Round Two questions for Panel

Thank you all for filling out our initial questionnaire. This has allowed us to focus
in on key issues for you to discuss during the rest of this process. The first part of
this document sets out our questions for Round Two. The rest sets out the
summary results for Round One. We will revisit many of these statements as we
refine key messages for the public at the end of the process.
Background:

1. What do we mean by water quality? Some panel members implied there
is no absolute measure of water quality they said it depends on the values
applied. However while the NPS and NOF allow for local values to be applied,
they contain two non-negotiable values ecosystem and human health. Both
values have quantifiable indicators associated with them, and bottom lines
applied to these.

We believe the set of indicators applying to these two objectives constitute a
reasonable definition of water quality. It seems reasonable to interpret water
quality as meaning outcomes across this array of indicators. This definition
seems sufficiently meaningful to be a basis for assessing trends in water quality.

We accept that the historical data set across this spectrum of indicators is
incomplete. Where historical data exists, this can be used to make a qualified call
as to trends in water quality. This seems to be the approach taken in the NIWA
report on trends in water quality (by Ballentyne and Davies-Colley) provided to
MFE in 2013. The NIWA report concluded water quality has deteriorated since
1989.

The indicators that are associated with the two non-negotiable values are:

Values Lakes Rivers Wetlands Groundwater
Ecosystem
Health
Chlorophyll a




Nitrate
toxicity


Ammonia
toxicity


Total
nitrogen




Total
phosphorus




Dissolved
oxygen


Periphyton


Temperature


pH


Sediment


Invertebrates


Fish


Salt intrusion

Human
health
E Coli


Planktonic
cyanobacteria


Benthic
cyanobacteria



http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/water/proposed-amendments-nps-
freshwater-management/proposed-amendments-nps-freshwater-
management.pdf

2. A majority of the panel- 10/15 - said water quality was deteriorating. 5
disagreed. Those who disagreed said there is not enough data to know decisively
and implied the assessment depends on the time frame used and the location of
the river.

3. The panel appears to have relatively little knowledge about trends in
horticulture, and to a lesser extent forestry and sheep and beef. Could our results
be skewed by this lack of knowledge? Or is this a case of paucity of data?

4. There is majority agreement about trends in pollutants and irrigation, the
dominant role of dairy in water quality trends and the fact that water demand
from the dairy sector is the main factor behind the increase in irrigation takeoffs.

There are a range of opinions about the relative importance of these trends with
majority views only evident in the case of dairy (12/15 said it was of high
importance), sheep and beef (8/15 said it was of moderate importance) and
irrigation (8/15 said it was of high importance). Do these differences in opinion
mean the panel have widely different views on what interventions should be
prioritised ?

5. There is majority support for the goal of maintaining or improving water
quality, but no agreement on whether the NPS/NOF will be effective (7/15 said
yes or yes, but it will take time). This seems to be an area we need to explore in
greater depth.

These key points have informed our questions for Round Two (below). For more
detail see the summary of Round One.

Questions for Round Two:

1. Is the minimum level of water quality implied by the combination of NOF
bottom lines and NPS objective A2 sufficient to ensure future generations
will inherit water ways that have a level of ecosystem health that do not
reduce choices from those we have today?

2. If you answered no to Q1, please state what needs to be changed or
included in the NPS/NOF.

3. To illustrate the answers above, can you give examples of water bodies
that you believe need improvement but could be left untouched by
management agencies because they are not currently violating the NOF
bottom lines?

4. Given the lags and uncertainties in the science and modeling, how would
you apply the precautionary approach (wherein we act in a way that
doesnt see waterways deteriorate to an unacceptable level?) to the NOF
process?

5. Water quality is a complex issue, and we are devolving important
decisions to lay people in a large number of community processes.
Meanwhile we have a small pool of qualified experts to assist these
processes. How can we ensure that the proposed processes will be based
on the best possible scientific understanding of fresh water management?

6. What do you consider to be a realistic long-term (30 years) water quality
goal in 100 words or less? What would be the priority actions required to
achieve that goal (ideally no more than six statements of 50 words or
less).

The process from here will involve anonymously sharing these answers to draw
out and explore any areas of disagreement.


