Hearing Evidence – Brunner - Federated Farmers

BEFORE THE West Coast Regional Council
IN THE MATTER OF submission on Proposed
Regional Land and Water
Plan 2010
STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE WEST COAST PROVINCE OF
FEDERATED FARMERS OF NEW ZEALAND

Introduction
1. My name is Katie Milne, I am the President of the West Coast Province of Federated
Farmers of New Zealand. I am also a Rotomanu dairy farmer, and am directly affected
by the decisions of the Council that pertain to farms in the Lake Brunner Catchment.
2. With me is Michael Bennett, a Federated Farmers Policy Advisor. Michael holds a BSc.
degree from the University of Canterbury and an M.Com. (agricultural) degree from
Lincoln University. He previously worked at Environment Southland and has 4 years of
experience as a policy planner. Previous to this he undertook research on farmer
perceptions of sustainability and decision making around cow wintering.
3. With me also is Dave Becker from Ray White Real Estate. Dave is a licensed rural
sales consultant and we have him to join us today because he has insights and
experience relating to the effect of the proposed plan on the marketability and certainty
of value of farms in the Brunner Catchment.
Summary of Federated Farmers position
4. Federated Farmer’s position is that the proposed Land and Water Plan, with
amendments sought in our submission, is a good response to the management of land
and water resources on the West Coast, and in particular the minor issues now being
observed in Lake Brunner.
5. We see the relief sought in our submission as reasonable and moderate, particularly in
light of the good state of Lake Brunner, lack of evidence that farming activities are the
driver of changes, widespread support for voluntary farm plans by farmers, as well as
our support for practical and effective regulatory options such as stock exclusion, use
of culverts and bridges, and improved farm dairy effluent management.
6. Above all we do not want to jump the gun or over-complicate the situation by acting in
haste. As the data set becomes more complete, the picture as to the nature of the
problem and what might be required to address it will become clearer.
7. Federated Farmers also has every confidence in West Coast Regional Council to
continue to work proactively with farmers to manage water quality in farming
catchments, and appreciates the consultative planning approach taken to minimise
unnecessary confusion, uncertainty, and cost in developing this plan.
Scope of evidence
8. This statement of evidence is intended to support the points raised on our submission.
9. The remainder of our evidence comprises:
1. The issue of water quality in Lake Brunner;
2. Economic and social implications for Lake Brunner farmers and the wider
region;
3. The proposed policy framework for the Lake Brunner catchment;
2

4. Other matters
1. The issue of water quality in Lake Brunner
10. Monitoring and information on the lake indicate that Brunner is in very good condition
with a very gradual declining trend. The following comments from the SOE Report are
relevant:
Water quality monitoring in Lake Brunner began in the early 1990s. From this data
set, trends in some variables indicated that the water quality of Lake Brunner had
deteriorated from 1994 to 2011, although water quality in the lake is still relatively
good. (page 45)
Predictive modelling estimated that phosphorus inputs into the lake would need to
increase by 70 % to shift the lake into mesotrophic status. (page 45)
Lake SPI analysis suggests that there has not been any change in aquatic plant
community composition since 1982, hence water quality has not deteriorated
sufficiently to alter them (Figure 4.2). (page 47)
11. We would also like to clarify that water quality monitoring in Lake Brunner has shown
highly variable results over time, with a slight, but statistically significant trend. A
statistically significant reduction does not however mean that the condition of the Lake
has undergone a major change or loss of value. The variability in water quality data is
also typical of other lakes on the West Coast.
12. The SOE Report also notes that flushing by high rainfall and the limnology of the lake
provide further protection in that the thermocline established in summer and
consolidation of P in lake sediments reduces vulnerability to flipping. This makes Lake
Brunner unlike other, more vulnerable lakes such as Ellesmere/Te Waihora and The
Waituna Lagoon.
13. From the available information, Federated Farmers has concluded that Lake Brunner is
not at threat of ecological change or harm, is inherently resilient, and that therefore
there is no need for immediate or urgent action to reduce phosphorous use on farms.
14. Unlike some other lakes in farming catchments in New Zealand, pressures are not at
critical levels and there is time to work through the problem and respond in a measured
manner to any further changes.
15. We differ on the views of the 42A report, which at Decision Requested: 9.4 states that
water quality is still declining. The SOE report does not report continuing decline in all
measures of water quality, including dissolved reactive phosphorous, which is the form
available for algal growth and is intended to be controlled (directly or indirectly) in many
3

