Farmers'' perceptions of ECAN’s proposed, “good practice discharge allowance” in the Waimakariri sub region of Environment Canterbury’s (ECAN) district of New Zealand.

(1)

i

Farmers’’ perceptions of ECAN’s proposed, “good practice discharge allowance” in the Waimakariri sub region of Environment Canterbury’s (ECAN) district of New Zealand.

A dissertation

submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of

Master of Property Studies

at Lincoln University by

Jonathan Austin

Lincoln University 2014

(2)

i

ABSTRACT

Abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Master of Property Studies

Farmers’’ perceptions of Environment Canterbury’s (ECAN) proposed, “good practice discharge allowance” in the Waimakariri sub region of ECAN district of New Zealand.

By

Jonathan Austin

Eutrophication is an excessive richness of nutrients in a lake or other body of water, frequently due to run-off from the land, which causes a dense growth of plant life. Eutrophication is generally stated as the main environmental problem in water management and agricultural production as the major cause of nutrient leakage. Irrigation growth in the Canterbury area has been immense.

Irrigation growth goes hand in hand with land intensification in order for the farmer to gain a required return from the money invested in irrigation. Presently the best optimum from land intensification is dairy farming. However, dairy farming is seen as one of the main causes of eutrophication. Environment Canterbury (ECAN) have proposed in their land and water plan a

“Good practice discharge allowance” to achieve acceptable levels of nutrient leaching losses.

There appears to be limited literature within the Canterbury region of ECAN on how much farmers’

actually understand the adverse effects of high nitrate and phosphorous in groundwater. This dissertation explored the perceptions of a group of Waimakariri district farmers’ on ECAN’s proposal of “good practice discharge allowance” in order to protect Canterbury’s groundwater from eutrophication. Furthermore, it aimed to identify how much farmers’ actually understand the consequences of intensification of land use and increased fertilizer use, and the implications of high nitrate and phosphorus in groundwater. In addition, farmer’s perceptions of nutrient management proposals made by ECAN, and whether farmer’s perceptions of these changes are going to impact on farm profit and farm production, were investigated. It endeavored to ascertain what farmer’s perceptions were of the proposed nutrient management changes. Are farmers’ aware of the consequences of eutrophication to ground water and do farmers’ think ECAN proposed “good practice discharge allowance” will affect profit and production on their farms?

(3)

ii This dissertation presents results from a qualitative study. A survey instrument was used to question forty farmers’ in the Waimakariri district of ECAN with twenty-four farmers’ responding to the questionnaire. This was a small sample of farmers’, however big enough to get a scope of the understanding perceived by Waimakariri district farmers’.

The results of this dissertation indicated farmers’ perceive nutrient damaged groundwater with a mix of denial, a lack of understanding about the consequences of high nitrate and phosphate in groundwater and fear the proposed “good practice discharge allowance” will negatively influence farm production and land values. To overcome denial, apprehension and a lack of understanding about ECAN’s proposed, “good practice discharge allowance”, a lot of work is required to help farmers’ familiarise, interpret, and comprehend the reasons and future benefits of nutrient management to groundwater.

With the new nutrient management changes proposed by ECAN in order to protect Canterbury’s water, this study illustrated how farmers’ have identified new opportunities. Results included foreseen opportunities with marketing opportunities; protection against New Zealand’s greatest asset, water; more efficient and careful use with fertilizer by farmers and perhaps a more biological approach to fertilizer use.

The findings from this research identified how policy makers can help farmers’ understand and influence better environmental management of groundwater.

Keywords:

Eutrophication, Groundwater, Nitrate, Phosphorus, Intensification

(4)

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.2.1 Likert scale used in questionnaire ... 39

Table 5.3.1 The order in which a group of dairy farmers’ and sheep and beef farmers’ within the Waimakariri district rank the importance of a set of priorities on their farms. ... 54

Table 5.14.1 The number of farmers’ that responded with a given answer to the survey question: What do you see as possible problems with “good practice discharge allowance” ... 89

Table 5.15.1 The number of farmers’ that responded with a given answer to the survey question: What do you see as possible solutions to the problems associated with “good practice discharge allowance”. ... 91

Table 5.16.1 The number of farmers’ that responded with a given answer to the survey question: What opportunities are associated with “good practice discharge allowance”. ... 93

(9)

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 5.1.1 The percentage of dairy and sheep and beef farmers’’ surveyed that responded in each category to the statement: ‘Common cold’ represents a severe and adverse consequence as a result of high levels of nitrate or phosphorous being present in our underground and surface water. ... 41 Figure 5.1.2 The percentage of dairy and sheep and beef farmers’’ surveyed that responded in each category to the statement: ‘For bottle fed babies: ‘blue baby syndrome’ represents a severe and adverse consequence as a result of high levels of nitrate or phosphorous being present in our underground and surface water ... 42 Figure 5.1.3 The percentage of dairy and sheep and beef farmers’’ surveyed that responded in each category to the statement: ‘Aches and pains in human knees, elbows and ankles’

