My main problem with it centres around the changes in measuring techniques from previous reports. We are not comparing apples with apples.
I also have an issue with comparing waterways today with those in their pristine state. Any form of activity will change our water quality from pristine.
There is a further comparison between urban, pastoral, forestry and native.
Most of our native forests are in the mountains, the headwaters of our rivers and streams. As rivers flow out to sea they are going to pick up all manner of things, be it in the form of natural sediment, duck droppings, farming, forestry or urban.
In addition, the terms natural, native and native forest all mean different things. It’s confusing.
There was concern over vertebrates in waterways, the at-risk mudfish, whitebait, lamprey, long fin eel and stokells smelt.
The mudfish and the smelt are food for trout and kahawai and the whitebait, lamprey and longfin eels are food for humans as well as trout and kahawai in the case of whitebait.
You cannot blame farming for the state of the fishery.
I thought the report was inclusive and positive.
It was willing to outline the areas where it had insufficient information and it considered water quality over the country, not just in rural areas.
It said pollution of our freshwater is not the result of single land use but comes from a mosaic of cities, farms and plantation forests.
Pollution of our freshwater is not just a farming issue but one spread over the entire economy.
Urban infrastructure is a major cause of pollution and needs urgent attention.
Nearly half of wastewater treatment plants discharge into rivers and lakes while the rest discharge into the sea or on land.
Stormwater pollutes fresh water with heavy metals, hydrocarbons and fertilisers used commercially and in home gardens.
Of the total length of rivers running through urban areas 99% exceed the guidelines for nutrient or turbidity levels. Nearly half of the length exceeded E coli levels.
In pastoral areas, however, nutrient or turbidity levels are exceeded in 95% though the degree of the guidelines breach is lower. E coli levels are half thosein urban rivers.
The figure for forestry is again at 95% of the river length exceeding nutrient guidelines.
What floored me was that rivers in native forest catchments exceed the guidelines in just under 60% of the river length.
The definition of native includes less than 15% urban and 25% pasture.
There are other points in the document I found interesting.
We have emerging contaminants that aren’t being monitored. Active ingredients in sunscreen and artificial sweeteners were found as were pesticides, pharmaceuticals, industrial waste and food additives.
PFAS compounds were also present. Banned in 2011 they were widely used in food packaging, non-stick products and firefighting foams.
There is also inadequate information on the quantity of water taken from rivers, lakes and groundwater, which makes it impossible to establish if they are being over-exploited or how long they can meet our needs.
The report also acknowledges the future need for irrigation to help mitigate climate change.
So, what all that tells me is that water quality is not just a farming problem but a national one. No matter what you do or where you are, you’re involved one way or another with lowering our water quality.
To concentrate on one area as we have done with farming does not fix anything.
There needs to be a strategy involving all parts of the problem.
It cannot be a one-size-fits-all strategy either because different parts of the country have different issues. Rivers in some areas are highly polluted, in others they are not and that needs to be acknowledged.
Rivers in native forests are polluted as well as those running through cities and farmland.
Environment Minister David Parker has welcomed the report, which is pleasing. You cannot just fix one part of the problem as is being promoted with farming. If you adopt that approach pollution of waterways will remain.
I was a little surprised by the reaction of Forest and Bird. Generally they come across as reasoned, even if you do not always agree with them. In this case they came across as emotive, strident, shrill and wanting to turn the clock back.
For the record I have no intention of getting back on a horse or walking the 50km to Masterton.
What I would like to see from here is the establishment of an agreed scientific base level for water quality using scientists who do not have axes to grind then a strategy that covers the entire country, rural and urban abd to get the groups involved to agree to that strategy then implement it.
It’s that simple.
