PRESS RELEASE: Flooding demonstrates danger in Govt ‘growth at any cost’ ideological agenda

For immediate release

Monday 30 June 2025

Flooding in the top of the South Island, and the threat of more to come later this week, demonstrates the dangers of the Government pushing ahead with policy changes based on narrow ideological grounds and a ‘growth at any cost’ agenda, say freshwater campaigners.

Tom Kay, spokesperson for the campaign group Choose Clean Water, says the Coalition Government’s proposed resource management reforms, with an ideological focus on ‘the enjoyment of property rights’, will inevitably leave communities more vulnerable to the impacts of flooding. 

“The Coalition Government has demonstrated across its resource management reform that they care more about the profits of commercial players than good governance for the health and stability of our communities. Their ‘growth at any cost’ agenda is not only thoughtless but downright dangerous.”

Kay, a strong advocate for the idea of Making Room for Rivers as a strategy to keep communities and infrastructure safe from flooding while restoring the health of our rivers, says while many communities, councils, and insurance companies are ready for action to avoid hazards and widen allowed floodplains, the Government must not put growth and development on par with community safety and environmental health if they want to meaningfully reduce the risk to communities.

“We’ve just seen yet another example of devastating flooding following back-to-back experiences in Otago in October, the West Coast in November, and Canterbury in May. The costs are incredibly serious, including people losing their lives.

“We know our rivers need more space to carry floodwater safely, especially with the more extreme weather we’re getting as the climate continues to warm. But the Government’s narrow focus on growth and private property rights through their resource management reform risks undermining progress towards this.”

Kay says international evidence and case studies show the best option for keeping communities and infrastructure safe from flooding is to avoid development in high-risk locations, and to incentivise and fund planned relocation from places already at high risk. This approach also provides the best opportunity for restoration of rivers and their floodplains, whilst increasing community wellbeing, amenity values, and resilience.

However, he says the Government’s focus on growth and property rights is inconsistent with this.

“Documents continue to highlight the Coalition Government’s obsession with growth, and the misplaced idea that somehow we can continue to grow anywhere, with few restrictions, and still somehow mitigate the consequences. We can’t.

“While we support the introduction of a National Policy Statement for Natural Hazards, for some reason it is less-developed now than it was last year, and drafted provisions that would have prioritised using nature-based solutions to reduce flood risk—such as making room for rivers, and to direct councils to avoid development in high risk locations, are gone.”

“The proposed provisions direct councils to “consider” risk and act “proportionately”, leaving plenty of room for vested commercial interests to push councils into continuing to allow development, including homes, in high-risk locations.

“Not to mention that the proposal doesn’t apply to the development of infrastructure, which is one of the main and most expensive assets hit during flooding; or to aquaculture, agricultural, pastoral, horticultural, mining, quarrying, or forestry activities and the land and buildings they use.”

Kay says proposed changes to weaken the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management will also undermine the need to keep people out of harm’s way, and to maintain sufficient river health and width to safely carry floodwaters.

“We have a requirement to prioritise the health of water bodies and communities in the management of our freshwater under the idea of Te Mana o te Wai. Flood managers have supported this idea as a way to help communities reconsider how they live with rivers, including their associated risks and hazards, and to make changes that increase flood resilience and river health together. 

“But the Coalition Government wants to get rid of this prioritisation.”

“We also have no idea what the Government wants to do with an existing provision in the policy that prevents the ‘loss of river extent’, and thereby maintains wider flood corridors, for example; or whether they want to remove a provision that requires water to be managed as part of an ‘integrated response to climate change’.”

“Our rivers and wider catchments need to be healthy and resilient if our communities are going to be safe from the worst harms of flooding. This Government needs to understand that private property rights and growth-at-all-costs won’t enable that. It will cost us all in the long-run.”

The Government’s consultation on freshwater and natural hazard policies, as well as related policies, is open for submissions until 27 July. 

ENDS

Tom Kay

022 183 2729

PRESS RELEASE: Wellington Regional Council must stand up to short-sighted Coalition Government and continue with its plan to restore water quality for its people

Greater Wellington Regional Council must stand up to the short-sighted Coalition Government in its vote tomorrow on whether to continue with its regional plan change to protect and restore water quality in the region, say freshwater campaign group Choose Clean Water.

