Effluent code snag

He says he meets farmers who incorrectly perceive the standards as "bells and whistles", and who may therefore ask designers for a lower level of design.

Reid says the code, unless completely accepted by farmers, and particularly implemented at regional council level, could "sit on the shelf gathering dust" and be infrequently used.

"We now have excellent standards, but voluntary uptake is undermining the intention to get everybody in step. That's a shame," he told Dairy News.

But Irrigation New Zealand chief executive Andrew Curtis believes it's a bit "early for doom and gloom merchants" to start jumping on a scheme that is well received by the industry, councils, milk supply companies and farmers.

The scheme has been live only since February 27, now has five accredited companies and we're already seeing strong support, he says.

"A number of companies have contacted us expressing an interest in working through the next round of the accreditation programme, with applications due June 1. There is also strong interest from farmers in effluent system design accreditation. DairyNZ and Irrigation New Zealand have spoken with farmers about it at effluent expos in Christchurch and Hamilton.

"Farmers are looking for 'safe hands' when designing systems and the system gives them confidence those companies who have passed through it are capable designers. The accredited companies have gone through a rigorous assessment process and committed to providing quality designs for farmers."

The standard, and the code of practice, approved after two years development by representatives of the dairy and effluent services industries, and regional councils, provide criteria for measuring the adequacy of farm dairy effluent systems. The code guides designers in developing effluent systems fit for purpose.

But though industry stakeholders are committed to implementing the new standards, farmers are not legally required to.

Reid says a big problem of this voluntary aspect is that design companies will 'feel the heat' to drop their standards just to get a contract.

"If a farmer says he doesn't want to go through 'all that palaver', and wants only the barest minimum, then the supplier comes under pressure to provide this minimum-and-far from-desirable level of design so as not to lose the job to someone else.

"There will be huge temptation to compromise our intended good practice just to get the account. Yes, the farmer probably now takes responsibility for choosing the shortcuts, but the designer may go along with him just to get the money. If this happens the integrity of standards will been undermined."

The failure of regional councils to endorse the standards is also a nuisance, Reid says. Presently, each council has its own set of effluent management rules with wide differences. Nationwide adoption of the industry standards would give clarity and direction.

"At present many Taranaki farmers can put all their mostly treated effluent into a stream at low cost, while in Southland the same farmer has to stand up to intense scrutiny. There is an unfair 'cost of farming' advantage to the Taranaki bloke – a penalty to the Southlander."

Reid says councils should consider the standards a "godsend". They've been rescued from the "regulation" dilemma, he says.

"Farmers often accuse councils of being good at telling them what they can't do, and they accuse them of being not so hot at telling them what they ought to do. Now the dairy industry itself has set its own high standards, why shouldn't the council direct them and expect them to meet and live up to them.  It even saves them from going down the path of regulation."