In fact, the council's chief executive Graeme Martin said much of what the report recommended, his council was already doing.
The council was already addressing issues such as water quality, quantity and harvesting, but Mr Martin said it was unrealistic for communities and the economy to have a knee-jerk reaction imposed on them.
The community would be consulted before any of the forum's plans were implemented.
The forum's report has been hailed for reaching consensus across the political spectrum, although Federated Farmers has not signed up to it.
It will consult its members, saying it welcomed greater collaboration but that did not equate to agreement on all the issues.
The report identifies goals for freshwater management and makes recommendations in areas it feels change is needed.
It also said the quality of freshwater was high by international standards, though it was deteriorating.
Steps were needed to reverse that trend.
"The forum believes that to deal with the issue of water quality, we need for both environmental and economic reasons to set standards, limits and targets around contaminants and flows, that we need national leadership and local partnership, more consistent practices and monitoring of performance.
"We need better tools for allocating water permits and facilitating their transfer to increase the efficiency of water use.
"The forum also believes that water storage may bring gains for the environment, as well as economic benefits."
Little of this was new to Mr Martin.
He said the council was taking steps through its water plan and amendments to that plan to address water quality issues, and that was a much better way to address those issues than the forum's proposal to "tweak" the national policy statement (NPS) on water quality.
There was a risk the NPS would impose changes and not take in to account the impact of those changes on communities.
For example the NPS said any land-use change that would affect water quality required resource consent.
That could have far-reaching repercussions as, in practice, any land-use change would require resource consent.
Water quantity also tended to be an emotive issue and needed to be put in perspective.
Mr Martin said the environmental lobby, for example, saw rivers being drained dry and wildlife dying as a result of over allocation, but in practice it meant requests for water exceeding availability because of insufficient water available above minimum flow levels.
It was was much better for communities to manage issues of water quality, quantity, access and harvesting than face a sudden knee-jerk reaction influenced by lobby groups.
"What we've got to ask throughout rural New Zealand, is how well is our home patch and communities recognising all these issues?" Mr Martin said.
He said the answer was "pretty good".
For that reason, the forum's recommendations, which were not law, would initially have little impact on Otago.
"At its best, this can only help us along our way. At its worst, it will only impede progress already made."
What changes are needed
- Set water quality and quantity standards, taking in to account geographic, economic, environmental and social issues.
- Transfer of water permits.
- Irrigation, storage and hydro projects.
- Governance arrangements and water management knowledge.
- Urban water issues.
- Greater collaboration.