Where is the consistency?

 We have all seen farmers prosecuted in the Environment Court for breaches under the RMA, for matters such as effluent discharges that “may enter water”.

These are the critical few words found in the RMA that most prosecutions are based on – “…and may enter water”. That means the contaminant didn’t necessarily enter water or cause pollution; it just “may” have been able to enter water – and that’s a big difference.

Of course it’s not always that simple. In some cases, contaminants from farms do in fact enter water. That cannot be condoned and depending on the circumstances, the Environment Court may be the appropriate course of action.

Last spring, the Otago Regional Council (ORC) boss Peter Bodeker said in the news media that recent dairy inspections in Otago were not good enough and that an unacceptable number of breaches had been found.

TVOne’s 7 Sharp recently depicted some popular swimming beaches as unsafe for swimming because of overflow sewage systems some city councils’ use – there is no “may” about that.  

So let’s compare these on-farm breaches of the RMA to those in the urban sector.

Last November, media reported that in Cromwell 3500L of untreated waste had entered Lake Dunstan. In response, the ORC determined that no action was required.

Over recent months and years, Queenstown Lakes District Council has had numerous untreated spills into the lake, with not a single prosecution.

Apart from a major tourist destination’s image being tarnished by the sight of untreated sewage flowing on streets and into the lake, that waste is entering water and is bad for the environment.

If Queenstown was a farm, there would be a huge public outcry for it to be shut down until major improvements could bring it up to appropriate standards.

Other towns around the country have consent to pollute on a daily basis. Milton is one example.  It has been issued consent by the ORC to intermittently discharge 9150m3/day of untreated wastewater mixed with stormwater to the Tokomairiro River.

This discharge permit expires on December 31, 2017. But don’t worry, part of the consent approval includes a diagram for a sign to be erected saying ‘Danger. Keep Out. No Swimming’.

Other New Zealand towns also have consent to discharge untreated or partially treated waste to land “in a manner that may enter water”. Interesting that those towns have these discharge consents approved by councils, when this is the same standard for which farmers are being prosecuted.

For many coastal towns the solution is simple, just put waste out to sea in a longer and ever extending pipeline. Well at least it doesn’t get to freshwater that way, although as we’ve seen recently, the impact on many of our beaches is not something to be proud of.

There is one rule for council discharges, and a completely different rule for farmers and I’m convinced the environment doesn’t notice the difference.

People living in urban New Zealand have been ‘sold’ a story comprising limited science and based on a successful, catchy slogan – ‘dirty dairying’. That has given rise to the misconception that most pollution is from farms.

Regional councils nationwide continue to turn a blind eye to blatant urban pollution, both within discharge consent parameters and through unconsented spills into our lakes and rivers.

Farmers don’t expect any special treatment. We have a huge responsibility in looking after our environment. But nor do we expect to be targeted and singled out by regional councils.

All we ask is that in the interests of our environment we have a more level playing field.  Currently what we have is anything but.

• Stephen Crawford is Federated Farmers Otago Dairy chairman.