Water pollution and debunking the Yale study

The Government is once again under attack for its lack of effective action to clean up waterways. The Cawthron Institute released a report stating that the Government’s National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management combined with the subsidies for new irrigation, and hence new cows and pollution, will mean our rivers won’t be cleaned up in the near future, if ever.

The report and the the response of freshwater scientists are worth a look.

The report was commissioned by Fish and Game which led Nick Smith to attack Fish and Game (yawn) more than really getting into the substance of the report. In a nice irony, Nick is a trustee of the Cawthron Institute.

In defending the Government, Nick Smith was forced to go back to a report produced by Yale University which claims that NZ does really well on water quality – 2nd best in the world. It is the same report that John Key has been repeatedly referring to in order to defend the diabolical state of our rivers when BBC Hardtalk and us have asked him about it.

So it’s worth putting on the public record the views of Professor David Hamilton – Professor of Lakes Management at Waikato University and President of the New Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society. Prof Hamilton wrote this release but I’m not sure it ever went out publicly and he passed it on to me at my request – I tabled this statement in the House today with his permission.

It debunks the Yale study: the Yale study is based on data more than a decade old; it lumps NZ in with the rest of the Pacific; and Yale refuse to release their data set so other scientists can’t check their work. The fact that Key and Smith keep using it is a sign of their desperation.

Media Statement: International Water Quality Study Lacks Relevance

The Yale Water Quality Performance Index that ranked New Zealand second only to Iceland, with a score of 99.2, is inaccurate and badly outdated say researchers from Waikato University.

The 2010 Yale and Columbia University study ranked countries according to their environmental performance.  But Professor David Hamilton, Chair in Lakes at Waikato University, is disappointed with selection of data used to characterise New Zealand’s water quality.

“We have not only been lumped together with other Pacific Island nations in the NZ Water Quality Index but the data set used for the study is more than 10 years old” says Hamilton.

He added that “recent scientific reports show evidence of increasing nutrient levels in large numbers of the 77 streams and 134 lakes that effectively comprise a national water quality monitoring network”. NIWA maintains the river monitoring network and the Ministry for the Environment holds the lake data set.

Hamilton says that “in view of recent water quality trends and the intensification of land use that is driving many of these trends, the widely reported Yale Water Quality Performance Index for NZ should be disregarded.  We used the most up to date data from the 134 lakes to examine NZ’s performance against the metrics used for the Water Quality Performance Index and obtained a ranking for NZ of only 66.7%”.

Jon Abell, a Ph.D. student at Waikato University, compared water quality in the 134 NZ lakes against that of more than 1500? lakes across the globe in a paper recently published in the international scientific journal Ecosystems. He says that the rating of 66.7% for NZ is much more in line with where his study placed nutrient levels in NZ lakes compared with lakes internationally.  A follow-up paper found that high production pasture had the greatest effect on lake nutrient levels in the 134 lakes.

Hamilton indicates that Abell’s research has been very important in placing NZ into the international context.  “Many of our lakes have naturally very low levels of nitrogen but we also noted that the most polluted lakes had levels that surpassed even the most polluted of lakes internationally.  His study has also emphasised the need for controlling both nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to waterways because these two nutrients are extremely closely related even though most of the phosphorus comes through sediment erosion from overland flow and most of the nitrogen comes indirectly from leaching into groundwaters”.

42 thoughts on “Water pollution and debunking the Yale study

  1. More deliberate and dishonest fudging of the facts. If National become the government again it will be because they have constantly misled (lied to?) the New Zealand public and by the time they are properly exposed, it will be too late. Where is the media?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 (+5)

  2. Nick Smith attacks Fish and Game for commissioning a report on Freshwater Management, because he doesn’t like what it says, and now National are blatantly telling lies concerning the condition and further negative effects their archaic polices will have on our waterways.

    Further irrigation subsidies could cost over $500 million, increasing intensification and thus pollution levels, and all National can say is that local government is doing a better job at ensuring there’s less pollution. Are they really, where is the proof?

    National has in fact implemented fines if farmer’s don’t meet intensification criteria, which flies in the face of their false concerns for the environment. Now that their first argument is failing, National are resorting to saying there’s not really a problem at all.

    Dairy NZ doesn’t accept that the main cause of water pollution is from intensive farming practices, and it appears that the National government are also willing to live in denial. Presumably this is because of the profits involved.

