Farmers allege ‘intimidation’ by compliance staff

Intimidating and unfair is how a Kopu farming couple describe the way Waikato Regional Council compliance officers treated them during an investigation into environmental issues on their farm.


A new holding pond with a weeping wall has been built to replace the sealed drain at the end of the feed pad.

Information gathering
Shortly afterwards council staff flew over the farm in a helicopter and noticed the breach. The next day two officers arrived at the farm and asked to speak to the husband and wife separately. “I felt that was intimidating and we refused to be separated. Another two officers drove down the road to talk to our farm worker, who quite rightly refused to talk to them.”

Waikato Regional Council investigations manager Patrick Lynch says council staff are “very careful to ensure that an individual’s rights are respected at all times”.  

“The court has very strict expectations on how information is gathered. We follow best practice when gathering information, particularly when interviewing parties who may have some culpability for what is perceived by the court as serious offending.”

Patrick says when a case is considered for prosecution a host of factors are taken into consideration, including actual adverse effects on the environment; degree of due care taken; efforts to remedy or mitigate the effects and repeat non-compliance or previous enforcement action for the same or similar situation.


On of several new pumps installed as part of the new effluent system on Tuitahi Farm.

Expired consent
In his sentencing Judge Smith says while the farm system had been consented, that consent expired in 2010. Solutions to remedy the situation were limited and council had concerns but “essentially accepted that if the system was operated as intended then it complied with permitted activity standards”.

When council undertook fly-overs and inspection of the farm its officers Judge Smith says “found that effluent had been leaving the barrier ditch, going down the farm drain and entering natural water”.

Judge Smith also says washdown from the milk shed, including milk products, went directly into a farm drain and then to natural water with no treatment. He also comments on the farm practice of excavating solid material from the barrier ditch and piling it on the ground to dry. “This in itself has problems because there was no barrier between the ground and the solid effluent and accordingly, spot concentrations of effluent were released to the soils and sub soils”.

The farmer, who is the third generation of his family on the property, admits he should have done more work on the farm’s effluent systems some time ago, but what was in place was consented and despite inspections by council staff and Fonterra, he had not been instructed to upgrade anything.


Tuitahi farm in September last year when it was flooded during heavy rain.

Effluent storage
After council staff visited the farm, owners contacted the Tauranga company Kliptank to order an above ground 2.5 million litre effluent storage tank.

When he saw the issues they were facing, Ian Jamieson of Kliptank brought in other experts to help address the issues around milk vat waste and the barrier ditch by the feed pad.
 
“In all it has cost us around $400,000 to do everything we have done, and that’s put us under considerable financial pressure. We feel we have done everything right, and more, and still got hammered by council,” the farmer says.

In his judgement, Judge Smith commends the farmer on installing the new systems, including the larger than required tank.

“Nonetheless, that system should have been installed earlier,” he says.

The farmers say they were not aware council intended to take a case to court and it was not until March, two months after the Kliptank had been installed, that they were told.

Patrick Lynch says once a case is authorised for prosecution by a panel of three managers the file goes to an independent law firm for them to consider whether a prosecution is in the public interest and whether the case has evidential sufficiency. 

“A prosecution will not be initiated without the support of that independent legal opinion.”

At that hearing Judge Smith ordered Tuitahi Farms Limited “not to commence milking” until a new dairy effluent system was in operation on the Kopu farm. However, council officers gave the farm the go-ahead to milk, based on the system then in place.

The press release council circulated about the court case has also been hurtful, the couple say, as they believe it paints them in an untrue and bad light and has been widely published by media throughout the country.

“It said we were discharging large volumes of effluent into farm drains which flowed a short distance to the Waihou River. The drain, or more correctly barrier ditch, in question was closed at both ends and for us to discharge into the Waihou River would require about three kilometres of pipeline which we certainly don’t have.”

The way council staff handled the case, the court appearance, publicity and the fine have put the couple under considerable financial and emotional stress, they say.

“We are not the only ones. We know of several other farmers feeling stressed by council actions, often for one-off breaches. It adds to the other stresses farmers are under and I’m not surprised some are considering suicide.”

The couple accept council staff have an important role to play in protecting the environment but they also feel they should give consideration to farmers who are trying to do the right thing and who don’t have a history of breaking the rules.

“For some people it just becomes all too hard, and they give up farming.”


0 Comments

There are no comments on this article.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to make a comment. Login Now
Opinion Poll

We're not running a poll right now. Check back soon!