Regional council papers show councillors will be considering three options for the region’s freshwater plan change at their meeting on Thursday 26 June: to pause the plan change until October, to pause the plan change until they can continue with ‘confidence’ about upcoming changes to national direction, or to withdraw the plan change entirely.

“Regional councils are being bullied by this short-sighted Coalition Government into stopping their years-long, vital work to save our waterways from further degradation and protect our drinking water sources. This Government is compromised by its close ties to polluting commercial interests and Wellington regional councillors must stand up to them for the health of their region’s environment and people,” says Choose Clean Water spokesperson Tom Kay

Kay says Wellington Regional Council’s uncertainty in moving ahead with their plan change is another sign of the Government trying to take power away from communities to make decisions about managing their rivers, streams, and harbours, and instead give it to polluting commercial interests.

“There is no reason to throw out this plan change. Councillors are risking starting this process all over again on the basis of yet-to-be-seen national policy and speculation about what may or may not eventuate. They should keep calm and carry on.”

The plan change forms part of a program to restore and protect fresh and coastal water health the Regional Council has been working on for the last 15 years, including with significant investment and support from communities and iwi. It would bring policies and rules for two major Wellington catchments into line with the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020, including the prioritisation of freshwater and community health in decision-making over commercial interests.

But with changes to weaken freshwater policy announced by the Government, councillors are now considering whether to continue or not, risking undermining years of progress and future potential for healthy water in the region, say campaigners.

“The council meeting papers say that if the plan change is withdrawn, water quality that is already degrading by some measures is likely to continue to degrade because the old plan provisions are less protective.”

“Communities have been waiting decades for these plan changes, particularly in places like Te Awarua-o-Porirua / Porirua harbour, which continues to suffer from issues like sediment buildup and pollution from heavy metals, pathogens, and nutrients, with impacts on fishing and food gathering, swimming, boating, and human health.”

“The plan also promotes planting of highly erosion-prone land, and adds provisions on stormwater and earthworks that would help reduce risks of flooding and erosion. We’ve seen what Cyclone Gabrielle did in regions that hadn’t prepared for the impacts of these natural hazards. Why would we delay these actions that will build resilience?”

“This Government came into power saying they were going to allow local communities to make decisions at a community level. But they lied. We saw it with Otago Regional Council being stopped when they tried to progress a freshwater plan change that was years in the making. Now we risk seeing it with Wellington.”

“Wellington Regional Council must push ahead as soon as possible.”

Wellington Regional Council will vote on whether to proceed with the plan tomorrow, 26 June.

The Government’s consultation document on freshwater policy is open for submissions until 27 July. The consultation document proposes to remove national bottom lines for pollution as well as to remove or rewrite Te Mana o te Wai, the decision making framework in current national policy that prioritises the public interest in healthy water bodies.

ENDS

Tom Kay

022 183 2729

PRESS RELEASE: Brand new Stats NZ groundwater reporting highlights serious risk to public from Govt proposal to weaken freshwater protections

For immediate release

Tuesday 24 June 2025

Stats NZ’s latest groundwater reporting shows New Zealanders are already at risk from contaminated drinking water sources and highlights the threat to the public should the Government continue with its proposals to weaken policy that protects freshwater, says campaign group Choose Clean Water.

“The Government is consulting on plans to remove the prioritisation of the health of waterways and protection of drinking water sources in current freshwater policy and instead change it to give power to commercial polluters of freshwater. 

“Given the state of our groundwater, where many of our communities draw their drinking water from, this Government proposal will inevitably increase the health risks to people. It’s unbelievably irresponsible.” says Choose Clean Water spokesperson Tom Kay.

The new Stats NZ groundwater quality reporting presents monitoring data for groundwater sites across the country between 2019 and 2024. It shows the Maximum Allowable Values for New Zealand drinking water were exceeded at least once between April 2019 and March 2024 at 45.1 percent of sites (450 of 998) for E. coli and 12.4 percent of sites (146 of 1173) for nitrate. 

Almost half of the monitoring sites show likely or very likely increasing trends in nitrate. 

Stats NZ says groundwater provides drinking water to nearly half of the population.

