68
H. Smale
Domestic and municipal discharges – this was an area of relatively low human
population and human impact on the growing area was considered minimal, even
though the treatment facility at Collingwood was not always operating correctly.
Wild life – feral animals in the National Park above the coastal verges were
considered to be of low risk. A nearby black swan colony was also discounted.
Recreational users – Golden Bay is geographically remote and boating pressure is
confined to short duration fishing excursions. There are no major marinas in the
area.
Agricultural run off and stream contamination – Land use in the impacting
catchment is primarily dairy farming. Previous research had identified that cows
with access to creeks can cause substantial water pollution as they are inclined to
defaecate when they enter the water.
The consensus between scientists and regulators was that the contamination was
most likely attributable to farm stock crossings in creek beds and estuaries plus
stand off areas adjacent to streams where the bacteria are subsequently washed into
the waterways. However, due to the other possibilities, the source of contamination
could not be determined with certainty and certainly not to the standard that any
legal or even political approaches would require.
Resistance to Tackling the Problem
Dairy farming is New Zealand’s largest industry by far and is the mainstay of the
New Zealand economy. Fonterra is the principal dairy company in the country and
is one of the two largest in the world. As a result, it wields considerable influence
but at the same time – through what is known as the “Fonterra Accord” – is
working towards more sustainable and environmentally responsible practices. It is
particularly sensitive to allegations of “dirty dairying”.
The first issue to confront was that permits to discharge dairy effluent had been
issued by the local council, without bacterial standards. In the absence of conclusive
evidence that the dairy farms were indeed the source of the bacteria being detected
at the marine farm sites, the council was extremely reluctant to initiate action against
the dairy farms, who of course were also tax payers and voters. Understandably, the
dairy farmers themselves were also reluctant to initiate actions costing $50,000–
$100,000 per farm, still in the absence of conclusive proof.
Two possible courses of action were available to us. The first was to pursue
legal remedies to force the Council to in turn force the farmers to take action. New
Zealanders tend to view litigation as action of last resort and the marine farmers
were already bogged down in litigation costing the better part of $2 million over
issuance of consents to farm shellfish in the general area. Further more, there was
the matter of the legally issued consents to discharge the effluent.
There was also the concern that this was all taking place in a small, quite isolated
rural community where neighbour would be pitted against neighbour, friend against
friend.
H. Smale
Domestic and municipal discharges – this was an area of relatively low human
population and human impact on the growing area was considered minimal, even
though the treatment facility at Collingwood was not always operating correctly.
Wild life – feral animals in the National Park above the coastal verges were
considered to be of low risk. A nearby black swan colony was also discounted.
Recreational users – Golden Bay is geographically remote and boating pressure is
confined to short duration fishing excursions. There are no major marinas in the
area.
Agricultural run off and stream contamination – Land use in the impacting
catchment is primarily dairy farming. Previous research had identified that cows
with access to creeks can cause substantial water pollution as they are inclined to
defaecate when they enter the water.
The consensus between scientists and regulators was that the contamination was
most likely attributable to farm stock crossings in creek beds and estuaries plus
stand off areas adjacent to streams where the bacteria are subsequently washed into
the waterways. However, due to the other possibilities, the source of contamination
could not be determined with certainty and certainly not to the standard that any
legal or even political approaches would require.
Resistance to Tackling the Problem
Dairy farming is New Zealand’s largest industry by far and is the mainstay of the
New Zealand economy. Fonterra is the principal dairy company in the country and
is one of the two largest in the world. As a result, it wields considerable influence
but at the same time – through what is known as the “Fonterra Accord” – is
working towards more sustainable and environmentally responsible practices. It is
particularly sensitive to allegations of “dirty dairying”.
The first issue to confront was that permits to discharge dairy effluent had been
issued by the local council, without bacterial standards. In the absence of conclusive
evidence that the dairy farms were indeed the source of the bacteria being detected
at the marine farm sites, the council was extremely reluctant to initiate action against
the dairy farms, who of course were also tax payers and voters. Understandably, the
dairy farmers themselves were also reluctant to initiate actions costing $50,000–
$100,000 per farm, still in the absence of conclusive proof.
Two possible courses of action were available to us. The first was to pursue
legal remedies to force the Council to in turn force the farmers to take action. New
Zealanders tend to view litigation as action of last resort and the marine farmers
were already bogged down in litigation costing the better part of $2 million over
issuance of consents to farm shellfish in the general area. Further more, there was
the matter of the legally issued consents to discharge the effluent.
There was also the concern that this was all taking place in a small, quite isolated
rural community where neighbour would be pitted against neighbour, friend against
friend.