represents a severe and adverse consequence as a result of high levels of nitrate or phosphorous being present in our underground and surface water ... 43 Figure 5.1.4 The percentage of dairy and sheep and beef farmers’’ surveyed that responded in each category to the statement: ‘Problems for pregnant women’ represents a severe and adverse consequence as a result of high levels of nitrate or phosphorous being present in our underground and surface water ... 44 Figure 5.1.5 The percentage of dairy and sheep and beef farmers’’ surveyed that responded in each category to the statement: ‘Algae bloom in lakes and waterways’ represents a severe and adverse consequence as a result of high levels of nitrate or phosphorous being present in our underground and surface water ... 45 Figure 5.1.6 The percentage of dairy and sheep and beef farmers’’ surveyed that responded in each category to the statement: ‘Disorders that cause blood cells to burst (haemolytic anemia)’ represents a severe and adverse consequence as a result of high levels of nitrate or phosphorous being present in our underground and surface water ... 46 Figure 5.1.7 The percentage of dairy and sheep and beef farmers’’ that responded in each category when results were combined for the statements: ‘Blue baby syndrome’ and ‘Problems for pregnant women’ represent severe and adverse consequences as a result of high levels of nitrate and or phosphorous being present in our groundwater and surface water. ... 47 Figure 5.2.1 The percentage of dairy and sheep and beef farmers’’ that responded in each grade to the survey statement: ‘How you perceive these different farming systems may influence nitrate levels in our underground and surface water’ for the system category

‘Dairy’ ... 48 Figure 5.2.2 The percentage of dairy and sheep and beef farmers’’ that responded in each grade to the survey statement: ‘How you perceive these different farming systems may influence nitrate levels in our underground and surface water’ for the system category

‘Dairy ... 49 Figure 5.2.3 The percentage of dairy and sheep and beef farmers’ that responded in each grade to the survey statement: ‘How you perceive these different farming systems may influence nitrate levels in our underground and surface water’ for the system category

‘Sheep and Beef’ ... 50 Figure 5.2.4The percentage of farmers’ that responded in each grade to the survey statement: ‘How you perceive these different farming systems may influence nitrate levels in our underground and surface water’ for the system category ‘Human septic tanks’ ... 51 Figure 5.2.5 The percentage of dairy and sheep and beef farmers’ that responded in each grade to the survey statement: ‘How you perceive these different farming systems may

(10)

ix influence nitrate levels in our underground and surface water’ for the system category

‘Deer farming’ ... 52 Figure 5.2.6 The percentage of dairy and sheep and beef farmers’ that responded in each grade to the survey statement: ‘How you perceive these different farming systems may influence nitrate levels in our underground and surface water’ for the system category

‘Arable farming’ ... 53 Figure 5.3.1 The percentage of dairy farmers’ who understood or did not understand the consequences of high nitrate and phosphorous in water and also rated sustainability and environment as high priorities on their farms. ... 55 Figure 5.3.2 The percentage of sheep and beef farmers’ who understood or did not understand the consequences of high nitrate and phosphorous in water and also rated sustainability and environment as high priorities on their farms. ... 56 Figure 5.3.3 The percentage of farmers’ that responded with ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’ or ‘Disagree’ to the survey statement: ‘Environmental awareness can be increased on my farm by:

Financial incentives’ ... 57 Figure 5.3.4 The percentage of farmers’ that responded with ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’ or ‘Disagree’ to the survey statement: ‘Environmental awareness can be increased on my farm by: Peer pressure’ ... 58 Figure 5.3.5 The percentage of farmers’ that responded with ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’ or ‘Disagree’ to the survey statement: ‘Environmental awareness can be increased on my farm by:

‘Punishment and legislation’ ... 59 Figure 5.3.6 The percentage of farmers’ that responded with ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’ or ‘Disagree’ to the survey statement: ‘Environmental awareness can be increased on my farm by: Farm advisors’ ... 60 Figure 5.3.7 The percentage of farmers’ that responded with ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’ or ‘Disagree’ to the survey statement: ‘Environmental awareness can be increased on my farm by:

Business advisors’ ... 61 Figure 5.4.1 The percentage of dairy farmers’ and sheep and beef farmers’ in each category of

‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: I feel very concerned the proposed land and water environmental legislation will affect growth and production on my farm. ... 62 Figure 5.5.1 The percentage of dairy farmers’ and sheep and beef farmers’ in each category of

‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: Soil testing and nutrient budgeting is very important to my farm ... 63 Figure 5.6.1 The percentage of dairy farmers’ and sheep and beef farmers’ in each category of

‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: I am familiar with the ‘Overseer’ nutrient model ... 64 Figure 5.7.1 The percentage of dairy farmers’ and sheep and beef farmers’ in each category of

‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: I regularly use ‘overseer’ nutrient model.65 Figure 5.8.1 The percentage of dairy farmers’ and sheep and beef farmers’ in each category of

‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: I am familiar with ECAN's proposed "Good practice discharge allowance". ... 66

(11)

x Figure 5.9.1 The percentage of farmers’ in each category of ‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: I perceive high nitrates in water are caused from: Fertilisers ... 67 Figure 5.9.2 The percentage of farmers’ in each category of ‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: I perceive high nitrates in water are caused from: Nitrogen Fertilisers ... 68 Figure 5.9.3 The percentage of farmers’ in each category of ‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: I perceive high nitrates in water are caused from: Animal waste ... 69 Figure 5.9.4 The percentage of farmers’ in each category of ‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: I perceive high nitrates in water are caused from: Human septic tanks .. 70 Figure 5.9.5 The percentage of farmers’ in each category of ‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: I perceive high nitrates in water are caused from: Stock in waterways ... 71 Figure 5.9.6 The percentage of farmers’ in each category of ‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: I perceive high nitrates in water are caused from: Pigs, Poultry and Horses ... 72 Figure 5.9.7 The percentage of farmers’ in each category of ‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: I perceive high nitrates in water are caused from: Winter dairy grazing . 73 Figure 5.10.1 The percentage of dairy farmers’ and sheep and beef farmers’ in each category of

‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: I would understand the proposed "good practice discharge allowance" better if the delivery was made better through the following mechanisms: Farm discussion group ... 74 Figure 5.10.2 The percentage of dairy farmers’ and sheep and beef farmers’ in each category of

‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: I would understand the proposed "good practice discharge allowance" better if the delivery was made better through the following mechanisms: Farm advisors ... 75 Figure 5.10.3 The percentage of dairy farmers’ and sheep and beef farmers’ in each category of

‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: I would understand the proposed "good practice discharge allowance" better if the delivery was made better through the following mechanisms: Press release ... 76 Figure 5.10.4 The percentage of dairy farmers’ and sheep and beef farmers’ in each category of

‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: I would understand the proposed "good practice discharge allowance" better if the delivery was made better through the following mechanisms: Local meetings ... 77 Figure 5.10.5 The percentage of dairy farmers’ and sheep and beef farmers’ in each category of

‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: I would understand the proposed "good practice discharge allowance" better if the delivery was made better through the following mechanisms: Business advisors i.e. Accountants ... 78 Figure 5.10.6 The percentage of dairy farmers’ and sheep and beef farmers’ in each category of

‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to

(12)

xi their perception of the survey statement: I would understand the proposed "good practice discharge allowance" better if the delivery was made better through the following mechanisms: Website ... 79 Figure 5.10.7 The percentage of dairy farmers’ and sheep and beef farmers’ in each category of

‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: I would understand the proposed "good practice discharge allowance" better if the delivery was made better through the following mechanisms: Regulatory authority ... 80 Figure 5.11.1 The percentage of farmers’ in each category of ‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: The position I am going to take with "good practice discharge allowance"

is: Put in the ‘too hard basket’ ... 81 Figure 5.11.2 The percentage of farmers’ in each category of ‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: The position I am going to take with "good practice discharge allowance"

is: Be proactive and find as much information as possible ... 82 Figure 5.11.3 The percentage of farmers’ in each category of ‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: The position I am going to take with "good practice discharge allowance"

is: I am not interested, will confront when issue arises ... 83 Figure 5.11.4 The percentage of farmers’ in each category of ‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: The position I am going to take with "good practice discharge allowance"

is: I am hoping someone will explain" ... 84 Figure 5.11.5 The percentage of farmers’ in each category of ‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: The position I am going to take with "good practice discharge allowance"

is: I am putting it in the ‘to do’ tray ... 85 Figure 5.12.1 The percentage of dairy farmers’ and sheep/beef farmers’ in each category of

‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: I think the proposed "good practice discharge allowance" will have a positive impact on farm production and profitability in the short term (1 to 3 years)... 86 Figure 5.12.2 The percentage of dairy farmers’ and sheep/beef farmers’ in each category of

‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: I think the proposed "good practice discharge allowance " will have a positive impact on farm production and profitability in the long term (greater than 4 years) ... 87 Figure 5.13.1 The percentage of dairy farmers’ and sheep/beef farmers’ in each category of

‘Strongly agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘ Disagree’, or ‘Strongly disagree’ in response to their perception of the survey statement: Overall I think that the proposed “good farming practice discharge allowance” is going to be fair and equitable for farmers’ 88

(13)

12

1 INTRODUCTION

There is evidence that farming within the Canterbury region has changed over the last decade from dry land sheep and beef farming to intensively irrigated dairy farming. Di, Cameron, Bidwell, Morgan and Hanson (2005) studied changes in land use activities on the Central Canterbury plains to see whether it can influence water quality. Di et al. (2005) indicated if in the Bankside groundwater management zone, all the land used for sheep farming is replaced by dairy farming (increasing dairy land from 21% to 64% of the total land area) nitrate concentrations in groundwater could increase from 7.8 milligrams per liter to 11.3 milligrams per liter. Di et al. (2005) also noted major land use changes can have a significant impact on the environment, e.g. increased leaching and run-off losses of nutrients and water contamination.

Water quality and water quantity are at the core of this issue. This intensification has led to concern amongst the Government and decision makers, about the implications of possible outcomes to New Zealand’s land and fresh water. New Zealand has been branded as clean and green as well as

“100% Pure New Zealand”. So in order to keep New Zealand’s land and water to the highest standard, the New Zealand Government issued the ‘National Policy Statement: Fresh water management (May 2011)’ outlining several objectives. These can be summarised by; NZ Government, Fresh water management (2011)

1. Water quality: To safeguard the life supporting system fresh water provides and maintains or improves fresh water within a region.

2. Water quantity: To safeguard life supporting capacity of eco-systems, to avoid over allocation but maximize the efficiency of allocation and protect wetlands.

3. Integrated management: To improve integrated management of fresh water use, land development, associated eco-systems and coastal environment.

4. Tangata Whenua (“people of the land”) roles and interests: To provide for the involvement of iwi (“Māori Community”) and hapu (“division of Māori people”), and ensure that Tangata Whenua values and interests are identified.

5. Progressive implementation: Local regional councils responsible for implementation of policies and procedures.

Under policy A3 of New Zealand Government (National Policy Statement: Fresh water management (May 2011) the New Zealand Government has actualized the responsibility of this policy to the local Regional Councils of New Zealand.

(14)

13 Statistics New Zealand 2006 states ECAN is part of the Canterbury region covering an area of 4.22 million hectares of land, the largest of all regions in New Zealand.

Waimakariri District Council (2013) reports the Waimakariri district lies immediately to the north of the Waimakariri River and covers approximately 225,000 hectares and, while the district includes substantial areas of flat land and hill and high country, the majority of the district’s population lives to the east and to the south. Statistics New Zealand reports the population of the Waimakariri area was 48,600 as of 2011.