of the proposed rules in section 9 of the proposed plan. Again the SOE report is
helpful 1 :
16. Finally we would like to add that the Council have not determined the relationship
between land practices and critical waterbody phosphorus concentrations at which
significant adverse effects occur, as noted in the submission of Fert Research
discussed at Decision Requested 9.19. There are a range of phenomena, not related to
agricultural activities, that might contribute to the changing state of Brunner, including
discharges associated with land slips and erosion, and septic tank discharges from
settlements on the shores of the lake.
17. To conclude this section, Federated Farmers do not accept that stringent controls on
phosphorous use are necessary, particularly in light of farmer acceptance of good
management practices to achieve improved management of nutrients and better farm
efficiency. Levels of dissolved reactive phosphorous (phosphorous that is available for
utilisation by algae) are stabilised or in decline, and there is no proven link between
land use practices and the supposedly declining state of the lake.
2. The economic and social implications for Lake Brunner farmers and the wider
region.
18. In our submission at section 6.6, Federated Farmers requested that Council fully
consider the financial implications to farming businesses in the Lake Brunner
Catchment, as required by the RMA, under the proposed Lake Brunner Special Area
provisions. At Decision Requested: 9.5 the 42A report recommended accepting this
1 West Coast State of Environment Report 2011. Page 41. ‘Lake Brunner DRP 1992 – 2011
4

submission, with the comment that Council is sensitive to the fact that some of the
provisions within the Plan will result in financial implications on Lake Brunner
landowners.
19. At Decision Requested: 9.6 the 42A report recommends the Council accept in part our
submission and insert a non-notification clause in Rules 83 and 84, which will make the
plan more efficient to administer. This is appreciated, but Federated Farmers also ask
that the Council consider not applying resource consents fees on consents required
under new provisions for the initial three years of the plans life, in recognition of the
benefits to the wider community and the costs to the individual farmers. This is a fair
point in light of the lack of evidence of a causal link between agricultural activities and
changes to the state of the Lake as described in part 1.
20. Federated Farmers has included some comments on economic and social effects to
assist Council decisions. The information that follows is relevant to all decisions that
potentially affect land value and ability to farm profitably, particularly within more
sensitive areas such as the Brunner Catchment as acknowledged at Decision
Requested: 9.18.
21. Our submission notes that restrictive plan provisions can undermine farm values, and
stifle economic activity. Economic effects on the wider community and implications for
the ‘ethic of stewardship’ are also relevant. These concerns link to the purpose of the
RMA described in section 5, and the ‘efficiency and effectiveness’ tests specified in
section 32.
Implications for farm value
22. We have invited Dave Becker, a local real estate agent experienced in rural sales, to
comment on the relationship between saleability or value of properties and the
developing response of the Council to water quality in Lake Brunner. We think Dave
has insights that will be helpful to the Council and will ask him to talk about this aspect
of our evidence at the hearing.
Economic and social implications for the wider community
23. In addition to adverse effects on individual farm businesses, limiting farm production,
either directly through nutrient limits, or indirectly through the creation of uncertainty or
disincentives to investment, will reduce economic and social benefits to the community
that would otherwise result.
24. For example the model Southland dairy model farm, a 579 cow farm, showed farm
working expenses for the 2010/2011 year of $746,935, or $1290 per cow. 2 Most of
2 There is no model available for the West Coast, but we think these figures are representative. Model farms are
compiled from figures averaged across a number of ‘monitor farms’ in the region. The source for these figures is
Farm Monitoring Report 2011 – Pastoral Monitoring: Southland Dairy. [Online] http://www.mpi.govt.nz/newsresources/publications?title=farm%20monitoring%20report
5