Panel results from Round One
High level summary:

1. there is a lack of unanimity about trends in pollutants coming from beef
and sheep, and to a lesser degree forestry. (Q6-Q19)

2. most had no knowledge about trends in pollutants coming from
horticulture. (Q6-Q19)

3. there is majority agreement (9/15 or more) about trends in overall water
quality (deteriorating); and possible drivers. (Q1-Q5)

4. there is majority agreement (9/15 or more) about sewage trends (down);
industry trends (down); dairy trends (up); irrigation trends (offtakes up).
(Q6-Q19)

5. there is a high level of agreement (12/15) that trends in dairy are
significant factors in current water quality trends. There is a spread of
opinions about the importance of all other factors (irrigation, forestry,
industry, sewage, beef and lamb, horticulture). (Q6-Q19)

6. there is a high level of agreement about the factors behind the trend in
pollutants coming from dairy and a high level of agreement that dairy is
driving irrigation trends. (Q20-Q22)

7. there is majority agreement about the general circumstances around
mitigation options (Q23-Q25) and the impact of nitrogen leaching caps
(Q27).

8. there is majority (10/15) support for the goal of maintaining or
improving water quality (Q28).

9. there is an even spread of opinions about whether the NPS/NOF will
achieve that goal (Q29).

10. there is majority agreement (10/15) that under NPS/NOF dairy
production would increase accompanied by increased mitigation efforts.
(Q31)


Detailed results from the panel survey

Questions 1-5: we presented the panel with statements we would use to
communicate with the public. Did they agree with these (what we thought
were) simple statements? Some of those who didnt agree gave comments -
a summary of these comments is available in italics under each.

Q1 10/15 agreement with:
the overall quality of fresh water is declining in NZ, particularly in lowland
rivers, groundwater and estuaries.

Not enough data to say decisively, more representative monitoring required. Sites
unaffected by urbanisation or agriculture are stable. How define overall water
quality, and what timeframes are being considered here?

Q2 9/15 agreement with:
The main drivers of fresh water decline are increased nitrogen, phosphorus, E
coli, and sediment. Reduced flow increases the concentration of these pollutants
and reduced shade compounds the problem by increasing temperature.

Impossible to generalise as each case is unique. Also how define overall water
quality. Decline due to disruption of energy flows in aquatic ecosystem - how that
manifests varies. Flow and shade can reduce uptake of nutrients by periphyton,
which increases downstream fluxes.

Q3 13/15 agreement with:
In certain conditions, these drivers contribute to the growth of weed and algal
blooms, reduce wildlife and water clarity and make swimming and fishing
difficult and unpleasant. They may also contribute to the creation of poisonous
cyanotoxins.

Nutrients and algae are not a bad thing per se (they are the basis of life) - only in
too great quantities. The level where it becomes a problem depends on the
perspective of the user. Growth of nuisance algae has many drivers (nutrient and
sediment), but E Coli is not one.

Q4 12/15 agreement with:
There are many and diverse causes of these drivers across New Zealands
history. These include deforestation (for many reasons);disposal of human
sewage; increased irrigation take-offs; diverse industrial processes and farming.

Some rivers have higher natural baselines than others. There are other causes
including urbanisation (impervious surfaces), increase in N fixing plants, drainage
of wetlands


Q5 14/15 agreement with:
Depending on local conditions, it may take decades to se the impacts of current
practices on water quality.

There are significant lags for nitrates in ground water. Riparian planting can also
take decades to show benefits.

Questions 6-19: we asked the panel about trends in factors that impact
adversely on water quality, and the significance of those trends as a factor
in deteriorating water quality.

Trends: Declining Stable Increasing Dont know
Q6 sewage 9/15 2/15 1/15 3/15
Q7 foresty 0/15 8/15 2/15 5/15
Q8 industry 9/15 0/15 2/15 4/15
Q9 sheep and beef 3/15 4/15 4/15 4/15
Q10 dairy 2/15 0/15 10/15 3/15
Q11 horticulture 0/15 5/15 1/15 9/15
Q12 irrigation 1/15 0/15 10/15 4/15

Significance Low Moderate High Dont know
Q13 sewage 5/15 6/15 2/15 1/15
Q14 foresty 2/15 7/15 1/15 4/15
Q15 industry 7/15 4/15 1/15 2/15
Q16 sheep and beef 2/15 8/15 2/15 2/15
Q17 dairy 1/15 0/15 12/15 1/15
Q18 horticulture 2/15 5/15 1/15 6/15
Q19 irrigation 0/15 4/15 8/15 2/15

Questions 20-23: We gave the panel statements relating to the impact of
dairy on water quality which we would use to communicate with the public
and asked if they agreed or not with each statement.