“Healthy water bodies provide safe, good quality drinking water. Where groundwater quality is contaminated, we need strong policy that prioritises the public interest in healthy water. Otherwise, communities will struggle to access safe, good quality drinking water at a manageable cost.

“Treating contaminated drinking water, particularly for nitrate contamination, is expensive, complicated, and not very effective. Some communities are already dealing with this as a result of pollution from commercial interests and the Government is proposing to further open the door to commercial interests to dramatically increase their pollution of a fundamental public need,” says Kay.

High levels of nitrate in Waimate’s drinking water supply in December last year led to a do-not-drink notice for many households. In 2022, a report estimated that treating Christchurch’s water supply for potentially high nitrate levels in future could cost $610 million to construct and $24 million per year to operate.

The Government’s consultation document on freshwater policy is open for submissions until 27 July. The consultation document proposes to remove national bottom lines for pollution as well as to remove or rewrite Te Mana o te Wai, the decision making framework in current national policy that prioritises the public interest in healthy water bodies.

“Rewriting Te Mana o te Wai or removing it from policy would have the same effect. It would take legal priority away from the public interest in healthy water and give more power to polluters by putting private commercial interests on par with people’s drinking water. 

“It’s immoral but consistent with this Government’s approach - look at the decisions on tobacco, for example. The Government is demonstrating it cares more about harmful commercial industries than it does about the health of its people.”

ENDS

Tom Kay

022 183 2729

Press release: Select committee announces support of law changes that will prevent councils from restricting harmful pollution of water

Wednesday 11 June 2025

A select committee report released today demonstrates Coalition parties support law changes that would prevent local government from being able to control pollution even when it is causing serious harm, say freshwater campaigners.

“The damage these changes would cause must not be underestimated. This is not only an attack on the health of our environment but also democracy as the proposals seek to give greater power to polluting industries and write local government out of regulating harmful pollution of freshwater,” says Choose Clean Water spokesperson Tom Kay. 

“It beggars belief when you consider that the National-led Government came to power claiming to be champions of localism - they’ve thrown that out the window completely.”

For freshwater, two parts of the Environment Select Committee report are most significant; the proposals on Section 70 of the Resource Management Act and changes to farm plans, including more Ministerial control.

Currently, Section 70 says that councils cannot allow pollution that would cause “significant adverse effects on aquatic life” as a permitted activity. This means regional councils cannot allow for potentially polluting activities to happen without them going through a consenting process to assess whether they can avoid, remedy, or mitigate their impacts, even where an environment they want to operate in might already be polluted.

The Coalition parties support doing away with this and allowing polluting activities to go ahead, as long as the place those activities are occurring is already polluted and as long as there will be some reduction in that pollution over time. 

“But it doesn’t make sense. It is laughable that the report suggests you could grant a consent for an activity to add pollution to a place or continue polluting it now as long as it reduces its pollution by a bit, later. Why would we say ‘We’ll make a waterbody really sick now so we can nurse it back to health over decades’!? Make it make sense.” 

Even with standards for these permitted activities, campaigners regional councils will struggle to ensure they are sufficient to reduce or avoid “significant adverse effects on aquatic life” and will face significant lobbying to minimise any standards.

“This opens the door to more and worse pollution. Pollution that harms aquatic life inevitably has an impact on human lives, either directly due to illness or through impacts on livelihoods or taking away the things with love about the places we live in.”

The Coalition parties in the select committee also support changes that would bypass regional councils' role in controlling pollution through farm plans.

Farm plans have been a largely unsuccessful attempt to reduce the impact of farming on the country’s freshwater over the last decade or more. In regions where they have been used, like Canterbury, they have been found to be unable to stop the degradation of communities’ waterways and drinking water sources. 

“Not only is the value of farm plans in controlling pollution highly questionable,” says Kay, “the Select Committee’s proposal is to give Government the ability to support farm plans written and audited by polluting industries rather than regional councils, and to allow the Minister for the Environment to make the decision on which industry groups can play this role. This keeps regional councils at arms length from attempts to control pollution through farm plans, effectively writing them out as regulator.”