NZ Government, Ministry for the Environment (Sept 2013) reports Canterbury has a strong farming based sector, with pastoral, mixed farming as the largest sector and horticulture and viticulture becoming increasingly important. Forestry, fishing, tourism and recreation make up the other growing industries. ECAN (Sept 2013) reports ECAN has divided up their ten districts including one city zone. The map in Appendix 10.2 shows the districts in ECAN.

It is also reported (ECAN, Sept 2013) the Waimakariri Zone Committee was established in September 2010 under the Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS). The document states that the Waimakariri zone includes the Ashley River catchment; and shares the Waimakariri River catchment with the Selwyn, Waihora and Christchurch-West Melton committee. Kaiapoi, Rangiora and Oxford are included within the Waimakariri zone.

ECAN (Sept 2013) reports the zone committee operates as a joint committee of ECAN and the Waimakariri District Council, and the committee is set up to develop an effective water management implementation programme in consultation with the local community. The committee are expected to work collaboratively to develop water management implementation programmes for the region and to implement a series of measures includes planning, strategies, schemes and mechanisms to act in accordance to the CWMS.

(15)

14 (ECAN) Waimakariri Zone implementation programme Canterbury water section1.1.2 (page 28) reports the Waimakariri zone committee have established fundamental priorities, principles and objectives in establishing a strategy.

They are as follows:

First order priorities:

 Environment.

 Customary use.

 Community supplies.

 Stock water.

Second order priorities:

 Irrigation.

 Renewable electricity generation.

 Recreation and amenity.

Primary principles:

 Sustainable management.

 Regional approach.

 Tangata Whenua.

Supporting principles:

 Natural character.

 Indigenous biodiversity.

 Access.

 Quality drinking water.

 Recreational opportunities.

 Community and Commercial use.

Objectives are set to focus:

 Lowland streams.

 Water and nutrient management.

 Bio diversity.

 Braided rivers.

(16)

15 The Waimakariri Zone committee have suggested their targets and goals, their best attempts with the current knowledge to achieve a desired result and each zone, depending on topography, population and other factors, has set targets and goals, from 2010 to 2015, that reflect the fundamental principles and objectives. The committee also reported longer-term social economic and environmental targets set for 2020 and 2040.

National NZ Government: Fresh water management (May 2011) reports fresh water is essential to all New Zealanders. Water has health, social well being, environmental, economic and cultural benefits. NZ Government: Fresh water management (May 2011) continues, it is an essential part of life, and within New Zealand probably the greatest asset and fresh water gives New Zealand’s primary production, tourism and energy sectors a competitive advantage on the world stage.

North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, (NCDA&CS): (14/12/13) reports nitrogen (N) is a part of all living cells and is a necessary part of all proteins, enzymes and metabolic processes involved in the synthesis and transfer of energy and nitrogen is a part of chlorophyll, the green pigment of the plant that is responsible for photosynthesis. NCDA&CS (14/12/13) also reports phosphate is another essential nutrient for plant growth and like nitrogen; phosphorus (P) is an essential part of the process of photosynthesis. NCDA&CS (14/12/13) reports it is involved in the formation of all oils, sugars, and starches and phosphorus helps with the transformation of solar energy into chemical energy; proper plant maturation; and withstanding stress.

Canterbury District Health Board (September 2013) reports drinking Water Standards for New Zealand set a Maximum Acceptable Level (MAV) of 11.3mg/L for nitrate-nitrogen and this level is based on international standards. It also states high levels of nitrate in drinking water can lead to a condition called methaemoglobinaemia. This affects babies less than six months of age and in the womb, and it causes blueness around mouth, hands and feet. This condition is serious and can be fatal. According to Canterbury District Health Board (September 2013), at present there have been very few cases of methaemoglobinaemia reported in New Zealand.

Canterbury District Health Board, (September 2013) also states there are very few ways of removing nitrate from the water; carbon filters, boiling and chemical treatments are all unsuccessful. Furthermore, it states that presently nitrates in Canterbury waters are not deemed a health risk to anyone except those in the high-risk groups.

(17)

16 Foundation for Water Research (2013) reports excess phosphate in water leads to algae growth and poor quality water, and algae prevent light reaching through the water and using up oxygen.

This causes a decline in the health of the water environment and it is suggested that this phosphate enters the rivers and underground water from agriculture and sewage treatment plants. (FWR 2013)

ECAN: Proposed Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan (Aug 2012) have proposed in their land and water plan a “Good practice discharge allowance”. McKay C: personal communication 20^th September 2013 suggested this is a ‘look up table’ outlining guidelines that take into consideration;

soil type, topography, farm enterprise, climate, irrigated or dry land for acceptable levels of nutrient leaching losses under good management practices.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012) reports nitrates and nitrites are families of chemical compounds containing atoms of nitrogen and oxygen.

Similarly, Free Drinking Water (n.d.) reports nitrates and nitrites are families of chemical compounds containing atoms of nitrogen and oxygen and occurring naturally, and nitrites are critical to the continuation of life on the earth, since they are one of the main sources from which plants obtain the element nitrogen. Furthermore, it states this element is required for the production of amino acids, which, in turn, are used in the manufacture of proteins in both plants and animals. Primary sources of organic nitrates include human sewage and livestock manure, especially from feedlots. Free Drinking Water (n.d.) finishes by stating nitrate is a friend of agriculture but not friendly to water supplies.

Summarising the introduction as follows:

 Di et al. (2005) discusses intensification of land, with irrigation and dairy farming considered to be influencing groundwater.

