Response 398713121

Back to Response listing

Your details

1. What is your name?

Name (Required)
Mark Kelly

Section 2: Proposal 1 - How at-risk source water areas are delineated

1. Domestic and international evidence suggests that delineating three at-risk areas is a good approach for protecting sources of drinking water. Do you think this is a good approach for protecting our source waters?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure

2. In your view, is the method to determine each SWRMA, for each type of water body, the best option?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure

3. For lakes, do you agree that SWRMA 2 should include the entire lake area?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure

4. SWRMA 1 for lakes and rivers is proposed to extend 5 metres into land from the river/lake edge. This contrasts with 3 metre setback requirement of the Resource Management (Stock Exclusion) Regulations 2020. SWRMA 1 is proposed to be used as a basis for controlling activities close to source water intakes, and applies to a wide range of activities. Do you think these differing setbacks will cause confusion or result in other challenges?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure

5. There is evidence suggesting that a 10–30-metre radius around source water bores is a preferable way to delineate the area where activities would be heavily restricted (SWRMA 1). However, expert advice suggests a 5-metre radius is the most workable option. Do you agree that a 5-metre radius around a source water bore gives enough protection?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure

6. While water takes from complex spring systems or wetlands may require a bespoke SWRMA to ensure consideration of any contamination pathways present, a default method is necessary to ensure interim protection. Do you think a default method is practicable in most situations?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Unsure

Provide further feedback

41. Do you have any other comments you wish to make?

Add your comments, ideas, and feedback here.
to not have clean drinking water makes us equivalent to a 3rd world country ..
surely we are better than that