    If the National Government use old research that is not peer reviewed and the industry creating the pollution doesn’t accept there’s a problem, where does that leave the average New Zealander who wants to swim and catch fish from our waterways?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 (+1)

  3. If the government knowingly promotes misinformation and flawed data, is this the same as lying? If they use the same misinformation and flawed data to deliberately delay action on something that needs immediate attention, is this gross negligence?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 (+6)

  4. Gross negligence yes! I can think of some other choice words to describe National actively participating in the destruction of our fresh water ecosystem for the sake of the almighty dollar, but it’s probably best left unsaid in polite company.

    I wonder if John Key has gone for a swim yet?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 (+1)

  5. Russel says “…will mean our rivers won’t be cleaned up in the near future, if ever.”

    Yet just yesterday there was a report about big improvements in dairy farms complying with regulations, and big reductions in prosecutions for serious breaches.

    Otago Regional Council had just 5 prosecutions in the last year, compared to 46 for the previous two years. Prosecutions in Waikato had halved – see
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/rural/81453/effluent-compliance-figures-up

    The monitors in Otago reported major upgrades in effluent management.

    In another report of 77 sites and rivers and lakes that are monitored in Otago, just five sites had poor quality, compared to 72 rated fair, good or very good (with 3/4 of those either good or very good). And a lot of those sites showed water quality was improving from previous readings – not declining.

    Not surprisingly, the worst readings were almost all restrictied to small low-flow lowland streams, rather than large rivers and lakes.

    Rather than reports on doom and gloom, I think it’s more useful to have an accurate picture of what is really happening – rather than a distorted view where we’re only told half the picture.

    We need to look at where improvements have been made (and there have been many), where the real problem areas are, and take lessons learned from the improvements to take to the sites that need to be improved.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  6. What should we do for the Waituna lagoon, Photonz1? The science is all doom and gloom and we are about to lose our most precious and world regarded wetland to flipping because of government inaction. Your wonderful Pollyanna approach will not be enough in this situation. :-(

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 (+2)

  7. Totally agree, dirty water is bad. Key is a weasel. Lets get dole bluggers out of auckland and up north to put up fences to stop the idiots and their cows.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  8. Photonz1 is a blue-sky kinda guy bsprout, or to put that another way, brown-water guy, just like John Key, regular swimmer in our pristine rivers (keep your mouth closed John!)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 (0)

  9. If National become the government again it will be because they have constantly misled (lied to?) the New Zealand public and by the time they are properly exposed, it will be too late. Where is the media?

    It doesn’t matter what the media says, the people (sheeple?) aren’t listening. Key is coming back, get used to the idea, and all that that will mean.

    (And Phil and I have a slice of humble pie on this)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  10. photonz1

    and big reductions in prosecutions for serious breaches.

    It often costs a lot more to prosecute a farmer than might be gained in any fine. Could it be that there’s been a reduction in prosecutions because Councils aren’t pursuing the polluters or have reduced the criteria that defines a breach of farmers conditions?

    According to that report, 10% of farms in Otago and 33% of farms in Waikato and Canterbury are still breaching their conditions. If I speed by 33% I still get fined. Why aren’t all those polluting farmers being fined?

    Rather than reports on doom and gloom, I think it’s more useful to have an accurate picture of what is really happening – rather than a distorted view where we’re only told half the picture.

    90% of lowland waterways are highly polluted. How is that half the picture? The distorted view is the one National and Dairy NZ is trying to promote.

    No pie for me thanks dbuckley.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  11. Photonz you’ve inadvertently hit the nail on the head. Most of the pollution coming off a dairy operationdoesn’t need a resource consent and hence there is never an issue of breaching a resource consent.

    Around 10% of the nitrogen coming off a dairy operation goes through the milking shed and the disposal of which needs a resource consent.

    Around 90% comes off the field where the cows are doing their business and fertiliser is being distributed. This is a permitted activity and doesn’t require a consent.

    So data about consent breaches tells you something about 10% of pollution.

    We need to regulate the other 90% if we actually want to clean up rivers. And that’s what National are resisting and why it will not clean up rivers.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 (+8)

  12. Google earth has updated many of the aerial photographs of the West Coast, you can see the huge land clearance and surface water modification (humping and hollowing) of vast tracts of land due to dairy expansion.

    It’s all go down here at the moment, gold mining, dairy expansion, illegal quarrying (good on you Kevin) and we even have a gold miner, farmer,and REGIONAL COUNCILLOR involved in mining public land and not paying any royalties for the privilege.

    Oh well the wild west is back to it’s good? ole self……..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  13. Russel says “Around 90% comes off the field where the cows are doing their business and fertiliser is being distributed. This is a permitted activity and doesn’t require a consent.”

