Some 3400 Far North properties were affected, he said, the usual process being that the Department of Conservation, the Environmental Defence Society and local authorities were the "last men standing" at the end of any attempts to oppose. That would be true again unless the coalition could find the funds to fight to a satisfactory conclusion.
The regional council was undertaking the mapping process, he said, but it would be the district councils that would decide the rules that would apply within those zones in each district. And while property owners were being consulted, that was taking place within a vacuum as far as the potential risks were concerned.
"What is happening now will become a permanent fixture, subject to ongoing reviews," Mr Syron said.
"And there will be an array of controls regarding what property owners can and cannot do, with enforcement at your and your children's expense. If it isn't stopped now they will use increasingly sophisticated technology to control your activities on your land, backed up with impossible fines.
"They will tell you where you can fence, what your stocking rates will be, what fertilisers and herbicides you can use.
"They are not interested in the economic importance of farming and forestry. All they want is a green environment."
Mr Murfitt said his (and the regional council's) job was to apply the law. Every effort was being made to include land owners in the mapping process, and while he hoped that most people would be comfortable with the outcome some would not be. The worst case scenario was that an Environment Court judge would draw the lines marking the coastal zone.
Houhora farmer Eric Wagener spoke for many when he said no reasonable comment could be made until property owners knew what the lines meant.
"All we know is that someone's thinking of doing something but we don't know what," he said.
"We can be fairly certain that the rules will be tightened, and will continue to be in the future," Mr Newman replied.
Okaihau property owner Ken Rintoul wanted to know if compensation would be paid in the event of the mapping reducing a property's value, perhaps to the point of negative equity. Mr Brown did not expect devaluation to be a problem, however.
The regional council was taking a minimalist approach, he added, although again it was the district councils that would devise the rules governing development within the zone. "I have to work within the law," Mr Brown said.
"You're in a position to change the law," Mr Newman replied, adding that the existing rules were already very restrictive; the owner of a six-hectare "scrubby" piece of land at Ngunguru had bought the land for $800,000, spent $1.4 million on lawyers over the following six years in a bid to develop it, and had now gone bankrupt.
Regional councillor Joe Carr said the process would prove to be draconian. He called for a pause for a "cup of tea." The process would "gazump" anything anyone wanted to do with land inside the zone, but there was enough "wriggle room" not to have to do anything immediately.
Dr Newman said Northland could make a strong case for not harassing property owners.
"Some councils have withdrawn from the process, and I don't see anyone caning them for that," she said.
Mr Wagener agreed, saying that if the councils stood together and refused to comply the government wouldn't be able to do anything.
"The government can bring in a commissioner any time it wants," Mr Brown replied.
