A recent Court of Appeal decision is poised to affect farmers in Southland.
This ruling relates to Rule 24 of Environment Southland’s proposed Regional Water Plan. Essentially, Rule 24 allows for the discharge of nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment, or microbial contaminants onto or into land, provided that, after reasonable mixing, these discharges do not adversely affect the receiving waterway.
What was appealed?
Fish & Game and Forest & Bird appealed to the Environment Court, claiming that Rule 24 violated section 70 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Both the Environment Court and the High Court agreed that section 70 required Environment Southland to be satisfied, before it included a rule in a regional plan, that the discharge would not have an adverse effect on the receiving waterway.
Environment Southland appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Court agreed that Environment Southland had to be satisfied that proposed Rule 24 would ensure the permitted activities would not likely have an adverse effect on the receiving waterways after reasonable mixing.
What does this mean for Southland farmers?
Environment Southland has indicated that the Court of Appeal’s decision will likely require nearly all Southland farmers to apply for a resource consent to operate lawfully due to incidental discharge of nutrients from farming activities. Consequently, Environment Southland has urged the government to amend section 70.
The Government has announced its intention to provide certainty on discharge rules under section 70. This will allow for practical management of permitted discharge activities.
We understand that this issue is a significant concern for Southland farmers. We will keep you informed as we learn more. If you have any questions about how the Court of Appeal’s decision may impact your farming operations, please feel free to reach out to our friendly team at PRLaw.