    So instead of labelling all dairy farmers as evil under your dirty dairy campaign, (which is a nonsense because some farmers are investing a great deal of time and money and doing a fantastric job), you need to be
    – highlighting the best case practices
    – publicly naming and shaming the worst offenders
    – the financial cost of wasting tens of thousands of dollars on nutrients (effluent and fertilizer) get washed down our rivers instead of staying on the farm to feed grass.

    That’s far more likely to get improvements than a negative and repetitive bash bash bash approach to farmers.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 (+1)

  14. Photonz1’s position is bang-on the money. Many farmers have spent significant sums of money and manhours fencing off parts of tehir land and coventing it to ensure places of interest are maintained.

    And for their efforts, knockers like Russel lump these farmers in the polluting ones for political pointscoring, and in doing so corrupt the message they are sending.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 (-4)

  15. Photonz1- Great suggestions, but not new ones. The problem is that in Southland these are happening already:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/5130554/Farm-manager-fined-60-000-for-dirty-dairying-near-lagoon
    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.com/2011/07/dairy-story-with-happy-ending.html
    But the extent of the problem is huge and change is not occurring fast enough to save our rivers and wetlands from extensive degradation. Nick Smith’s soft water regulations provides 30 years to achieve compliancy and has no power over previously given consents. He has provided only $15 million of contestable funding to support all Environment Councils in cleaning waterways and yet the Government gave $36 million to the America’s Cup challenge.

    Lets praise the good practice but we still have a huge lack of compliancy supported by weak regulation. We actually need more “bash, bash, bash” to quickly knock farming back into shape. Remember we are not just dealing with family farms and community stalwarts, many dairy farms have corporate ownership and operate on industrial lines and work closely to the limit of regulations to maximize profits.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  16. Misanthropic Curmudgeon-Russel is hardly just a knocker and when he visited farmers down south he was warmly received and respected for his knowledge and approach.
    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.com/2011/04/sun-shone-on-waituna.html
    You can’t avoid the fact that the dairy industry as a whole is largely responsible for much of our water pollution, it is a dirty industry and it pays little collectively in tax to cover the costs of the damage it causes. Environment Southland tried to get local dairy farmers to cover the costs of managing their industry but this was strongly rejected, so all rate payers end up subsidizing the external costs of dairy farming.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  17. sprout says “We actually need more “bash, bash, bash” to quickly knock farming back into shape.”

    I disagree. The Green Party is seen by many as being fringe. They would be taken more seriously if they appeared more balanced and reasonable.

    It doesn’t mean stopping highlighting the problems, but if you also highlight successes, it has several advantages
    – it makes the problem areas look worse
    – it shows solutions to the problems
    – it makes the Green message sound more reasonable, serious and main-stream.
    – it’s more likely to get support
    – it’s more likely to make a difference
    – it removes the “enemy” label you’re giving to even those leading farmers who are spending a fortune on improving effluent management.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 (+3)

  18. You make some great suggestions, Photonz1, but again they just reflect what the Greens have been doing. We have resources to support best practice and have promoted good examples of this. If you read one of my links you would have read my letter in praise of a responsible dairy farm that I had initially opposed gaining a conversion consent.

    I challenge you to find examples of where the Greens have deliberately attempted to knock farmers, nothing I have seen on this blog or my own reflects what you claim.

    The “bash” needs to come from this government who have been flailing around with a wet bus ticket for sometime.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  19. Sprout says “I challenge you to find examples of where the Greens have deliberately attempted to knock farmers”

    How about the “Dirty Dairy” campaign.

    Sprout says “The “bash” needs to come from this government who have been flailing around with a wet bus ticket for sometime.”

    A $60,000 fine (from your link) is a wet bus ticket?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 (-3)

  20. “Dirty Dairying” is a Fish&Game initiative photonz – keep up.
    ” (The Government)has provided only $15 million of contestable funding to support all Environment Councils in cleaning waterways and yet the Government gave $36 million to the America’s Cup challenge.”
    That tells you all you need to know about where this Government’s head is.
    In
    the
    clouds.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 (+4)

  21. Mono-hull man me.

    How’s things on t’Coast Shunda?
    We’re selling apple trees this weekend – truck-loads of them!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  22. Sprout says “He has provided only $15 million of contestable funding to support all Environment Councils in cleaning waterways…”

    From the May Budget “$15 million over in new funds for waterway clean-up. On top of other clean-up funding already announced, total clean-up commitments over an extended period of years now totals 264.8 million”

    Of course this is in on top of the input from polluters and regional councils – who have the main responsibility for clean rivers and lakes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  23. How do you access that $264 million photonz1? Apparently to save the Waituna lagoon the only funds we can gain access to is that $15 million contestable fund and lots of others will be contesting too. National is very good at saying how much extra they are throwing at problems then those that need the support often find they have even less than before.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  24. Sprout – is it not the job of your regional council to make sure waterways are clean – rather than the central government.