these expenses are sourced locally and relate to labour, contractor and professional
fees, bought in feed, and other local services. Using the Southland model as a guide,
we estimate that the increase of 5250 cows milked on the West Coast reported in the
2011/2012 year, represents an additional $6,777,500 in farm working expenses, the
majority of which directly enters the local economy. Added to the benefits generated
on-farm, almost all milk produced on West Coast Farms is processed locally at
Westland Milk products, a major employer in the region. In other words, reducing
opportunities for farm production, has a directly proportional effect on jobs and
opportunities for enterprising West Coasters.
Relationship between impacts on farm values and stewardship
25. Methods that undermine farm value, will also undermine the sense of ownership of
farms and environmental issues related to them. This is important because voluntary
methods and facilitating behavioral change have already proven very valuable in
managing nutrient inputs to Brunner and are an aspect of the ethic of stewardship,
which the Council is required to ‘have particular regard to’ under section 7 (aa) of the
RMA. We think that the following from the section 32 report for the proposed Land and
Water Plan, produced at the time of notification fairly reflects the value of voluntary
action in improving farm practice in the Lake Brunner catchment:
Farm plans had been developed with farmers in the catchment in 2005. These
were a non-regulatory approach to improving systems of which some farmers had
implemented the recommended best practice. Good work was undertaken by
landowners through the installation of fencing and bridging, but unfortunately not
everyone participated in this project. With new landowners in the catchment and
changes in policy proposed, a review of these plans would provide new
opportunities for reducing adverse effects on the environment through current
farming practice.
This method is seen as a positive approach towards identifying and working with
landowners to come up with solutions and timeframes for putting in place best
practice systems which not only benefits the landowners, but also has a positive
environmental benefit. It is also another opportunity for farmers to demonstrate the
value of non-regulatory tools in achieving positive change.
26. Contrary to the submission of Fish and Game discussed at Decision Requested: 9.54,
we see farm plans and education as effective in achieving improvements. Widespread
support for improved effluent management, stock exclusion and stock crossings to
reduce P loss are evidence of the ability of farmers to change once properly equipped
with appropriate information.
6

3. The proposed policy framework for the Lake Brunner catchment
3.1 Objective 9.2.1 – To improve the water quality of Lake Brunner by managing
the adverse effects of activities in the catchment to reach an average water
clarity of 5.3m by 2020, and then maintain or enhance this clarity.
28. In further submissions Federated Farmers opposed the submission from the
Department of Conservation to replace water clarity with Trophic Lake Index (TLI) as
the key parameter in Objective 9.2.1. The 42A report recommends accepting this
submission at Decision Requested: 9.15.
29. We oppose the use of TLI because it makes the policy framework subject to nitrogen
(in addition to phosphorous, clarity, and algal biomass), which has been barely
addressed at all in the Proposed Regional Land and Water Plan. We therefore fear that
the inclusion of TLI as parameter in Objective 9.2.1 creates a lacuna in the plan, and
thus creates scope for legal challenge that was not previously present.
30. The information we have suggests that Nitrogen:
is not a limiting nutrient in Lake Brunner;
is a costly contaminant to regulate or control with any certainty because is readily
soluble in water;
is unlike phosphorous in that nitrogen loss is more difficult to accurately measure
and provide direct regulatory measures to manage;
there is scope to reduce nitrogen loss through good practice methods, but some of
these measures can be incredibly expensive and have not been trialled in high
rainfall environments such as the West Coast;
a large proportion of nitrogen loss is to groundwater, and is difficult to observe or
measure, and regulators are very reliant on predictive models.
31. Federated Farmers recommends that the Council avoid opening a proverbial ‘can of
worms’ and leave water clarity as the key parameter in Objective 9.2. Not only is water
clarity simpler to deal with, but it also directly represents that values that the plan
change is seeking to protect. As noted in the section 32 report, and repeatedly stated
throughout pre-consultation the key issue for Lake Brunner is phosphorous and lake
clarity, and this should remain the focus of the plan change.
32. Failing this, we submit that West Coast Regional Council exercise its right to undertake
further consultation on the use of TLI as the key parameter in Objective 9.2.1. At no
point during the preparation of the plan was TLI discussed as a parameter of interest. It
is only with the release of the 42A report, at this very late stage, that we have become
aware of it.
33. Federated Farmers notes that the 42A report recommends rejecting submissions
requesting reference to nutrients besides phosphorous (at Decision Requested: 9.17,
Decision Requested: 9.20) Our comments on the use of TLI at paragraphs 28-32 are
also relevant to discussions of other nutrients.
7