“This Government has demonstrated it has close and inappropriate relationships with some industry bodies. Having a Minister be responsible for such a decision opens the door to undue influence and allows for industry to capture the whole process around farm plans. We’re watching it happen now. This proposal effectively writes local government out of their regulatory role of controlling pollution.”

“It has never been clearer that the National-led Government is working for the polluters and not for the public. Our communities will pay for this through the impact on our quality of life, our drinking water sources, our opportunities to swim or fish, our pride in our beautiful environment, and our ability to be involved in local decision making.” 

ENDS

Tom Kay

022 183 2729

Press release: Changes to Fish & Game continue Coalition’s handover of power to polluters

For immediate release

Thursday 5 June 2025

Changes announced to Fish & Game this morning are another move in the Coalition Government’s handover of power to intensive farming and other polluting commercial interests, and will result in the further degradation of our rivers and freshwater, say freshwater campaigners. 

Choose Clean Water spokesperson Tom Kay says the changes announced today are clearly designed to remove Fish & Game’s ability to advocate for the health of rivers.

“Fish & Game has used its statutory purpose as a strong advocate for the health of rivers across New Zealand, and as such has helped protect numerous rivers from pollution and degradation.”

“There are some things about the system that do need fixing, but this is not only about that—this is the Coalition Govt taking advantage of an opportunity to reduce Fish & Game's influence over polluters."

“When environmental groups, local community groups, or iwi can’t afford to legally challenge a damaging activity or poorly made decision, Fish & Game is often there to ensure waterways are protected—working on behalf of their members to protect habitat for fish. But this Government is trying to stop that.”

The Coalition has stated that Fish & Game’s advocacy functions will be “revised” so regional Fish & Game Councils will only be able to take court action in relation to advocacy if explicitly approved by the New Zealand Fish & Game Council or the Minister and within a new restricted advocacy policy.

This morning’s press release from Minister for Hunting and Fishing James Meager on the changes states they will restrict the organisation’s ability to undertake court proceedings and require “Fish & Game councils to better consider the interests of other stakeholders such as farmers and the aviation sector in decision-making”.

“It’s telling that the Government has said specifically that it wants Fish & Game to better consider farming interests. Why not public health interests? Why not the interests of future generations? Why not the myriad of other commercial interests that operate in our communities? This demonstrates that this decision is another example of the Government enabling more pollution in rivers, lakes, and drinking water sources, and the handing of more power over our water to polluting commercial interests like intensive farming.”

“We know how detrimental the influence of Ministers can be over the statutory purposes of agencies like the Department of Conservation to protect our environment, for example. This is another case of Ministers being given the power to step in and stop actions that would protect our environment.”

Fish & Game led the processes to secure many Water Conservation Orders—similar to National Parks—for our rivers, protecting them for anglers and the public alike to enjoy. In 2002 they launched a large campaign against “Dirty Dairying” and the conversion of land into intensive agriculture, particularly in the South Island.

More recently, Fish & Game took up a legal challenge against ongoing extreme pollution of Southland’s waterways where dairy interests were wrongly claiming “there is no evidence of diffuse discharges from farming activities, either individually or cumulatively, causing adverse effects, including significant adverse effects on aquatic life”.

“Proponents of damaging, intensive agriculture and other major polluters are all over this Government’s decisions. This decision stinks of undue influence.”

ENDS

Tom Kay

022 183 2729

Press release: “Don't be fooled”: Govt's freshwater reforms means more pollution in your water and commercial control of public resources

Freshwater campaigners are saying “don’t be fooled” by the Coalition Government’s rhetoric in today’s freshwater policy announcement. What it really means for New Zealanders is more pollution in rivers, lakes, and drinking water sources and the handing over of more power to commercial interests to control a fundamental public resource.

The Coalition Government made its long-awaited announcement on freshwater policy reform today and Choose Clean Water’s spokesperson Tom Kay says it confirms what has been feared. 

“Ministers are using comforting words like “balance” but the details of this policy demonstrate that this is not about balance or protecting the public. The Government is proposing to remove existing bottom lines and change the long overdue prioritisation of the health of people and waterways provided by Te Mana o Te Wai.”

“Don’t be fooled, this is a massive blow for the health of our water and the health of our communities.”