 The New Zealand Government issued National Policy Statement: Fresh water management (May 2011) with five objectives.

 Under policy A3 of (National Policy Statement: Fresh water management (May 2011)) The New Zealand Government has actualised the responsibility of this policy to the local Regional Councils of New Zealand.

 A brief description of Canterbury farming sector and an overview of ECAN and the zones within ECAN.

(18)

17

 A brief description of the Waimakariri zone of ECAN Waimakariri Zone implementation programme Canterbury water section1.1.2 (page 28) reports the Waimakariri zone committee have established fundamental priorities, principles and objectives in establishing a strategy.

 There is a brief description of the reasons water and nutrients are important to farming

 A report on health implications to groundwater if nitrate levels and phosphate levels become high and consequences to humans.

This is an overview of how groundwater has become influenced by nitrates with intensification, what policies have been implemented to improve ground water quality, and what the implications are to humans with high nitrates and phosphates in ground water.

The following are missing:

 How farmers’ feel about the changes of water management proposed by ECAN.

 Whether the farmers’ are aware of the consequences of high nitrate and high phosphate in ground water.

 Whether farmers’ think these changes will affect their farming business.

In turn this raises the issue concerning the perception held by farmers’ relating to the “good practice discharge allowance” proposed by ECAN.

(19)

18

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Within this literature review the following topics are discussed;

1. Plant requirements and the benefits of phosphorus and nitrate to plants.

2. What are the significant changes in agriculture in New Zealand and worldwide that have led to an increase in nutrient usage.

3. Insight into other ways nitrate enters underground waterways from human involvement.

4. What are the implications of high nitrate and phosphorus levels in New Zealand’s waterways on humans and the environment.

5. The worldwide response of farmers’ to nutrient damaged waterways.

6. Possible solutions to reducing nitrate and phosphorus levels in New Zealand groundwater.

7. A summary of literature review findings and a discussion on where there is unfilled space of the published writings that have been reviewed.

2.1 Plant requirements and the benefits of phosphorus and nitrate to plants.

Understanding plant requirements will indicate what nutrients are required and the quantity of these needed to maximize plant production. North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Kids (n.d.) states that plants require three macronutrients from the soil for them to grow healthy and the primary nutrients are nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. NCDA & CS (n.d.) goes on to state nitrogen is a part of all living cells and is a necessary part of all proteins, enzymes and metabolic processes involved in the synthesis and transfer of energy. Nitrogen is a part of chlorophyll, the green pigment of the plant that is responsible for photosynthesis, and it helps plants with rapid growth, increasing seed and fruit production and improving the quality of leaf and forage crops NCDA & CS, (n.d.). NCDA & CS (n.d.) further states nitrogen often comes from fertilizer application and from the air. Legumes get nitrogen from the atmosphere; water or rainfall, this alone however contributes very little nitrogen.

However, Novoa & Loomis (1981) suggests reduced carbon provides the energy source for all life;

nitrogen must be viewed as the central element because of its role in substances such as proteins and nucleic acids which form the living material. It also suggests proteins serve as enzyme catalysts in metabolic pathways, as structural elements of cytoplasm and membranes and as carriers in

(20)

19 transport functions and nucleic acids provide the means for codification, storage and translation of genetic information.

Novoa & Loomis (1981), also state the uptake of nitrate is influenced by many factors including temperature, pH and nitrate concentration of the external solution and at the crop level, the method and timing of the supplies of water and nitrogen have a strong impact on nitrogen use efficiency.

Contrary to this, Vance (2001) states only sunlight and water are more important than nitrogen.

However, it also suggests the production of high quality, protein-rich food is extremely dependent upon the availability of sufficient nitrogen and plants acquire nitrogen from two principal sources:

(a) the soil, through commercial fertilizer, manure, and/or mineralization of organic matter; and (b) the atmosphere through symbiotic nitrogen fixation. Vance (2001) further reports that grain crop yields until the 1930s were about 0.5 to 1.0 metric tons per hectare, with nitrogen supplied primarily from crop rotations and manures and at this level of production, the average farmer could feed three to five people. Vance (2001) also states anthropogenic addition of fixed nitrogen via fertilizer into intensive agriculture became common practice after 1945 and the accompanying grain yield increased to about 7 metric tons per hectare, allowing a single farmer to feed more than 100 people. Vance (2001) concludes by asking why does anthropogenic addition of nitrogen by agriculture matter. Vance (2001) answer was a grain yield of 5 to 9 metric tons per hectare requires the addition of 200 to 300 kg nitrogen hectare and suggests that the efficiency of nitrogen recovery by grain crops ranges from 35% to 75% with an average of near 50% of nitrogen that is applied is used by the plant andthe fertilizer nitrogen not recovered by the crop can also rapidly enter surface and groundwater pools through runoff and leaching, respectively.

Vance (2001) agrees with NCDA & CS (14/12/13) that phosphorus is second only to nitrogen as the most limiting element for plant growth stating that the amount of phosphorous in plants ranges from 0.05% to 0.30% of total dry weight and in intensive agriculture, a grain crop yield of 7 metric tons per hectarerequires the addition of 90 to 120 kg phosphorous per hectare. It is suggested, even under adequate phosphorus fertilization, only 20% or less of that applied is absorbed by the plant in the first year's growth and this results in phosphorous loading of prime agricultural land.

Vance (2001) proposed that the runoff from phosphorus-loaded soils is a primary factor in eutrophication and hypoxia of lakes and marine estuaries in the developed world.