3.2 Policy 9.3.3 – To reduce the amount of phosphorous discharged in the Lake
Brunner catchment.
34. In further submissions, Federated Farmers supported the proposed change to the
wording of this Policy by Fert Research to refine the focus of Policy 9.3.3 to
phosphorous discharged to water, rather than phosphorous applied to land. It is good
to see the staff report recommend this submission is accepted at Decision Requested:
9.19. We also support the submission of Westland Milk Products as discussed at
Decision Requested: 9.21 for the same reasons.
3.3 Policy 9.3.4 – To require discharges of dairy effluent in the Lake Brunner
catchment to be to land rather than directly to water.
35. In our submission, Federated Farmers asked that Council: Carefully consider the actual
costs and benefits of the proposed objectives, polices, and rules. The importance of
balancing costs and benefits is acknowledged at Decision Requested: 9.24.
36. For example, effluent application systems are a technically complex area, and a variety
of problems arise if rules and consents conditions are subject to prescriptive, rather
than outcome-based criteria. Discussions with experts 3 suggest that the use of deferred
irrigation of effluent (storage) is not feasible on the humped and hollowed and high
rainfall land in the Brunner catchment. The pond calculator model for the West Coast
predicts that optimum soil moisture conditions do not persist for long enough to get
FDE onto land fast enough to keep ponds empty, and that it will be very difficult for
farmers to maintain a useful irrigation buffer, even with very large ponds. Furthermore,
Michael’s experience in Southland is that large storage ponds are prone to failure as
clay liners erode and crack, or as synthetic liners are compromised by rising methane
gas from decomposing soil organic matter. Unsuitable design can also lead to severe
problems with odour. Thus, any storage pond must be suitable for the climatic
conditions and designed and constructed to a very high engineering standard,
otherwise a structure intended to achieve certainty and reduced contaminant loss from
the farm system will have the opposite effect, with wasted capital, on-going worry for
farmers, and lack of certainty for the Council the likely result.
37. With effluent systems, Federated Farmers prefers simple systems that achieve certainty
of outcome, and that come at reasonable cost so as to leave farmers with resources to
address other areas of environmental performance. Rushing through with prescriptive
solutions, even as researchers are working to develop effluent systems suitable for
high rainfall environments, is likely to lead to high cost and poor environmental
performance in the long term.
3 Dr Dave Houlbrooke pers comm 9-01-2012
8

3.4 Policy 9.3.5 – To prevent stock access to waterways
Rule 9 – Grazing and livestock access to riparian margins
Rule 10 – Grazing and livestock access to riparian margins in the Lake Brunner
catchment
38. Federated Farmers supports the exclusion of stock from waterways, and understands
that it should be attempted where practicable. We also think that the plan change as
notified is a reasonable approach, that reflects generally expected behaviour, economic
efficiency, and the stable or improving water quality on the West Coast reported in the
SOE report. Accordingly, we have submitted in support of Policy 9.3.5, Rule 9 and Rule
10 as notified.
39. Although our submission requested an amendment to Rule 10 to include an
explanation that stock exclusion can include exclusion by means of natural terrain of
the banks of a river or creek, we are satisfied with the response of the 42A report, at
Decision Requested 18.1.57, that this is already provided for by clause (a) of Rule 10
‘all farmed stock animals shall be prevented from entering any waterway…’
Further submissions
40. A number of submissions were received requesting that policies and rules relating to
stock access to water and placement of riparian fencing be strengthened and/or
extended to other parts of the region besides Lake Brunner. Federated Farmers lodged
further submissions on all of these. A summary follows:
Submitter Within Brunner Catchment Remainder of Region
Plan change as notified Policy 9.3.5 – prevent stock access
West Coast Tai Poutini
Conservation Board
Rule 10 - 1 m setback from water
Minimum 5 m setback, native vegetation
required - Decision Requested: 18.1.54
Paul Sutton Amend Rule 10 – …any fences to be placed a
minimum of 1 10 metres from the edge of the
waterway. - Decision Requested: 18.1.53 and
Decision Requested: 18.1.63
Fish and Game Amend Rule 10 – …any fences to be placed a
minimum of 1 3 metres from the edge of the
waterway. - Decision Requested: 18.1.58
Forest and Bird Amend Rule 10(a) to provide for fences to be
set back from the waters edge to ensure the
distance will prevent surface run off. Decision
Requested: 18.1.62
9
Rule 9 – The activity does not cause or
induce conspicuous slumping, pugging, or
erosion.
5 m setback, native vegetation required
New Rule 7(f) – Riparian margin of minimum
10 metres which is fenced off to prevent
access by stock - Decision Requested:
18.1.43
Extend amended Rule 10 to entire region -
Decision Requested: 18.1.53
Implement Policy 9.3.5 region-wide -
Decision Requested: 9.32

