Horizons parries Palmer’s criticisms
Horizons Regional Council is standing by its environmental record in the face of Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s blistering attack on its handling of intensive agriculture consenting.
Palmer, the architect of the Resource Management Act, said Horizons’ defeat in the Environment Court earlier this year had exposed the ‘‘stunning illegality’’ of its decision-making that was at odds with the act, and the council’s own rules.
Horizons was changing its consents process as a result of the court case. But chief executive Michael McCartney said the council stood by its record for improving environmental conditions and water quality in the region.
‘‘Indicators are positive across a range of parameters, including for E coli and total oxidised nitrogen, [for] water quality trends for 36 regional sites over the past 10 years.’’
Fish and Game and the Environmental Defence Society took Horizons to the court, accusing the council of going too easy on farmers by allowing high levels of nitrogen to be discharged under the enforcement of the One Plan.
The plan is the council’s set of rules and regulations for managing the Manawatu-Whanganui region’s quality of freshwater, air and land.
The court sided with the two environmental groups in April and found Horizons had been granting consents at odds with both the One Plan and the Resource Management Act.
Horizons strategy and policy group manager Dr Nic Peet said the management of spread-out pollution sources, such as nitrogen discharge and soil-nutriant leaching from farms, was a complex and fairly new area in both science and policy in New Zealand.
‘‘Horizons was the early adopter of measures to manage nutrient loss nationally through rules in its One Plan. Development and implementation of the rules has been contentious and challenging.’’
The council’s approach was tested by the court case, and Horizons accepted changes needed to be made as a result, Peet said.
Horizons staff were working on a new process for intensive agriculture consents that took the court’s findings into account, while also accounting for the wider social, environmental and economic implications of the consent requirements.