(21)

20 Cornforth (n.d.) writes that all living plants and animals require phosphorus and that phosphorus containing compounds are essential for photosynthesis in plants, for energy transformations and for the activity of some hormones in both plants and animals. Between 50% and 80% of phosphorus in soil is organic phosphorus and this comes from the breakdown of dead plants etc, as phosphorus is found in cell membranes and in DNA in living organisms. Furthermore, Cornforth (n.d) states phosphorus is thus naturally available in the soil and there isn't usually enough available for plants to grow well. Cornforth (n.d.) states phosphorus levels are reduced by animals eating the plants then dying elsewhere causing the phosphorus to be removed, also by phosphorus being adsorbed into soil particles or washed away by excess rain, and for this reason, phosphate fertilisers are widely used. Bloom, Chapin and Mooney (n.d.) stated water supply in the soil strongly influences nutrient supply and suggests as water becomes more limited several things happen.

 Decreased water movement decreases flow of nutrients to roots.

 Shrinkage of both soil particles and plant roots reduces contact between them and consequently reduces nutrient diffusion.

 Increased concentrations in the soil solutions of exchangeable cations like calcium reduces the activity of anions like phosphate because of the low solubility of salts like calcium sulphate and decreased mineralization reduces the rate of nutrient

replenishment into the soil solution.

Bloom et al. (n.d.) finishes stating seasonal environments often experience seasonal pulses of high nutrient and water availability.

Summary: Plant requirements and the benefits of phosphorus and nitrate to plants:

Contrary to NCDA & CS (n.d.), Cornforth (n.d.) and Vance (2001) indicate that water and sunlight are the most important aspects of plant growth, but then agrees with NCDA & CS (n.d.), Vance (2001) and Cornforth (n.d.) on the importance of nitrogen and phosphorous for plant and animal health and production. Novoa & Loomis (1981) also explain the importance of nitrogen and the sources of nitrogen for plants.

Vance (2001) explains the importance of nitrogen and phosphorous for plants and then compares and shows the benefits of how much fertiliser is required to achieve increased production. Vance

(22)

21 (2001) states the waste of nutrients that is not up taken by plants influences both above and below surface water qualities.

Bloom et al. (n.d.) discussed benefits of having regular water supply to the soil for increased plant production and health.

The literature indicates grazing animals obtain their phosphorus from plants. Cornforth (n.d.) indicated plants obtain their phosphorus from the soil in which they grow and, if no fertiliser has been used, the phosphorus in the soil is derived from the parent material from which the soil was formed. The literature also indicates the importance of both nitrogen and phosphorous for plant and animal health and production. The literature highlights how phosphorus and nitrogen influence plant production.

2.2 What are the significant changes in agriculture in New Zealand and worldwide been that have led to an increase in nutrient usage.

Di et al. (2005) discussed farming and land use activities and how they can alter significantly with time due to changes in other economic drivers, e.g. commodity prices for agricultural products on the world market and as land-use changes, the long-term impact on groundwater quality is likely to change. LI et al. (2010) studied the impact of different resources used including the impacts irrigation and fertilizer had on farm production in the Yellow River basin in China. LI et al. (2010) suggested irrigation could approximately double the farm productivity of rain fed cropland with other affecting factors remaining the same at the mean level over the region, and stood as the most dominant factor in controlling farm productivity in the region. LI et al. (2010) also suggested farm productivity was also highly correlated to the application of chemical fertilizer in the period of study.

Di et al. (2005) studied changes in land use activities on the Central Canterbury plains to see whether the proposed land use changes could influence water quality. It was indicated if in the Bankside groundwater management zone, all the land used for sheep farming is replaced by dairy farming (increasing dairy land from 21% to 64% of the total land area), the nitrate concentration in the surface groundwater went from 7.8 mg N L^sup -1^, to 11.3 mg N L^sup -1^.

(23)

22 According to ECAN (2010, June 5) (2013/ 06/ 25)(http://ecan.govt.nz/advice/your-water/water- quality/pages/nitrates-water.aspx) the New Zealand Ministry of Health has set a “Maximum acceptable level” (MAV) equal to 11.3 mg/L [milligrams per litre] for nitrate-nitrogen. The Ministry of Health has set the MAV at 50 mg/L for the concentration of the nitrate ion. ECAN records these concentrations in units of "nitrate nitrogen"; in other words, we only record the nitrogen portion of the nitrate ion. A concentration of 50 mg/L nitrate ion is equal to a concentration of 11.3 mg/L of nitrate nitrogen and therefore New Zealand’s maximum acceptable level is 11.3 mg N/L.

Di et al. (2005) continued by adding “over the past decades, land use has changed dramatically in parts of New Zealand, using the example, there has been a major increase in dairy farming in place of sheep farming and/or cropping in the regions of Canterbury, Otago and Southland. Land-use changes like this are likely to continue to take place in the future as the farming industries adjust their activities to meet new demands and opportunities”. Di et al. (2005) suggested, “it is not clear how these land-use changes are likely to impact on the groundwater quality, and regional councils are challenged to make decisions based on the best information available now”.

Houlbrooke, Paton, Littlejohn & Morton (2010) also studied land use intensification requiring more farm inputs to increase farm outputs and the potential deterioration of the soil under irrigation and increased intensification. Houlbrooke et al. (2010) findings indicated that both irrigation and cattle grazing intensified soil compaction. However, Houlbrooke suggested this had implications for less pasture production, damage to soil hydrology movement and nutrient movement.