Te Mana o te Wai is a vastly improved decision-making framework in the existing National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020. It requires regional councils to provide for the protection of the health of waterways and the health needs of people (i.e. access to safe, good quality drinking water) before commercial uses can be considered. It was strengthened following the failure of previous National Policy Statements in 2011, 2014, and 2017 to improve the health of freshwater in New Zealand, and widespread public support for the Government to act.

“What Te Mana o te Wai finally provided, in the 2020 version of our national freshwater policy, was sufficient weight to the public interest and need for healthy water. Before this, people’s drinking water and waterways were regularly losing out to commercial pressures, which we saw result in sick rivers and lakes, the drying up of rivers and groundwater, and undrinkable water sources around the country.”

“In the 2020 national policy statement, it was finally recognised that communities couldn’t continue like that—it was unstable, unsustainable, and unhealthy.”

The group says Minister Hoggard’s ACT party has consistently misrepresented Te Mana o Te Wai and used race-baiting to generate misguided anger towards a policy that protects all New Zealanders.

Leader of the ACT Party, David Seymour, has stated that Te Mana o te Wai is “the same as waving crystals over the water to drive out evil spirits, and it’s truly bonkers.”

“This is not only nasty and insulting but it’s also plain wrong,” says Kay. 

“Te Mana o te Wai is simply a framework that says we have to ensure our water is healthy enough to support itself and our people before it can support commercial interests. It doesn’t rule out business—it just says that business can’t occur at the cost of our communities’ health.” 

Previous consultation on changes to freshwater policy under the Resource Management Act demonstrated most regional councils support Te Mana o te Wai. 

“Not only that, groups from Water NZ to Seafood NZ to Forest & Bird to public health advocates support Te Mana o te Wai because it makes priorities clearer for decision makers and provides better protection for the health of waterways and people.”

Minister Hoggard and Minister McClay’s announcement is consistent with the Coalition Government’s approach to handing over more power to extractive commercial interests and removing basic protections for New Zealanders. 

“Polluting industries have massively influenced this freshwater policy. The Government is following the requests of groups like DairyNZ who have asked the Government to remove bottom lines and for industry control of instruments like farm plans. This Coalition Government is captured by big industries, we saw it with tobacco and now we’re seeing it with agribusiness.” 

Choose Clean Water says it’s important for the public to make submissions on the changes (these can be made until 27 July 2025) but it’s just as important for the public to contact MPs and Ministers directly to voice their opposition. 

“We have a good existing national policy statement for freshwater. It puts us all on the path to restoration and health over time and still allows for productive land use to support communities. The Coalition Government is making changes New Zealand simply doesn’t need and that will take us backwards.”

ENDS

Tom Kay

022 183 2729

Opinion: We’ve been asked to trust industry leaders who say they’re willing to reduce their impact on waterways, while in practice they’re pushing to delay the rules that would do just that.

21 May 2025

By Tom Kay

Published in Hawke’s Bay Today.

It’s been reported that some farmers and growers in Hawke’s Bay are “revolting” against the implementation of environmental protections under the Tank regional plan change (‘Heretaunga Plains farmers revolt’ — Hawke’s Bay Today, May 9).

While still subject to Environment Court appeals, these rules would limit the water allocated to irrigators to their “actual and reasonable” use, one of the steps in the essential work needed to protect our rivers and groundwater from further degradation.

Reports that this amounts to reducing takes by almost half seem designed to mislead.

It only appears that much because the annual volume of water allocated on paper was enormous. That amount, around 180 million cubic metres, has in fact never been used — and should never have been handed out to begin with (actual use has never been much higher than 90 million m3).

In practice, it means producers will generally continue to be able to access the amount of water they’ve used to date.

Despite this and knowing for years it was coming, some industry leaders seem to consider it unfair and appear shocked.

There seems to be little appreciation on their part that it was unfair for the wider community’s collective resource to be handed out to private interests without a responsible limit in the first place.

Frustratingly, the leaders who are taking issue with Tank (and stoking misplaced anger in others) were previously some of its strongest supporters.

Leaders of the “revolt” include orchardists John Bostock, and regional councillors Xan Harding and Jerf van Beek.

In 2017, Bostock lauded the “scientific research and robustness” of the Tank process while opposing the proposed Ngaruroro River Water Conservation Order.

