that you guys work on this latest draft
and no one gets to see it who's affected by
it until it's basically enacted. Don't you think they should
see it beforehand and have a bit of a sail it.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
Well, they've had They've had lots of saves. We've been
engaging on some of these aspects since twenty twenty. But
what's happened now is we're in the sets. They're part
of the process, and the rama sets without and we're
just doing what the roma sets out, so you know,
and that's a process question. And if we show it
to one party, we've got to show it to them all.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
Yeah, you should, as you should.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Well, I've seen it a couple of times. Yeah, I
mean the good thing about democracy is that every of
those parties can submit on the plan and then a
hearings panel get to make deltment decision on what the
plan looks like.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
All right, Hey, Anita, thanks for having a chat to us.
I really appreciate it. Thanks for explaining that's a need
to do. General Manager of Planning and Transport, Otago Regional Council.
I don't think that's going to satisfy anyone. Basically, the
rules are coming at you. It's gonna be pricey, but
you're only going to find out when they're enacted.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive, Listen live to
News Talks it B from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Now there are concerns in O Targo about how much
new freshwater rules could cost. Federated Farmers of Targo reckons
it could be as much as one hundred and ten
million dollars for two small Otago towns, which equates to
around fifty thousand dollars per rate payer. This is a
case study. They've written to counselors district mayor's ministers demanding
that the information be made public. And eat Adore is
the general manager of Planning and Transport at Otago Regional Council.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
And with us.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Now, Hey, Anita, hey, Heather, I mean, are they right?
Is it going to potentially cost that much money for ratepayers?
Speaker 2 (00:29):
That's actually information we don't have. We haven't been provided
that by the city and District Council, so I genuinely
can't tell you, but I'd be surprised if it were
that much.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Do you have any idea how much these new rules
are going to cost anywhere in the in the region.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
The challenge with the rules is they're going to impact
everybody differently, so there's not a uniform cost. So it'll
depend on when you need new content, whether you need
a consent at all. So there's a whole lot of
permitted activities that you won't need a consent for, and
then you know, so there's a bunch of different factors.
Also depends on what you're doing, so different landowners will
(01:06):
be impacted.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Different Presumably there will also have to be some some
changes in the way that that treated water is discharged.
Have you looked into how much that will cost?
Speaker 2 (01:16):
So there will be changes in any sence. What we
will be asking out city industrict councilors is for standards
that mean that water quality is an impact because what
we know is our community really wants good water quality.
So that's what the plan is driving towards.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
Let's just understand the rules are eater. So we've been
told that that Nightahoo's rules say that no water can
pass through a human body and then be discharged directly
into a body of water. Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Look, I can't speak for Nightahoo, but it's not Notahoo's plan.
At sorc's plan, and at the moment the plan is
drafted doesn't say that.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
What does it say about that?
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Then? So what the plan does is that differentiates between
raw waste water basically treated and then a differentiates between
discharges to land and discharges to.
Speaker 1 (02:05):
Water and is treated water treated water able to be
discharged under the plan into water.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
There's a consent pathway for it, so there's an an
ability to apply for a content if you get the consent.
Depends on the reason you're going to water, the treatment
options that you've got. You know that, you know if
there's a justification for why you can't discharge the land.
But there's absolutely a pathway there, and it just depends
on each set of circumstances.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
Is that is there a preference to discharge onto land
rather than into water?
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Yeah, preference absolutely, yep, but not it's not an absolute.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
But you if you you would only be granted the
consent to discharge into water if you cannot discharge onto land. Correct.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Not necessarily, It just it depends and it's one of
those difficulties without an application in front of a consense team,
it's really hard to determine. But all we can do
is say there's a pathway there, we've got a preference
for to land. But we're also really aware that in
Face is like Central Tago, it's leases for a whole
lot of the year, and so you can't judge end.
So you know, there's practicalities in the plan, and then
(03:08):
there's also the community expectations in terms of getting water
quality that we can drink, consume and.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
You would accept you would accept anita that if the
consent was not granted to discharge into water when you
exist existing, you do discharge into water, there will be
a cost attached to that which could be quite significant.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Right absolutely, Okay.