Department of Conservation Change fencing distance from the waterway
from 1 metre to 3 metres.
Decision Requested: 18.1.56
10
Implement Policy 9.3.5 region-wide -
Decision Requested: 9.29
41. We see the relief sought by the above submitters as unnecessary and unreasonable in
consideration of the overall broad judgement of likely environmental benefits against
economic and social cost to farmers and the wider community. We therefore support
the recommendations in the 42A report to reject these submissions.
42. In regard to requests to extend the 1 metre buffer within the Lake Brunner catchment
up to 10 metres, or to extend stock access provisions for Lake Brunner to the
remainder of the region, we note that:
Very substantial areas of land will be lost to production, for little environmental
improvement in terms of the actual state or health of the receiving water body.
Due to the potential loss of land and social and economic effects that might arise
if the Council were to accept further submissions, we question the
recommendation in the 42A report at Decision Requested: 9.30 to reject our
submission on possible costs of Policy 9.3.5;
outside the Brunner catchment, water quality is good or getting better in all
surface water bodies, which suggests that increased regulatory intervention is not
necessary;
compared to other parts of New Zealand, West Coast farms are relatively smaller
and with lower stocking rates;
stock exclusion can be very difficult to achieve on dry stock properties where a
permanent 7 wire fence is required to stop stock, land may be steep with
numerous intersecting streams and ephemeral watercourses, and where farmers
often rely on natural flowing water for stockwater. Dry stock properties are also
generally farmed less intensively than dairy farms, with lower densities of animals
that can impact on creeks;
pest plants are a major problem on ungrazed land on the West Coast, and this
will be no different in riparian areas. Controlling these, or managing an effective
transition to native vegetation often results in much higher costs than building a
permanent fence in the first place;
stock exclusion can result in lack of access to maintain creek beds, which will
result in enhanced flood risks.

3.5 Policy 9.3.6 – To reduce the loss of phosphorous to Lake Brunner associated
with the intensification of land, by managing phosphate fertiliser use in the
catchment so that no net increases in annual use occurs per property.
43. As notified, Policy 9.3.6 will likely create problems with equity between farmers and
unnecessary complexity as phosphorous fertilizer (P) use on farm land in Brunner is be
pegged to past levels (grandparenting). Federated Farmers are particularly concerned
about the phrase ‘so that no net increases in annual use occurs per property’, at the
end of the Policy.
44. Work undertaken in the Taupo catchment 4 has found that grandparenting results in
farms with historically high nutrient use finding it much cheaper to cap at current levels
than farmers who have not. This study found that reducing nitrogen leaching on the
more intensive farm could cost between $3.41 and $14.70 per kilogram. For the less
intensive farm the cost was between $52 and $84 per kilogram. These figures apply to
caps on nitrogen, but the implications for caps on P use are very similar.
45. Grandparenting has particularly serious implications for farms that have used debt to
grow their business. Farms that are able to demonstrate a historic pattern of relatively
high P-use will be able to provide certainty to lenders that they can continue to farm
profitably, while farms that have used relatively low levels of P (and low environmental
impact) will not and will suffer substantially both in terms of reduced bankable value
(but not debt) and reduced access to credit.
46. With grandparenting, development may still be possible, but will be very costly, because
extensive investigative work, farm plan preparation, and monitoring will be required to
demonstrate a net increase in phosphorous-loss, and there is no evidence that this will
make any difference to the lake or is even necessary from an environmental point of
view.
48. Policy 9.3.6 is also inconsistent with subsequent methods which confine limitations on
phosphorous use to land developed since 1st January 2011. This is confusing because
the intent of the council (the policy) is not consistent with specified actions (i.e. rules).
49. In further submissions we support the submission of Fert Research on Policy 9.3.6,
which is discussed at Decision Requested: 9.36 of the 42A report. We see the change
recommended by staff as an improvement to Policy 9.3.6 that increases clarity and
focuses the policy on land development, rather than ‘intensification’, which could apply
to virtually any increased use of fertiliser over historic levels.
3.6 Rule 14 – Humping and hollowing, flipping, v-blading, or contouring in the
Lake Brunner catchment
4 Review of Implications of nutrient caps on New Zealand’s agriculture. N Hoogaveen. Completed April 2006 [Online]
http://www.fertresearch.org.nz/research/research-results/completed-research
11

