Environment Southland chairperson Nicol Horrell says final nutrient loss targets are still to be determined.
Farmers have been told not to panic about an Environment Southland report on nutrient reduction which gained traction over the holiday period, creating confusion and anger among southern farmers.
Some have interpreted the report as requiring nutrient losses to waterways to be slashed by 70% but a council spokesperson says it models reductions needed from nutrients already in waterways to meet acceptable limits.
The data has no correlation to specific losses from farms.
Environment Southland chairperson Nicol Horrell says final nutrient loss targets are still to be determined and the just released report, labelled unachievable by farming leaders, relates to one model.
That scenario requires nitrogen and phosphorus losses to be reduced by 70%, E.coli by 90% and water clarity to improve 32%.
Horrell says this report will contribute to the council’s eventual five,10 and 25-year targets and while they are challenging, those goals will be achievable.
“It was some science that was done and which has come up with some numbers that would be required to improve ground and freshwater and restore estuaries to good health,” Horrell said.
There is a significant gap between the current water quality and where they need to be, but Horrell says farming groups have told the council a 30% reduction in nutrient loss can be achieved.
He believes there will be a 20% drop in Southland dairy cow numbers in the next 20 years, but that will be driven more by production and management decisions not to adhere to new nutrient loss figures.
Southland Federated Farmers president Chris Dillon was not only angry the report was released over the Christmas holiday period when few people were paying attention, but that the targets are unachievable.
“They want the rivers back to a state before European settlement,” Dillon said.
“Every river system in the country has been modified.”
He says the report creates confusion and publicising extreme targets could provoke some farmers and landowners to switch off from the issue.
It also ignores the impact of birds in spreading E.coli and the preventative work of farmers in fencing waterways and riparian planting.