Houlbrooke et al. (2010) had corresponding views to LI, et al (2010) suggesting farm productivity was also highly correlated to the application of chemical fertilizer in the period of study. Results from this study provided a strong economic argument for converting the less cultivable cropland back to natural ecosystems and an urgent call for directing future development in the region in a sustainable manner.

Monaghan et al. (2007) studied the link between land management activities and stream water quality for a 2480 hectare catchment used for dairy farming, sheep farming, and forestry in Southland New Zealand. Initial research indicated that median nutrient (nitrates and phosphate), sediment and facial bacteria concentrations exceeded guidelines for recommended limits.

Monaghan et al. (2007) had corresponding conclusions to Di and Cameron (2002) who studied the amount of nitrate leached following the application of urea, dairy effluent, urine returns, and

(24)

23 pasture renovation to a free-draining lismore stony silt loam. Results showed that nitrate-leaching losses ranged between 112 to 162 kg nitrate/hectare dependent on climatic conditions, amount and different forms of nitrogen applied. It was suggested nitrate leaching under urine patches was the main contributor to nitrate leaching loss in a grazed area.

Smith, Beckwith, Chalmers & Jackson (2002) examined nitrate leaching from applications of animal manure. Smith et al. (2002) said slurry was applied to experimental plots over a range of times in summer and autumn at regular weekly intervals at a target rate of 200 kg nitrogen per hectare.

Smith reported nitrogen leaching over the four years ranged from 0 to >50% of applied slurry nitrate, with the largest losses occurring following applications in the September to November period. Results suggested the use of a nitrification inhibitor with slurry applied in November failed to provide consistent reduction in nitrate leaching. These results agree with those of Monaghan et al. (2007) and Di & Cameron (2002), finding that animal waste on pasture can be linked to increased nitrates and poorer ground water quality.

Di & Cameron (2002) concluded major changes in land use activities can have a significant impact on groundwater quality in terms of nitrate concentration in the Central Plains region, particularly at the groundwater surface. Di & Cameron (2002) added the effect on the deeper aquifer (e.g. at 50 m below groundwater surface) is relatively small due to the significant mixing of surface recharge with river recharge.

This study concurred with findings from Di & Cameron (2002) which concluded that large amounts of nitrate, ranging from 112 to 162 kg nitrate/hectare per year, could be lost by leaching from this free-draining shallow and stony soil, depending on the amount and forms of nitrogen applied and pasture conditions. Di & Cameron (2002) continued by suggesting the largest contribution to nitrate leaching loss came from the cow urine returns and the amount of nitrate leached from the urine also varied, depending on the time of application, with a lower leaching loss (29% of the urine nitrate applied) for the urine applied in spring than the urine nitrate applied in the autumn (38–

58%).

Not only does animal waste increase nitrates in groundwater, Barraclough, Jarvis, Davies & Williams (1992) confirms nitrate leaching occurs from fertilizers. Barraclough et al, (1992) studied the relation between fertilizer application and nitrate leaching, and results indicated highest nitrate losses occur when nitrogen applied exceeds the nitrogen required by the plant in that given period.

(25)

24 2.2.1 Summary: The significant changes in agriculture in New Zealand and worldwide been that

have led to an increase in nutrient usage.

LI et al (2010) suggested irrigation could possibly double production in the Yellow River basin and also indicated farm productivity was also influenced by applications of chemical fertiliser. Di et al.

(2005) studied land use changes and formed an assumption if sheep farming were to be replaced by intensive dairy farming, what influence would that have on nitrates levels on groundwater. The conclusion indicated within the area studied nitrate levels in surface water would possibly rise to the limit of the “Maximum accepted level” but have minor influence on deeper water aquifers.

Houlbrooke et al. (2010) and Monaghan et al. (2007) concurred with Di et al. (2005) that intensification of irrigation and cattle influenced soil structure and nutrient movement within the soil structure.

Di & Cameron (2002) concurred with Di et al. (2005) and Monaghan et al. (2007) that intensification of land with irrigation and intensive farming systems would increase nitrate in groundwater. Major land use changes can have significant ramifications on the environment. This includes increased leaching, run off losses and contamination of groundwater.

The literature tells us the major changes in agriculture are coming from irrigation and more intensive land use e.g. dairy farming, Di & Cameron (2002) concurred with Di et al. (2005).

Monaghan et al. (2007) discussed implications of nitrates in groundwater as a result of intensification.

Smith, Beckwith, Chalmers & Jackson (2002) examined nitrate leaching from applications of animal manure. The results agree with those of Monaghan et al. (2007) and Di & Cameron (2002); animal waste on pasture has linkages to increased nitrates and poorer ground water quality.

2.3 Other ways nitrate enters underground waterways from human involvement.

Yates (2006) reported surface waters like streams and lakes are not the only water sources that suffer from pollution. Revenga & Mock (October 2000) states groundwater aquifers, which are critical sources of both drinking water and irrigation water, are also affected and the major causes of groundwater pollution is the leaching of pollutants from agriculture, industry, and untreated sewage.

(26)

25 Yates (2006) studied septic tank density and ground water contamination in the USA. Yates (2006) went further than Revenga & Mock (October 2000), with the study suggesting bacteria and viruses present in domestic sewage cause the majority of waterborne disease outbreaks. Yates (2006) suggested septic tanks contribute the largest volume of wastewater and the single most important means of limiting ground-water contamination by septic tanks is to restrict the density of these systems in an area.

Viraraghavan & Warnock (1976) specifically targeted different soil types and suggested that a failure of soil absorption may cause bacterial contamination of ground and surface waters.

In conclusion this literature indicates human septic tanks influence nitrates and phosphates entering and contaminating groundwater.