50. In our submission, Federated Farmers sought the inclusion of an explanation to Rule
14 to the effect that: This rule is not intended to prohibit further development, but
requires the applicant to consider methods of reducing potential future phosphorus loss
into Lake Brunner. The 42A report recommended the Council accept this submission
at Decision Requested: 18.1.73. Federated Farmers appreciates this recommendation.
3.7 Rule 72 – Application of fertiliser
51. In submissions, Federated Farmers opposed in part amendments to Rule 72 to only
provide for application of fertiliser as a permitted activity, as part of land development in
the Lake Brunner catchment, if the solubility of the fertiliser is less than 10%. This very
low solubility makes Rule 72 very difficult to apply in the Brunner catchment because
10% is too low a solubility to support the rapid plant growth necessary for successful
land development, and to consolidate sediment. This is unnecessary given that land
development in the Brunner catchment is a discretionary activity under Rule 14.
52. In our submission we requested that provision for higher solubility fertiliser might make
Rule 72 more useful. The staff recommended the Council reject our relief sought at
Decision Requested: 18.5.9.
53. In further submissions, Federated Farmers opposed the submission of the Department
of Conservation, discussed at Decision Requested: 18.5.10, because the imposition of
farm plans across the region would be very difficult to enforce, and would be a severe
administrative burden for the Council, and would seek to address something that is a
non-issue according to water quality in the SOE report. The 42A report recommended
the Council reject this submission.
3.8 Rule – 83 Application of phosphorous fertiliser associated with Rule 14 in the
Lake Brunner catchment
54. In submissions, Federated Farmers sought that Council either removes condition (ii) of
Rule 83 or clarifies:
how the amount of fertiliser is to be defined;
how properties are to be established where boundaries change or lease
agreements are established;
how an annual average will be established in the absence of accurate records;
and;
how an appropriate bench mark period will be established given concerns with
the 2005 – 2010 years
Condition (ii) of Rule 83 is:
The average amount of phosphorous fertiliser applied per property per year is to
be no more than the annual average applied between 2005-2010.
55. No submissions were received in opposition of this submission.
12

56. We are relieved to see that the 42A report, Decision Requested: 18.5.60 recommends
that Council accept in part this submission by making clause (ii) a discretionary matter
rather than a determinant of activity status.
57. We provide lengthy comment on Rule 83 in our submission. There is no need to repeat
it here, however the main points are:
Farmers use different types and mixes of fertiliser from year to year, which makes
historic amount and solubility of P applied very difficult to establish;
The ‘per property’ proviso in condition (ii) will become very complex to administer
as properties are subdivided, change hands, amalgamate, are leased out and so
on;
Some owners (whether in their own or a previous owners account), will not have
the necessary records to implement Rule 83;
The benchmark years of 2005-2010 were an economically difficult time for many,
with the result that P use was likely to be restricted. This amplifies the inequity with
other land users who have developed land and made capital dressings of P over
the same period.
59. Federated Farmers also submitted in support of the submission of Fert Research on
Rule 83, discussed at Decision Requested: 18.5.61. We agree with the relief sought
and reasons given in the Fert Research submission and note also the recommendation
of the 42A report to accept in part this submission.
3.9 Schedule Twelve
59. At Decision Requested 12.1, Federated Farmers requested that Schedule Twelve be
amended in consultation with Federated Farmers and farmers in the Lake Brunner
Catchment, and taking into consideration the actual costs and benefits of the schedule.
The 42A report recommended that Council accept in part the submission, but did not
suggest changes, referring instead to the relief sought by Fert Research.
60. In further submissions, Federated Farmers submitted in support of the submission of
Fert Research on Schedule Twelve which requested a number of changes to enhance
clarity and use-ability. The 42A report recommended that Council accept in part the
submission, and recommended the implementation of all but one change.
61. The 42A did not recommend deletion of the final paragraph as it may send the wrong
message to landowners. In the view of Federated Farmers, the last paragraph of
Schedule Twelve resembles policy rather than part of a schedule, which is confusing.
We also suspect that the approach of rigidly adhering to Olson P of 30 is not technically
correct (as optimum P varies significantly with soil properties), and await with interest
the comment of Fert Research in this regard. In support of the submission of Fert
Research, we request that this part is either removed, or else re-phrased as a
suggestion rather than an imperative.
3.10 Policy 9.3.7 – To encourage methods of wintering stock that will reduce the risk
of phosphorous loss in the Lake Brunner catchment, including the
management of effluent that results from wintering methods.
13

