In April the Environment Court issued an enforcement order to a Marlborough dairy farm owner prohibiting him from re-stocking for the 2014-15 milking season until he had installed an approved effluent management system.
The court indicated it will order the farm to be destocked if the effluent system is not installed as directed, and might even cancel the farm’s resource consent – an unprecedented move in New Zealand.
Marlborough District Council initiated the enforcement order process in August 2013, under the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991, against Awarua Farm Marlborough Ltd and its director Philip Woolley for breaching terms of the farm company’s resource consent. The land is located on the low-lying river flats of the Wairau River at Tuamarina.
The farm had consent to milk 700 cows, but its effluent sump proved inadequate to deal with wash-down volumes. An irrigator had also stalled and caused ponding on several occasions, and had been subject to breakdown and nozzle splitting. The court was not satisfied the farm could avoid ponding of effluent or prevent effluent reaching natural water without further electronic monitoring and controls.
The court had previously issued Woolley with an interim enforcement order in October 2013 that set several minimum requirements for the existing effluent system to continue to be utilised. He was asked to obtain expert certification of the effluent management system to provide for:
• 700 cows (or such other number specified)
• wash-down from three days of effluent
• exclusion of storm water
• the sump to be cleared to enable 10m2 capacity to be available at the commencement of each milking
• the sump not overflowing or ponding
• capacity at all times to provide three days reserve storage and
• effluent irrigators that operate at all times within the parameter of their application rates.
In its latest decision the Environment Court concluded that, “Woolley and the various farming identities with which he operates are having considerable problems meeting modern environmental standards”.
The court was not satisfied that the conditions of consent and the requirements of the RMA could be met with the existing effluent storage system. The court decided it was essential to make a permanent enforcement order that there be no re-stocking of the farm for the 2014-15 milking season until a new effluent system (with specific parameters) was approved and installed.
In the event that no effluent system was approved and installed by July 30, and the farm was restocked in breach of the order or the certification reports indicated on-going problems with the operation, then the council could apply to the court to de-stock the farm or cancel its resource consent.
This response reinforces that the courts have extensive powers to enforce breaches of the RMA and tailor enforcement solutions to suit individual cases.
Meanwhile, Woolley has a mammoth task ahead to achieve compliance with the recent enforcement order. Until a new effluent management system is installed, and in order to avoid further prosecutions for breach, he will need to implement an extremely high level of site management and potentially remove excess effluent from the farm in extreme weather conditions.
It is possible that significantly reducing stock numbers on the farm, or even ceasing operation and surrendering resource consent might yet prove to be more viable options.
• Anderson Lloyd is a resource management lawyer in Christchurch.
