Thursday, March 28, 2024

ALTERNATIVE VIEW: Getting water quality down to a science

Avatar photo
I was pleasantly surprised with last week’s government announcement on water quality. I found it sane, sensible and achievable. 
Reading Time: 3 minutes

Also while not ecstatic that I need to fence all streams, I can achieve it within the given time frame.

There are issues not covered in the document that will come out like the definition of a stream, not to mention a fence, and I believe the estimate for that fencing is too light.

I thought Federated Farmers response to the Government’s discussion document was reasoned and credible.

They noted that the Government’s approach showed a willingness to “engage the entire community”.

That surely is a positive step by government and a total contrast with the draconian, non-consultative approach we’ve had from some of our regional councils.

Feds also regard the swimmability target of 90% by 2040 as “doable”. Again, surely that is positive for the country.

Federated Farmers water spokesman Chris Allen said that “now we need better science and monitoring processes to really nail what we need to work on, where we do it and how”.

Anyone with a modicum of integrity, knowledge and care for the environment should be supporting Allen’s view with alacrity.

He is talking science, evidence and getting it right as against the cacophony of emotive codswallop we’ve been subjected to so well done Chris Allen and well done Feds.

I’d also add well done Bill English, Nick Smith and Nathan Guy.

The issue is that we’re talking E. coli at a level of 540 or below. What we’re doing is aligning our standards with those of Europe, which makes a lot of sense.

In fact the European standard of less than 1000 is described as good. The figure of 540, which is the standard the Government wants in this country is described as “excellent” when it comes to water quality.

What’s wrong with that?

In fact 96% of European rivers are swimmable and I’m unaware of any health problems there.

The issue is with E. coli that derives from faecal matter. It can be sourced from ruminants, dogs, ducks, children or, believe it or not, tourists.

Our worst affected E. coli rivers are the Heathcote and Avon in Canterbury and the Oakley and Otara streams in Auckland.

As I’ve written in previous articles there isn’t a farm animal anywhere near any of those waterways.

People also want to swim in Lake Victoria in Hamilton where the E. coli level is high but there isn’t a farm animal remotely close. To make it swimmable they need to lower the E. coli level and that means getting rid of the ducks. It’s a task I’d readily assist with and I look forward to watching the war between duck lovers and swimmers.

Of major interest is when I checked the rivers for a previous column the Waikato River was swimmable over its full length. What I also hadn’t realised with the Waikato River is that there is mercury and arsenic pollution in the upper reaches courtesy of geothermal activity. That’s serious and, again, has nothing to do with farmers.

I noted with some interest Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright’s reaction to the new policy. She liked some parts of the policy and had reservations with others. She will no doubt make a full submission based on reputable science as is her want. I look forward to reading it.

There are several additional parts of the policy that I liked.

For a start the Government is considering all waterways and not just those that run through farming areas. Everyone will have to do their bit, not just farmers.

Having a central standard is a bold move but pivotal when it comes to the vagaries of some of our regional councils. It is good leadership from central government.

Finally the policy is out in the open for consultation and I’ll follow that process with interest. It is important to remember that there aren’t two sides of an argument when it comes to science ‑ the facts either back your position and you’re right or they don’t and you’re wrong.

As the Feds’ Chris Allen says “we need better science”. He’s right, as Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy acknowledged when he made the point “we also know that science will play a major role in improving our freshwater”.

I look forward to seeing the detail of that science. I can only imagine the concentration on ethical science is what’s making the anti-lobby angry. I’m sure they’d prefer to be able to use witchcraft.

For the record I was also pleased to hear Minister Guy’s commitment to water storage.

So my view is we have taken a bold but vital step in the long march to improving water quality. We have the Government relying on science and Federated Farmers have backed that approach.

From here I look forward to seeing the consultation process taking off based on hard science ‑ nothing more, nothing less.

Total
0
Shares
People are also reading