62. In our submission on Policy 9.3.7, discussed at Decision Requested: 9.38, Federated
Farmers requested an amendment to the explanation to make it clear that the policy is
non-compulsory in nature. The 42A report recommended Council reject this
submission. We maintain that conventional wintering in the catchment may be the only
practicable option for many, for example if market conditions result in shortage of land
for winter grazing elsewhere, or biosecurity issues, (such as Tb) restrict stock
movements.
63. In further submissions, Federated Farmers responded the submission of the
Department of Conservation (at Decision Requested: 9.37), who sought Rules to
manage winter grazing. Federated Farmers members fear that ‘rules’ for winter grazing
will result in excessive cost in light of the nature of the problem and concessions
already made by farmers in the Brunner catchment. An obvious fear is that rules will
involve requirements for ‘alternative’ wintering practices, such as wintering barns, to
demonstrate reduced phosphorous loss. Federated Farmers seeks to avoid this
outcome because wintering barns are very costly, and introduce technical complexity
around animal welfare and diet which must be carefully managed. Furthermore,
wintering barns encourage high intensity farming as farmers attempt to recover the
cost, and take advantage of the ability of wintering barns to achieve efficient feed
utilisation, and increase cow numbers on the milking platform. With future policy
responses to stock wintering, the Council is better to avoid prescriptive policy
responses, and focus on good wintering practice, and to ensure that solutions are cost
effective and achieve good environmental outcomes.
4. Other Matters
4.1 Policy 4.3.6 – Council will require the use of bridges, culverts, and other
methods where a farmers causes a herd of cattle to cross any river or
permanently flowing creek, at any farm raceway, more than ten times in any
month for herds larger than 500 cattle, or more than 20 times in any month for
herds less than 500 cattle. A crossing is one-way only.
This Policy also applies for dry stock where more than 50 animals cross any
river or permanently flowing creek more than 20 times per month.
63. Federated Farmers are pleased to see the recommendation to accept our submission
and amend Policy 4.3.6 at Decision Requested: 4.17 of the 42A report. The suggested
changes make sense and make the plan more coherent and easier to understand, and
are fairer because cattle are treated equally with other stock types.
64. Federated Farmers made further submissions on the submission from Fish and Game
discussed at Decision Requested 4.18. This submission includes a request to extend
controls on stock crossings to any situation where a farmer causes cattle to cross a
‘river or permanently flowing creek’. In response to the submission of Fish and Game, it
is not reasonable or efficient to require that every place where animals might
conceivably cross a stream has a fence or a culvert. We support the 42A report which
recommends the Council reject this submission.
14

65. The phrase ‘licence to contaminate’, as used in the submission from Fish and Game is
confusing and unhelpful because it is not actually the Policy but the methods that
implement it that regulate the activity in question. It is also an unnecessarily emotive
way to describe what is legally allowed to occur under section 15 of the RMA. Policy
4.3.6 does not act as a ‘licence to contaminate’, but merely specifies the line between
what is generally allowed as a permitted activity, and activities that requires a resource
consent.
4.2 Rule 17 – Stock crossings in the Lake Brunner catchment
66. Federated Farmers submitted that the Council defer the adoption of Rule 17 until 1 July
2012. The 42A report at Decision Requested: 18.1.81, recommended rejecting this
submission because water quality continues to decline within the catchment, and
therefore stringent measures are necessary. We do not agree with this view, however
the question is academic because the plan will not be operative until after the date
specified.
4.3 Outstanding Natural Landscapes
67. The submission of the West Coast Tai Poutini Conservation Board includes relief
sought to recognise and provide for Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes,
and include a new Objective and new Policy.
68. Federated Farmers sees that a regional plan is not the appropriate place to discuss this
as the relief sought is likely to cause conflict and confusion over Council roles. ONFLs
should only be dealt with at the RPS or District Plan level. For the above reasons
Federated Farmers endorses the recommendation of the 42A report at Decision
Requested: GS 21, Decision Requested: 3.4 and Decision Requested: 3.11, to reject
the submission because it is outside of the scope of the proposed plan.
15