2.4 What are the implications of high nitrate and phosphorus in the waterways to humans and the environment.

Young (2013) reported monitoring of Canterbury wells is undertaken amid concerns about rising nitrate levels. ECAN's November 2012, groundwater survey, found nitrate levels had been increasing in about 30 per cent of tested wells in the past 10 years. Methaemoglobinaemia (Oxford American Dictionary- oxidized form of hemoglobin that is unable to release oxygen to the tissues) mainly affects babies less than 6 months old or in the womb, and high levels of nitrates either absorbed by the placenta in the womb or water given to bottle fed babies, prevents their blood from delivering oxygen effectively to different parts of their bodies (Canterbury District Health Board, 2013). Furthermore, the result is blueness around the mouth, hands and feet (hence the name ‘blue baby syndrome’) and, if severe, the condition may affect breathing and may become life threatening. It also suggests adults with specific rare metabolic disorders may also be at risk of methaemoglobinaemia. Canterbury District Health Board (2013) specifies nitrate is difficult to remove from water, filters, chemical treatments and boiling water will not remove it.

Manassaram, Baker & Moll (2006) reviewed nitrates in drinking water and its possible adverse effect on maternal exposure to nitrates and reproductive and developmental effects from high nitrates. Findings indicated a correlation between high nitrates and spontaneous abortion,

(27)

26 intrauterine growth restrictions and various birth defects. They concluded that the current literature does not provide sufficient evidence of a causal relationship between exposure to nitrates in drinking water and adverse reproductive effects.

Knobeloch, Salna, Hogan, Postle & Anderson (2000) studied nitrate-contaminated drinking water to prepare infant formula is a well-known risk factor for infant methaemoglobinaemia. The study concurred with the report made by Canterbury District Health Board (2013). Knobeloch et al.

(2000) continued by adding affected infants develop a peculiar blue-gray skin color and may become irritable or lethargic, depending on the severity of their condition. The condition can progress rapidly to cause coma and death if it is not recognized and treated appropriately.

Furthermore, Knobeloch et al. (2000) stated, two cases of blue baby syndrome were recently investigated and both cases involved infants who became ill after being fed formula that was reconstituted with water from private wells. Water samples collected from these wells during the infants' illnesses contained nitrate-nitrogen concentrations of 22.9 and 27.4 mg/L.

Penka, Gatseva & Argirova(2008) states nitrate inhibits the accumulation of iodine in the thyroid gland. Penka et al. (2008) evaluated the influence of ion in iodine for pregnant woman and children aged between 3 and 6 years from villages in Bulgaria with high and low levels of nitrate in drinking water. Penka et al. (2008) results indicated statistically significant differences were found between the goiter (a swelling of the neck resulting from enlargement of the thyroid gland) rate in exposed and non-exposed pregnant women. This concurs with Canterbury District Health Board (2013), stating, the condition may affect breathing. Penka et al. (2008) results confirmed the role of high- nitrate level in drinking water as a risk factor for thyroid dysfunction in vulnerable population groups.

Abu, Ghbn, & Khoundary (2002) carried out a study in three areas of the Gaza Strip, Palestine, to determine the factors associated with high methaemoglobinaemia levels in infants and the relationship with high nitrate concentrations in drinking wells. The results emphasized the importance of breast-feeding of infants for the first six months, avoiding the risk methaemoglobinaemia from bottle fed babies and if that could not be achieved, it was recommended to find a suitable source of water.

2.4.1 Summary: What are the implications of high nitrate and phosphorus in the waterways to humans and the environment.

(28)

27 (Canterbury District Health Board, 2013), Penka, Gatseva & Argirova(2008) and Knobeloch et al.

(2000) recognised nitrate causes blue baby syndrome in human children. Penka, Gatseva & Argirova (2008) and (Canterbury District Health Board, 2013) reported what effect high nitrate in drinking water has on pregnant woman. Abu, Ghbn, & Khoundary (2002) highlighted the importance of breast-feeding infants in high nitrate contaminated areas.

2.5 The worldwide response of farmers’ to nutrient damaged waterways and environmental changes.

Arheimer & Brandt (1998) as cited in Bratt (2002) confirmed the major anthropogenic waterborne nitrogen load in the south of Sweden has its origin in agricultural production.

Bratt (2002)analyzed strategies on management practices for the reduction of nutrient releases within a Swedish catchment. Bratt (2002) suggested the main objective of the European Union water framework directive is to obtain good ecological water quality and the approach is specifically catchment based. Bratt (2002)studied farmers’ from Katrineholm & Flen Municipality borders in Sodermanland County, in southeast Sweden. Results showed in relation to measures reducing phosphorus losses, 74% of farmers’ in the study had refrained from carrying out any, 42%

of farmers’ in the study had not taken any measures against ammonia release and only 6% of farmers’ in the study had chosen not to take any measures against nitrogen leakage. The open- ended question of “What would make you want to and have the possibility of, carrying out more measures to reduce nutrient leakage from your farm” in Bratt (2002) led to answers such as:

 Improving the financial returns for organics or subsidies for less production.

 An increase in knowledge about nutrient processes and which methods are most efficient. Farmers’ were asking for more information about the effects of different management practices and there risk rewards for their farm businesses.

 Determining factor is a demand for fewer regulations, especially

contradictory ones. In connection with identifying enterprises it became apparent that obtaining information and data based on catchments was troublesome.

Farmers'' perceptions of ECAN’s proposed, “good practice discharge allowance” in the Waimakariri sub region of Environment Canterbury’s (ECAN) district of New Zealand.