All of these health issues have been proven to occur at nitrogen levels far lower than the current drinking water standard of 11.3 mg/L used in New Zealand.
If we consider the case of water security for Central Hawke's Bay we need to first look at what is happening currently.
To put it simply the Ruataniwha Aquifer, for whatever reason, has been over-allocated. It also is well documented that there is insufficient water security for landowners, and that there are increasing nitrogen levels in the Ruataniwha Aquifer.
On top of these issues we are also faced with the challenges presented by Climate Change.
Given that a handful of landowners use a majority of the water you do not have to be a rocket scientist to link past allocation practices, i.e. allowing intensive dairying on the Ruataniwha Plains, with the challenges being faced in Central Hawke's Bay today.
Of course a solution offered in the past was the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme, something which turned out in the long run to be an absolute lemon.
The solution being offered now is managed aquifer recharge.
This may resolve the water security issues in the short term, but does it resolve the issue of rising nitrogen levels in the Ruataniwha Aquifer?
Rising nitrogen levels can be linked back to (you guessed it) changes in land use i.e. intensive dairying over the last 20 years or so.
Personally I don't blame landowners for dairying on the Ruataniwha Plains. After all, dairy conversions were allowed by the government at the time, encouraged by the banks, and facilitated by HBRC. They were simply following the rules.
The question for me is how do we turn land use around so that we no longer have to face the risk of poor health outcomes which are a consequence of increasing nitrogen levels? This is no longer just a question of the health of our rivers.
It has, or will soon become, a question of the health of our people regardless of what current drinking water standards are.
And that's what concerns me about the proposal to plough ahead with managed aquifer recharge for the Ruataniwha Aquifer.
I believe that not enough thought has been put into all of the challenges faced on the Ruataniwha Plains, and why they have occurred. Perhaps stopping what is now known to be poor practice in the first place would be a better solution than some mechanical fix.
If we are going to spend millions on managed aquifer recharge why not just buy out the intensive dairy units instead?
That way the landowners in question are not financially disadvantaged, water security issues would be resolved, and we would see a real reduction in nitrogen leaching.
With ever increasing compliance burdens I also believe this would be an attractive proposition for these landowners.
Once these farms have been converted to more sustainable systems they could then be sold.
My guess would be that this would, in the long run, cost far less than managed aquifer recharge which is designed to maintain the status-quo and not to improve our environment.
I have to admit though, that this is a solution that would only be possible in Hawke's Bay and could not be used in say Canterbury where the numbers and challenges involved are just mind-boggling compared to those that we face.
Releasing the water being used by the intensive dairy units would also allow this water to be reallocated to be used by farmers using far more sustainable systems.
In other words this would go a long way in alleviating the challenges posed by climate change for most farms on the Ruataniwha Plains.
So retiring the handful of intensive dairy units on the Ruataniwha Plains could not only resolve the nitrogen issues in the Tukituki River and Ruataniwha Aquifer it could also go a long way to resolving water security issues in Central Hawke's Bay.
Let's not forget that all farmers in catchments which exceed nitrogen limits have to pay the cost, not just those that are causing most of the problem.
It's a pity that so much focus is placed on simply maintaining the status quo rather than looking at a solution that can offer more than one win, at the same cost, for all of the other farmers in the Tukituki catchment.
Paul Bailey is a former BNZ rural business manager for CHB and a former HBRC councillor
This Talking Point published in the CHB Mail and Hawke's Bay Today originally incorrectly stated Mr Bailey was a BNZ rural business manager.
The column should have stated 'former employee'. Our apologies for any confusion.
The Hawke's Bay Regional Council have also advised that an earlier reference to $40m being spent on managed aquifer recharge was incorrect. The reference has been removed.
Craig Cooper
Editor
