Since announcing the changes, and what they still intend to change, there have been many discussions with farmers about how this might help farming communities. Optimism is high that these changes will make a real difference.

This is understandable because the Government made it clear that they wanted to remove unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy. They also wanted to reduce the number of consents required, whilst making the consenting process less complicated, time consuming and expensive. If this happens, it should not only help applicants, but it should also help Councils by reducing their workloads.

So, have we seen notable changes yet? The answer to this is — no.

Although the intent to change things has been signalled by Government, Councils still have to assess consent applications against operative regional plans and national regulatory documents. As such, they can’t change much until we see formal changes to the existing rules framework.

What is encouraging for many farmers is that cabinet has agreed to winter grazing and stock exclusion regulation changes to a more risk-based, catchment-focused approach. This is great news because it should mean that we can use our Farm Environment Plans (FEP), or Freshwater Farm Plans (FWFP) and associated audit process, to show good management practices, rather than by gaining a consent. These plans, that most farmers have in place already, require good management practice and so the requirement to gain a consent served little material purpose. The FEP/FWFP and audit process is more likely to result in better on-farm practice, and therefore better environmental outcomes, than securing a consent might achieve anyway.

Another encouraging aspect of the changes that have been signalled, is the intent to review and replace the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS-FM). This change should be supported by anyone who uses water, including urban communities. One reason for replacing this document is to address concerns about how the hierarchy of obligations contained in the Te Mana o te Wai provisions are being applied to resource consent applications. The hierarchy means the health and wellbeing of waterways is foremost, the health needs of people are prioritised second, and the social, economic, and cultural wellbeing are prioritised third.

Under the NPS-FM, applications for consents are supposed to show how their proposal puts the health and wellbeing of the water body first. This relates to all waterbodies, including groundwater. This is an exceedingly tricky thing to achieve in many situations. For example, if a Council applies for consent to take groundwater to serve an urban community, how will that benefit the groundwater system? This will take water from the groundwater system and, depending on how the urban wastewater is dealt with, this may also then pose a contaminant risk to the groundwater system. How can this be putting the groundwater system first? It can’t, and therein lies one of the problems with the current hierarchy of obligations.

The NPS-FM, in its current form, makes the process of making an application difficult. It also puts Councils in a difficult position because they know that in some circumstances it will be impossible to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai. Hopefully, the changes that will be made to the NPS-FM will provide more certainty for applicants, will enable Councils and decision makers to make informed and balanced decisions, whilst also ensuring that our precious freshwater resources are appropriately protected.