Harding stated that Tank would “deliver an equal or better environmental outcome” in the Ngaruroro catchment than a WCO, and would “minimise … time and expense in appeal processes”.

Van Beek said horticulturalists thought they could look after the river through Tank.

Tank was then a favourite excuse of those exploiting rivers and groundwater to delay essential changes.

The claim was that it would solve everything if the community would just slow down and trust growers and their industry in the process, one they presumably thought they could control.

However, now that Tank is out there and it doesn’t allow industry to do exactly what they wanted — to keep taking more water for commercial use — they’re attacking the process they once lauded.

Industry was involved in developing these necessary limits through Tank. Everyone, including producers, has known freshwater is severely over-allocated and under many pressures.

Yet many producers have failed to consider how they might adapt to what our environment can support. Some have even expanded the operations that are unsustainable and unfit for the land, water, and community around them.

Back in 2017, Bostock accused environmental groups of “gaming” the regional planning process, and said they had “sought to cut off” the Tank process and “impose their position on to everyone else around the table”.

If anything, the opposite is true. Community groups, iwi, marae, environmental groups, and some future-focused producers have worked for decades to try and protect water so we don’t descend into the almost-unsalvageable position of communities in Canterbury.

Meanwhile, proponents of large-scale irrigation have relentlessly imposed their position on everyone else, a position that all too frequently results in water that is unsafe to swim in, drink, or can’t even be accessed.

We’ve been asked to trust industry leaders who say they’re willing to reduce their impact on waterways, while in practice they’re pushing to delay the rules that would do just that.

National direction changes expected to advance dangerous ACT ideology at expense of the health of NZers and environment

Monday 26 May 2025

For immediate use

Government changes to national direction relating to the country’s resource management, expected to be announced this week, will advance ACT Party extreme ideologies at the expense of the health of the public and our environment, say freshwater campaigners.

Campaign group Choose Clean Water says a close reading of the Coalition Government’s cabinet paper on resource management reform provides a strong indication of what will be in the Government’s national direction announcement, and shows the National-led Government is adopting the extreme and incoherent views of ACT in their approach to environmental policy. 

“The changes to national direction signalled in the cabinet paper cover more than freshwater policy but what’s proposed for freshwater is indicative of what’s coming across the board. 

“The Coalition Government is making sure commercial interests can trump the public’s interests, and that supposed private property rights can trump the rights of everyone else in our communities to a safe, healthy environment to live in,” says spokesperson for the group, Tom Kay. 

Choose Clean Water says the cabinet paper’s prioritising of ‘the enjoyment of private property rights’ in public policy is straight out of an extreme libertarian ideology and becomes incoherent and dangerous when applied to communities’ needs and the natural environment.

As the cabinet paper emphasises, the Coalition Government intends to ‘replace the RMA with resource management laws premised on the enjoyment of property rights as a guiding principle’.

It goes on to say, ‘land use effects that are borne solely by the party undertaking the activity would not be controlled’. 

“The cabinet paper ignores reality. Prioritising ownership as it exists right now ignores the fact that property changes hands over time—so one landowner’s actions will affect a future property owner or community.

“The reality is that most land use activities will have an impact on the rest of the community and wider society, even those that may be confined within a property boundary.

“That’s why we have rules about what people can and can’t do, so that the needs of everyone—including future generations—can be managed and communities aren’t harmed by one person’s poor decision making.” 

Additionally, Choose Clean Water says any national direction announcement that highlights ‘environmental limits’ should be met with skepticism. 

It appears as though the Government has already agreed to take away existing essential environmental limits for freshwater. 

The cabinet paper states, ‘Limits to protect human health would be set nationally, whereas limits to protect the natural environment would be set by regional councils, who may incorporate sub-regional perspectives (such as catchment groups)’.

“We have existing protections for rivers and lakes in the form of national bottom lines (environmental limits). The National Party introduced these in 2014 and they’ve been refined since. 

“But the cabinet paper proposes to remove these existing bottom lines and throw this decision-making back to regional councils again. This means communities will be vulnerable to more pollution of their rivers, lakes and drinking water, such as from another predicted ‘dairy boom’ in Canterbury.”