Speaker 1 (03:27):
Is the second part of the rules that you cannot
now take water from one water body and discharge it
into another water body.
Speaker 2 (03:35):
So what we've got there is there's some policy direction
around cross mixing of waters, and basically what it says is, hey,
this is a thing that's occurred in the past, and
we know that it's going to occur, and it's really
hard to untangle, so let's not worry about that. Let's
try to avoid any of that happening in the future.
So it differentiates between what we already know is happening,
(03:58):
is existing supports, you know, So if you've got.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
It worded, for example, that is currently taking water out
of one water body, one stream, let's say, and then
they're discharging into another stream and they're doing it already,
they can continue.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
To do it so that can apply for consent, and
the plan will to apply for a consent.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Anita, the mere fact that they need to apply for
a consent suggests that you might say.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
No, so most consents. Most people need consent to take water,
so that the contents for the tape for water, not
for where it's coming from and discharging too.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
So are you telling me that, even if they're doing
this thing already, the moment these rules come in, there
will need to be a new application under these rules
for consent.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
Absolutely, not just when the consent expires. There's a typical
in every content, So when there's a new policy framework,
there's a new set of considerations and it will be
assessed accordingly.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
You said to me earlier that you don't have that
case study that somebody else has got, that case study
that Federated Farmers were referring to. Who's got it?
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Don't know, don't know. I'd be speculating, and I don't know.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
So is a whole bunch of district councils and city
councils and stuff doing their own case studies and looking
at how much things are going to cost potentially.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
So part of what we do when we develop plans
is we're required to do some computation before we notify it,
and we did that in January and February this year,
and all of our five tas were through out of
a coffee. We've got some feedback from two of our tas,
but not all five. And I had a quick look
and I couldn't see that information in there. And the
(05:37):
situation in the Federated Farmers seem to describe as a
different peratory authority one we didn't get feedback from.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Yeah, well, I mean essentially what they want to know
Federated Farmers is what is in the latest draft of
the Land and Water Plan. When are you going to
make that public?
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Yeah, so we're going to be public when it's notified
and we've been working. Well, it's subject to a council decision,
so we will be taking too council in October and
council will make that decision.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
But don't the rules need to come in in October?
Speaker 2 (06:06):
No, Well, the plan is notified and then you get
really technical and then old We'll say this very policy
wants saying that the rules will have legal effect. But
there's a natural justice presumption in the RAMA that says
if you're doing an activity today and it doesn't need
a consent, and then you're going to do it tomorrow
and it might need a consent. Then we're not going
to make you get a consent until we've been righting.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
So is that fair? So it's going to go to
Council and it's going to basically be enacted before anybody
who was affected by this stuff can actually see what
it says.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
So lots of the groups have already seen it. So
as I said, which grades and very notification consultation. We
consulted fifty different parties, including Federated Farmers, and my staff
have been working with Federated Farmers on some day.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Okay, they've seen it. Have they seen the final draft?
Have they seen the latest draft?
Speaker 2 (07:00):
I've seen the final draft. There isn't the final draft yet,
we're still working on it.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
And okay, So that's what I'm asking you, though, Is
it fair that you guys work on this latest draft
and no one gets to see it who's affected by
it until it's basically enacted. Don't you think they should
see it beforehand and have a bit of a sail it.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
Well, they've had They've had lots of saves. We've been
engaging on some of these aspects since twenty twenty. But
what's happened now is we're in the sets. They're part
of the process, and the rama sets without and we're
just doing what the roma sets out, so you know,
and that's a process question. And if we show it
to one party, we've got to show it to them all.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
Yeah, you should, as you should.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Well, I've seen it a couple of times. Yeah, I
mean the good thing about democracy is that every of
those parties can submit on the plan and then a
hearings panel get to make deltment decision on what the
plan looks like.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
All right, Hey, Anita, thanks for having a chat to us.
I really appreciate it. Thanks for explaining that's a need
to do. General Manager of Planning and Transport, Otago Regional Council.
I don't think that's going to satisfy anyone. Basically, the
rules are coming at you. It's gonna be pricey, but
you're only going to find out when they're enacted.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive, Listen live to
News Talks it B from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com