Tukituki decision faces two appeals

RIVER ROW: Appeals mean the battle over Tukituki River is not over.

The Tukituki decision is not quite done and dusted yet. While the Board of Inquiry has released its final decision, two appeals have been made to the High Court and there could be more changes as a consequence.

What we do know is that while the draft decision sent shockwaves through the community, the final decision has left the waters in a calmer state as a number of changes had been made to ensure rules were functional for both the regional council and for farmers.

The biggest change was to the link between land use and the in-stream Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN) limit of 0.8 milligrams per litre. Farms will no longer be seen as breaching the rules if the DIN measured in the river is over the limit, so long as the land use capability on-farm limits are adhered to.

Previously all farms in a sub-catchment would need resource consent if the DIN limit was exceeded, even when those farms were meeting the LUC leaching rates. With the low limit of 0.8mg/l selected, this meant that some sub-catchments would already be over. Some submitters were seeking an even lower DIN limit of 0.444 mg/l, but the Board found that this number comes from averaging a wide selection of New Zealand rivers and that there was not enough scientific backup for this low limit. It could have been worse.

The change from a grandparenting of existing N leaching on farms to N limit by land use capability started out as a shock, however the final decision has made this much more practical to farm to.

Instead of being stuck with a particular leaching limit for any one paddock depending on its LUC, farmers can now add up the N limit for their entire farm and use it anywhere within that property.

For farms that are made up of several properties within the Tukituki catchment, you can even aggregate the N limits between properties. Farms must get down to their N limits by 2020, which gives us a few years up the spout to work with. If you can't meet the limits by then, you can apply for resource consent.

The Board decided that LUC was the best option because it is well established and takes into account the particular characteristics of land like soil types and slope. They considered that it had logic to it as it was based on the natural capital of the land.

Appeals to the High Court are limited to points of law only, which narrows the scope of issues that can be appealed. The two appeals that were lodged come from Fish and Game and Forest and Bird. They are both seeking to reinstate the link between the in-stream DIN limit and farms because they believe that this is an error of law in that the National Policy Statement is not being adhered to.

Farmers can rest assured that Federated Farmers are still committed to ensuring that rules are implemented in a practical and equitable manner, and we will be working closely with the regional council to ensure that this will happen. There are more ways than one to skin a cat.