Q20 9/15 agreement with:
Trends in dairy production and irrigation are the two most significant sources
of the recent drop in water quality across NZ.

Is water qualty declining? Urban and road stormwater is a major issue in urban
locations. Can be difficult to say given speed of land use change and lack of up to
date data on land use.

Q21 10/15 agreement with:
Trends in irrigation takeoffs are being driven largely by dairy requirements.

Lack of data - hort might be big users also. Irrigation driven by investors, so need
return (currently often dairy).

Q22 11/15 agreement with:
Conversions of other land uses to dairy are the main factor behind the trend in
dairy pollutants. Intensification of production on existing dairy farms is a second
factor behind the trend in dairy pollutants.

Intensity may be main issue, rather than conversions. Agriculture has declined in
some regions.

Questions 23-27: We asked the panel whether they agree with statements
about mitigation methods.

Q23: 12/15 agreement with:
Currently common mitigation methods such as planting and fencing streams
and manageing shed effluent are helping control phosphorous, E coli and
sedimentation pollution but will only partly address nitrogen leaching.

Also the case with other contaminants, not just nitrogen. Soil type is critical.
Evidence for riparian planting weak, more important to keep stock out.

Q24: 10/15 agreement with:
There are options for partial mitigation of nitrogen leaching in the short term
but generally (with the exception of precision agriculture) achieving higher
levels of mitigation is more expensive. Mitigation is also dependent on local
conditions.

Many options over a range of costs. Precision agriculture holds options. Lower
intensity farming may not reduce profits as it lowers revenue and costs.

Q25: 11/15 agreement with:
If the expansion of dairy continues without any changes to current mitigation
efforts within the sector then nitrogen levels in affected waterways will
increase.

Can't simply focus on N. There are other sources of N. Issues are catchment specific.

Q26: 5/15 agreement with:
The appropriate policy response is setting upper limits on nitrogen leaching.

May need different policy tools in different regions. Issue depend on the catchment.
Property level N leaching difficult to measure. Could limit certain land uses instead.

Q27: 12/17 agreement with:
In some cases achieving nitrogen leacHing caps may require destocking or
changing to non-dairy land uses.

Depends on the economics of mitigation.

Questions 28 to 43. We asked the panel about the NPS and the amendments
to that being introduced by the NOF.

Q28: 10/15 agree they are comfortable with the goal of maintaining or
improving the quality of NZ rivers.

Quality depends on values. Goal is vague - some systems need restoration. High
quality systems could be maintained but lower quality ones need to be improved.
Potential for tradeoffs concerning.

Q29: 7/15 agree they are confident the current NPS/NOF will achieve that goal
(of those 5 said it will take time).

Depends on the values set to define NOF levels. Will take time, and ability to trade
off rivers is a concern. NOF is necessary but not sufficient - need solutions too. Will
NOF be allowed to achieve aims? Lack of cohesion between lake, river, estuary
limits. Over reliance on inappropriate models. OVERSEER not good enough to
support decisions.

Q30. 4/15 said the NPS/NOF will not achieve the goal. A variety of reasons were
given the most popular was community processes being captured by sector
interests, followed by the lack of precautionary approach, ability of rivers to be
traded off, and time lags.

Will take focus, funding and innovation. Much better data needed. Success is
optimistic. Loss of ecosystem services needed to be included in economic analysis.
Lack of Govt direction. Lack of cohesion between lake, river, estuary limits. Over
reliance on inappropriate models. OVERSEER not good enough to support
decisions.

Q31: 10/15 agreed that the impact of NPS/NOF would be to see dairy production
increase but with increased mitigation compared to current levels.

Q32: If the non-negotiable water quality objective was that all rivers had to be
swimmable, 6/10 said dairy production would stop expanding or shrink and
there would be increased mitigation. 4/10 thought dairy production would
increase.