“It’s dangerous to disconnect human and environmental health, and unrealistic to imagine you can protect people’s health without protecting the waterways they swim in, fish and collect food from, and rely on for their drinking water.”

Kay also says the group can also see the influence of commercial interests over public policy, such as allowing catchment groups to set limits as another way of weakening or removing limits. 

“It just opens them up to industry capture, where agribusiness exerts massive influence to set weak standards that work for them. Catchment groups are currently largely dominated by these interests and aren’t set up to allow for what downstream communities might want or need to protect their health and livelihoods.”

“This is only a small example of what’s in the cabinet paper and there is more to be alarmed about in the Coalition Government’s proposals for our environmental policies. ACT’s dangerous ideology should not be the basis of our resource management system, and National Party leaders must push back on them.” 

ENDS

Spokesperson: Tom Kay, 022 183 2729, tom@choosecleanwater.org.nz

Govt officials knew 2020 water policy would fail to protect health of water and ignored scientists’ advice

Govt officials knew 2020 water policy would fail to protect health of water and ignored scientists’ advice 

11:45am Monday 1st March 2021

For immediate release

Choose Clean Water

Reporting by Radio New Zealandtoday has revealed that government officials knew the 2020 freshwater policy would fail to protect the health of waterways and ignored scientists’ advice that the government should introduce a 1mg/L dissolved inorganic nitrogen bottom line.

Freshwater campaign group Choose Clean Water says that it is deeply troubling that officials from the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) ignored the Government’s expert science advisory group on a bottom line for nitrogen and instead adopted policy being lobbied for by intensive dairy industry executives. 

Radio New Zealand revealed today that MPI, citing DairyNZ modelling, put pressure on the Ministry for the Environment to weaken water policy.

Fortunately, Choose Clean Water says, the Government made a promise in May 2020 to revisit the bottom line for nitrogen in 12 months. 

It now needs to implement what the scientists told it in the first place: putting the health of people and rivers first by introducing the 1mg/L bottom line for nitrogen pollution this year.

“By not protecting water properly, the Ministry for Primary industries is letting the health of our rivers and our people take hit after hit when it should be that polluting industries are required to change,” spokesperson for the group, Marnie Prickett, says.

Choose Clean Water says the Government’s water policy framework, Te Mana o Te Wai, says that regional councils must put the health of rivers and people before commercial interests. 

“Te Mana o Te Wai requires regional councils to put the health of rivers and people before private financial interests. Our national water policy clearly must do the same. This starts with strict rules on pollution.”

ENDS

Wairarapa Water Ltd.’s bad science and poor process a warning bell for all

For immediate use

11am Monday 21 December 2020

Choose Clean Water

Freshwater campaigners say Wairarapa iwi Rangitāne o Wairarapa statement released today highlighting their concerns around Wairarapa Water Ltd.’s “rushed time frames and incorrect information” is an important warning bell for the public and politicians. 

“We support Rangitāne o Wairarapa in raising their concerns around Wairarapa Water Ltd.’s bad science and poor process.,” says Choose Clean Water spokesperson Marnie Prickett.  

“We have long questioned the motives of Wairarapa Water Ltd. in pushing a scheme that would benefit very few land owners, and have large consequences and costs for the rest of the community.”

“The fact that Water Wairarapa appears to be operating under the strange belief that water that flows to the sea is “wasted” is a major warning bell,” Prickett says. 

“Most of us know that to be healthy a river needs to flow to the sea and have plenty of water for the life that it supports.”

“Our best climate mitigation is protecting and enhancing our natural environment. This will make us more resilient than the type of damming and irrigation being proposed by Water Wairarapa.”

The group says that around the country vested interests are presenting water storage schemes as having community benefit when, in fact, they are taking water that people and nature need from rivers and often seeking resource consents that would last 35 years.

“We are concerned that the Government is yet to fully recognise and respond to the resource grab that these water storage schemes represent. Schemes like this pose a danger for future generations in that they will concentrate resources in a few hands for many decades and degrade the natural environment.”

The group says the Government needs to put money into researching and developing natural infrastructure solutions for building climate resilience as well as to put a moratorium on water takes until a sustainable path way forward is set in place. 

ENDS