— What Needs to Happen Next

Guest Post by Dave Rhodes

For many freshwater users in Canterbury, the recent RNZ series “What’s really going on with Canterbury’s water?” prompted a familiar reaction: at long last.

Not because the problems are new — they are not.
Not because the data has suddenly changed — much of it has been available for years.
But because mainstream media attention has finally arrived, after decades in which concerns about nitrates, groundwater quality, and cumulative land-use impacts were too often sidelined, minimised, or framed as ideological. First of three RNZ articles here

For anglers, swimmers, kayakers, and rural families drawing drinking water from private bores, this moment is not a revelation. It is recognition.

The water has been sending warning signals for a long time. What has been missing is sustained public scrutiny.

---

The problem didn’t appear overnight — and neither did the warnings

Canterbury’s freshwater challenges are the result of long-term, cumulative change, not sudden failure.

Since the 1990s, the region has undergone:

• massive expansion of irrigated land,
• rapid intensification of dairying,
• steep increases in synthetic nitrogen fertiliser use,
• and widespread modification of landscapes that once buffered water naturally.

At the same time, scientists, planners, and freshwater advocates repeatedly warned that groundwater responds slowly. Nitrate contamination does not behave like a spill that appears immediately. It moves gradually through soils and aquifers, often taking years or decades to emerge in wells and springs.

That lag effect was well understood — and widely acknowledged — long before today’s headlines.

What RNZ is now reporting is not a sudden deterioration, but the delayed arrival of impacts that were predicted years ago.

---

Why this matters deeply to freshwater users

Freshwater communities live downstream of decisions made far from the water’s edge.

Nitrates are invisible. They cannot be seen, smelled, or tasted. For many rural households relying on private wells, contamination only becomes apparent when someone tests — and testing is often voluntary, infrequent, or absent altogether.

For anglers and contact-recreation users, nitrates are not just a drinking-water issue. Elevated nitrate levels:

• contribute to excessive algal growth,
• alter aquatic ecosystems,
• degrade habitat quality,
• and signal wider nutrient loading problems that affect fish populations and river health.

What concerns freshwater users most is not just the presence of nitrates, but the disconnect between legal thresholds, precautionary health advice, and public confidence.

---

Legal limits vs precaution: the growing credibility gap

In New Zealand, the maximum acceptable value (MAV) for nitrate-nitrogen in drinking water is 11.3 mg/L. This limit is designed primarily to prevent acute health effects such as methaemoglobinaemia (“blue baby syndrome”).

But increasingly, health professionals and researchers are raising questions about chronic exposure at much lower levels, particularly for:

• pregnant women,
• bottle-fed infants,
• and communities exposed over long periods.

That is why precautionary advice — such as midwives recommending bottled water above 5 mg/L nitrate-nitrogen — has emerged.

This gap between:

• what is legally acceptable, and
• what is precautionarily advised,

creates confusion and anxiety for freshwater communities.

When people are told “the water meets standards” but also advised to avoid drinking it, trust erodes — not because the public is irrational, but because the messaging is contradictory.

---

Why media attention matters — even if it’s late

For years, those raising concerns about Canterbury’s water were often characterised as alarmist, anti-farming, or hostile to regional prosperity.

The RNZ series marks a shift away from that framing. It does not present the issue as a simple fight between “environmentalists and farmers”. Instead, it highlights:

• real communities,
• real drinking-water supplies,
• and real uncertainty about long-term health and ecosystem outcomes.

This shift matters.

When media attention finally arrives, it changes who must answer questions. It moves the conversation from the margins to the mainstream — from advocacy groups to councils, regulators, and politicians.

But attention alone is not enough. The danger now is that the issue will be declared “understood”, “managed”, or “balanced”, without addressing the structural weaknesses that allowed the problem to grow unnoticed for so long.

---

This is not a blame game — it is a governance failure

NZFFA has never argued that Canterbury’s water challenges can be pinned on a single group, sector, or decision.

The issue is systemic.

It lies in:

• land-use decisions made without full accounting for cumulative effects,
• regulatory frameworks that prioritised short-term compliance over long-term outcomes,
• and a failure to treat groundwater as the slow-moving, vulnerable system it is.

Farmers, councils, governments, and consumers all operate within these systems. The question now is not “who is to blame?”, but who is responsible for fixing it — and how.

---

Transparency: the missing ingredient

One of the strongest themes emerging from the RNZ coverage is the lack of easily accessible, understandable information for the public.

Freshwater users should not need to:

• lodge Official Information Act requests,
• interpret technical reports,
• or rely on media investigations

to understand what is happening to their water.

NZFFA believes a minimum standard of transparency should include:

1. Publicly accessible nitrate dashboards

A region-wide system showing:

• nitrate levels over time,
• trends rather than single measurements,
• and clear explanations of what those numbers mean.

This should include public schemes and allow voluntary participation by private well owners.

---

2. Clear trigger points for action

Communities deserve clarity about:

• what happens at 5 mg/L,
• what happens at 8 mg/L,
• and what happens at 11.3 mg/L.

If different thresholds exist for legal compliance and precautionary health advice, that distinction must be explained openly — not left for households to interpret alone.

---

3. Source-water protection that has teeth

Treating contaminated water after the fact is costly and, for small rural schemes, often impractical.

Protecting source water — aquifers, recharge zones, and catchments — must be the priority. That means:

• land-use controls in sensitive areas,
• not just education or voluntary measures,
• and long-term planning that reflects groundwater lag times.

---

4. Clear responsibility when standards are exceeded

When nitrate levels rise, communities need to know:

• who is responsible for mitigation,
• who pays for treatment or alternative supplies,
• and how future loading will be reduced.

Passing costs downstream to households after decades of cumulative loading is neither fair nor sustainable.

---

Freshwater users are not extremists — they are stakeholders

Anglers and contact-recreation users are often portrayed as outsiders to land-use debates. In reality, they are among the most consistent observers of freshwater change.

They notice:

• when rivers become choked with algae,
• when insect life declines,
• when fish behaviour shifts,
• and when water clarity deteriorates.

These observations are not anecdotes to be dismissed — they are early warning signals that often precede formal monitoring.

Ignoring those voices for years has been a mistake.

---

Why this moment matters

The current media attention presents a rare opportunity.

Not to inflame tensions.
Not to vilify communities.
But to reset expectations about how freshwater is managed, monitored, and protected.

If this moment passes without structural change, Canterbury will simply become a case study in delayed response — a lesson learned too late to avoid the worst outcomes.

---

NZFFA’s position is simple and reasonable

NZFFA does not call for panic or prohibition. It calls for:

• transparency instead of reassurance,
• precaution instead of minimisation,
• and long-term protection instead of short-term compliance.

Freshwater is not an abstract resource. It is where people fish, swim, gather food, and draw drinking water for their families.

For years, those voices were easy to ignore.
Now the media is listening.

The challenge is to make sure decision-makers do too.