    So you need to get funding from them. And if they don’t have enough, they can put your rates up to get more funding.

    Isn’t greenfly on your regional council – you should be complaining to him. It’s his responsibility.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  25. Ah photonz1 – you’re very quick to lumber the ratepayer with extra costs I see!
    The Government’s ‘clean up fund’ seems meager to me, and difficult to secure and not available readily enough to be considered an effective emergency measure. If you needed it tomorrow, you’d be sorely disappointed by the wait and the lack of certainty. Still, what’s a nationally important wetland worth?
    I suppose some would expect to hear that the industry responsible for the ‘dirt’ spring into action at the news that a Ramsar-rated lagoon was about to collapse, and inject the money needed to prevent its destruction. The councillors charged with setting rules in the past should be shoulder-tapped and asked some probing questions. Those in the seats at the moment too and if found wanting, asked to explain themselves (some of those will have been sitting there for a long while and can offer explanations that cover both periods). Who does that leave? Iwi? Individual farmers? Fertilizer companies? Earthmoving/ditch-digging companies? Fonterra? Dairy NZ?
    It’s a tangled web we weave.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  26. photonz1

    So instead of labelling all dairy farmers as evil under your dirty dairy campaign, (which is a nonsense because some farmers are investing a great deal of time and money and doing a fantastric job).

    We’ve seen you on numerous occasions try to tarnish the reputations of all those receiving a benefit because of the actions of a few. However it’s not just a few farmers that are polluting the environment, it’s a lot. So please spare us your hypocrisy photonz1.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 (+7)

  27. Just for BJ
    Apologies for slightly off topic but on the subject of water and CO2 , this latest Peer Reviewed paper in Nature (described by BJ as the best scientific journal in the WORLD) is fascinating.
    More CO2 may reduce plants reliance on water, encourage growth and decrease water vapour escaping.
    “USDA scientists study effects of rising carbon dioxide on rangelands
    Rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels can reverse the drying effects of predicted higher temperatures on semi-arid rangelands, according to a study published today in the scientific journal Nature by a team of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and university scientists.
    Warmer temperatures increase water loss to the atmosphere, leading to drier soils. In contrast, higher CO2 levels cause leaf stomatal pores to partly close, lessening the amount of water vapor that escapes and the amount of water plants draw from soil. This new study finds that CO2 does more to counterbalance warming-induced water loss than previously expected. In fact, simulations of levels of warming and CO2 predicted for later this century demonstrated no net change in soil water, and actually increased levels of plant growth for warm-season grasses.”

    http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=16754
    Heck, with increased growth we could feed the world!
    Who knew?
    Obviously not the CAGW crowd

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  28. So my comments have been “moderated” and deleted!Censorship eh. Who would have thought. Shame on you for suppressing free speech

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  29. jackal says “We’ve seen you on numerous occasions try to tarnish the reputations of all those receiving a benefit because of the actions of a few.”

    Really ? – Please show me just a couple of the “numerous” times I’ve tried to tarnish ALL beneficiaries.

    greenfly says “Ah photonz1 – you’re very quick to lumber the ratepayer with extra costs I see!”

    “The Government’s ‘clean up fund’ seems meager to me…”

    Ah greenfly – you’re very quick to lumber the taxpayer with extra costs I see!

    Clean water is the responsibility of regional councils – you seem to want side-step your responsibilities and put it on someone else.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 (-3)

  30. photonz1

    Really ? – Please show me just a couple of the “numerous” times I’ve tried to tarnish ALL beneficiaries.

    Come now photonz1, I’m not wasting my time looking through previous comments to confirm what is common knowledge by anybody who regularly reads frogblog.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  31. jackal says “Come now photonz1, I’m not wasting my time looking through previous comments to confirm what is common knowledge by anybody who regularly reads frogblog.”

    Cause you know you wouldn’t find any comments where I try to tarnish ALL beneficiaries.

    My comments are aimed at those who waste their money on drugs and alcohol, then complain that taxpayers don’t give them enough, and aimed at disfunctional families who prioritise their entertainment spending over their kids food, and aimed at those who CHOOSE the DPB as a lifestyle.

    You say there are “numerous” occasions where I try to tarnish “all” beneficiaries, but you can’t come up with a single example.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  32. photonz1

    My comments are aimed at those who waste their money on drugs and alcohol, then complain that taxpayers don’t give them enough, and aimed at disfunctional families who prioritise their entertainment spending over their kids food, and aimed at those who CHOOSE the DPB as a lifestyle.

