Letter lifted from the Listener

As someone who works in agricultural research, I am only too aware of problems related to farm intensification and of environmental consequences to water especially, as are many of my colleagues.
Although there are technological tools and management practices that can improve environmental performance, each region of rural New Zealand has an intrinsic set of characteristics, soils, climate, topography, etc that will make "fixes" more or less successful, yet in the farm-intensification debate there is seemingly little regard paid to what a catchment can reasonably support by way of intensification and the inevitable nutrient losses that will occur off-farm.
   So a catchment on the South Island's West Coast will have to contend with warmer and much higher rainfall than one in Canterbury , but this doesn't seem to be taken into consideration when people roll up to develop yet another dairy farm when all they have to show is that their neighbour did it, so they can, too.
   Where is the overview of what a catchment can realistically support by means of intensive farming without irrevocably degrading the environment and natural capital of these regions.? Once lakes are contaminated by nutrients and degraded by eutrophication, they will be difficult to reclaim.
   This is why ther recent weak response and abrogation of duty by the Government to setting water-quality standards is so galling, especially when the farming industries themselves so they have some surety of direction and because they know trading on our "clean, green" image earns us a premium on the international market.
   Unfortunately, this is rapidly what it is becoming, an image; our long-term economy will be endangered in the rush for short-term gains. It is time to take stock and allow some central government control on degrading water quality and what needs to be done about it.

Peter Carey M APP SOIL SCI (1ST HONS)
Soil scientist, Land Research Services
(LINCOLN)