High Court Ruling on Nitrates

What It Means for Freshwater Anglers

Commentary by Andi Cockroft, Chairman, CORANZ

The recent High Court decision finding that Environment Canterbury (ECan) made a legal error in allowing nitrate discharges as a permitted activity is an important moment for freshwater management in New Zealand — and one that should matter to every freshwater angler.

The case, which examined whether ECan properly applied its statutory obligations under the Resource Management Act (RMA), did not overturn the existing rule. However, the Court’s findings raise serious questions about how freshwater protections are being designed, justified, and implemented — not just in Canterbury, but nationally.

For members of the New Zealand Federation of Freshwater Anglers (NZFFA), the ruling reinforces a long-held concern: when freshwater regulation prioritises permissive discharges over precaution, anglers, ecosystems, and public trust all lose.

What the Court Found — and Why It Matters

The High Court found that ECan fell short of the law when it allowed certain nutrient discharges, including nitrates, to occur as permitted activities under its regional plan.

Under Section 70 of the RMA, councils must not allow activities that may result in significant adverse effects on aquatic life. The Court concluded that ECan did not adequately demonstrate that this legal threshold had been met, despite clear evidence and submissions raising concerns about nitrate impacts on waterways and groundwater.

In other words, the problem was not simply scientific disagreement. It was a failure to properly apply the law in a context where freshwater health was clearly at stake.

While the rule remains in place due to statutory time limits on plan challenges, the Court’s reasoning is highly relevant for future freshwater planning and reform.

Nitrates and Freshwater Recreation

For anglers, nitrates are not an abstract policy issue. They are a tangible, lived reality.

Elevated nitrate levels are associated with:

• Reduced water clarity and excessive algal growth
• Declines in aquatic invertebrates — the base of the freshwater food chain
• Changes in fish behaviour and habitat suitability
• Degraded recreational values, including swimming and fishing

While much public attention focuses on human health thresholds for drinking water, anglers understand that ecosystem health declines well before those limits are reached.

A river does not need to be “toxic” to be effectively dead as a fishery.

The Problem with Permitted Discharges

At the heart of the case is a structural issue NZFFA has raised repeatedly: the use of permitted activity rules to authorise pollution.

Permitted activities require no resource consent, no site-specific assessment, and no opportunity for public input. When nutrient discharges are allowed by default, without case-by-case scrutiny, several consequences follow:

1. Cumulative effects are ignored
   Each individual discharge may appear small, but their combined impact can be devastating at a catchment scale.
2. Accountability is reduced
   Without consents, conditions, or monitoring tied to specific activities, it becomes difficult to manage or reverse degradation.
3. Public confidence erodes
   Communities see waterways decline while being told that all activity is “within the rules”.

The High Court’s decision highlights that this approach is not merely controversial — it can be unlawful if councils fail to properly consider adverse ecological effects.

A Pattern, Not an Isolated Case

This ruling should not be viewed in isolation.

Across New Zealand, courts and inquiries have repeatedly found weaknesses in freshwater governance, including:

• Inadequate consideration of cumulative effects
• Over-reliance on modelling rather than observed outcomes
• Regulatory frameworks that normalise decline rather than prevent it

In Canterbury, the issue is particularly acute. The region has undergone extensive land-use intensification over recent decades, especially irrigation-driven dairying. Groundwater nitrate levels have continued to rise in many areas, and ECan itself has acknowledged the seriousness of the problem.

The High Court decision confirms what anglers have long suspected: the regulatory system has often been more permissive than protective.

Why This Matters to NZFFA

NZFFA is not a political organisation. It does not align with parties or campaign platforms. But it does advocate for outcomes — and freshwater quality is central to those outcomes.

This case matters because it reinforces several principles NZFFA consistently supports:

• Freshwater must be protected as an ecosystem, not merely managed as a resource
• Legal thresholds exist for a reason and must be applied rigorously
• Anglers and recreational users are legitimate stakeholders, not afterthoughts

When councils fail to apply the law correctly, the cost is borne downstream — literally — by rivers, fish, and the people who value them.

Timing Matters — A Lesson for Advocacy

One of the most sobering aspects of the ruling is that, despite finding a legal error, the Court did not overturn the rule. The reason was procedural: the time allowed to challenge the plan had passed.

This highlights a critical lesson for advocacy organisations and the public alike:

Engagement must happen early.

Regional plans and rules can lock in outcomes for decades. Once those frameworks are finalised, even serious flaws may be extremely difficult to undo.

For NZFFA, this reinforces the importance of:

• Early submissions on draft plans
• Persistent engagement during plan development
• Scrutiny of “technical” rule changes that may have long-term consequences

The law may provide remedies, but only within strict windows.

Apolitical, But Not Passive

This case also illustrates why organisations like NZFFA must remain apolitical but active.

Freshwater degradation is not owned by any political party. Poor decisions can be made under any government, at any level. What matters is whether laws are followed, evidence is respected, and outcomes align with the public interest.

NZFFA’s role is not to oppose farming, councils, or development. It is to ensure that freshwater ecosystems and recreational values are not sacrificed through regulatory shortcuts.

Calling out legal failures is not political activism. It is civic responsibility.

Looking Forward: What Needs to Change

The High Court’s ruling should prompt reflection well beyond Canterbury.

Future freshwater planning must:

• Apply legal safeguards properly and transparently
• Treat nitrate pollution as an ecological issue, not just a compliance metric
• Avoid permitted-by-default frameworks that entrench decline
• Give genuine weight to recreational and ecological values

Most importantly, councils must resist the temptation to manage freshwater degradation by redefining what is “acceptable”.

Anglers know when a river is in trouble. Fish populations tell the story long before spreadsheets do.

Conclusion

The High Court has confirmed something anglers have known for years: freshwater protection fails when the law is bent to accommodate pollution rather than prevent it.

Although the immediate rule remains unchanged, the decision provides a clear warning to regulators nationwide. Freshwater rules must be grounded in law, evidence, and precaution — not convenience.

NZFFA will continue to engage constructively, apolitically, and firmly to ensure that freshwater anglers are heard, ecosystems are respected, and rivers are left better, not worse, for the next generation.

Healthy rivers are not an optional extra. They are the foundation of freshwater recreation — and once lost, they are extraordinarily hard to recover.

Andi Cockroft. Chair, CORANZ