    What percentage of beneficiaries would you class as “dysfunctional” then photonz1? My comments are aimed at the farmers who pollute our waterways and expect the taxpayer to pay for them to be cleaned up while on average paying less tax than two elderly pensioners.

    There’s a difference between not being able to find your beneficiary bashing comments and not having the time to.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  33. Jackal says “There’s a difference between not being able to find your beneficiary bashing comments and not having the time to.”

    Yeah right.

    It’s obviously a weak excuse cause you’ve made a claim you can’t back up.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  34. Stop being precious Photo. All this garbage about not trying to tarnish beneficiaries. Every time you or anyone else raises examples of the small proportion, who abuse the benefit system, you are trying to tarnish all beneficiaries, to justify the rights meanness and selfishness.

    Why do we never see equal concern about the farmers, asset buyers, politicians, mostly RW, and financiers who have lost far more of the taxpayers dollar than all the welfare beneficiaries combined.

    The 14 billion each year that goes offshore in interest and profits to overseas banks and business owners from assets we used to own, for one.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  35. Kerry says “you are trying to tarnish all beneficiaries”

    Wrong – if I wanted to tarnish ALL beneficiaries, I would criticise ALL beneficiaries.

    If I have done that, please show me where.

    Kerry says “The 14 billion each year that goes offshore in interest and profits to overseas banks and business owners from assets we used to own, for one.”

    Most of that is interest on OUR assets – houses, businesses and farms – not theirs.

    And if you don’t like this, you can always try to stop people buying their own homes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  36. Can the lakes with heaps of weed (from heaps of nutrients) be helped by harvesting the weed? Seaweed harvesting can be lucrative, so it may even make money for the coucil. Depending on nutritive analysis of the weed (and marketing) dairy farmers could end up willingly paying for nutrients to be taken out of the lake.
    It would have to be a manual type of harvest to reduce the chances of harvesting any endangered galaxids like gollum.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  37. So Nationals plan is more cows and cow shit …………

    And more spin and political bullshit to pretend we’re 100% clean and green.

    National are smearing and stinking up our image quite well.

    And people dont like being taken for fools which is the game Keys and the Nats are playing with brand NZ.

    Cow shit and dirty coal do not a clean green country make.

    And lies only work for a short while ……………

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  38. On another factor, do any innovative/sensible preventative solutions and remediation after the fact, just mean that status quo intensification of land use and all associated problems are justified to continue at same or greater levels? If anyone is involved in solutions, clever though the solutions may be, should they be concerned that such efforts are just used (misused!?) to maintain business as usual, or worse, greater growth and intensification and less prevention and compliance? Or should one just be happy that any improvements in remediation are better than none in terms of water quality, and community/environmental quality of life etc?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  39. Any improvement in water quality is better than none. The ‘justification’ (to farmers) for intensification of NZ dairy farming is financial. Lake water quality isn’t much of a factor.
    In the grand scheme of things, globally, land use intensification is justified by overpopulation. Unless that elephant is exposed, then isn’t tinkering around the edges, trying to delay the inevidable as good as it’s gonna get?
    To further reduce the disturbance to gollum et al, what about hydroponic greenhouses set up along rivers in intensive dairying areas. The river water should leave the greenhouse with less nutrients than when it went in. I’m not sure if the glyphosate run-off would be an issue..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  40. Wetlands can play an important role in capturing unwanted nutrients. Managed wetlands and green houses (good idea!) could intercept various acquifiers, and also provide a financial return to farmers, a bottom line incentive to use run-off for other purposes that just happen to create environmental benefits also.

    If a farmer or co-operative is particularly enviromentally concerned, then this could be a focus, if another entity is mainly concerned about ROI, or possibly reducing downstream effects on other parts of their operation, or compliance issues, then that is fine if the process just also happens to return environmental benefits.

    The country needs policy and support for ideas that are attractive to even the hardest-nosed operators. Create good working models and sometimes the worst initial doubtful detractors can become the strongest supporters when integrated operations provide financial offsets and compliance advantages. I feel too that anything is better than nothing, and it’s often a series of small steps to change the staus quo.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  41. Its 2011, the pollution level in lakes has creeped up globally. Its alarming to see the rising levels of pollution in NZ lakes. I agree with you guys that the government might be presenting obsolete facts to cover their inefficiency but as compared to other regions like Asian countries still NZ is far better. Although all countries with stable economies have spent lots of money in controlling the levels of phosphorous within their rivers and lakes but less emphasis is being laid on long term steps. Here we have to allocate appropriate funds in the annual budget to control water pollution.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>