The situation is one of the "unintended consequences" of the government intervening in the Otago Regional Council’s land and water plan, a report to councillors said.
As the old plan was due to expire next year, and Minister for the Environment Penny Simmonds had not approved the new one, the report said it was likely that more than 3000 farms in the Otago region would have to apply for resource consent simply to discharge water.
The report said the council should request Ms Simmonds "make legislative amendments to override particular provisions of the plan relating to water discharge".
The Resource Management Act (RMA) states a person may only discharge contaminants to water, or to land in circumstances where it may enter water, if the discharge is permitted by "a rule in a plan or the person has a resource consent that authorises the discharge".
The report to council noted there were about 3300 farms in Otago.
"We expect most of them would be relying on the permitted activity rules, which were due to lapse next year unless the new land and water plan was approved."
It also said that the region’s water permits were "generally issued for a short term, on the assumption that a new management framework would be in place that better addressed water quantity limits".
The government passed legislation in October last year that prevented the council from notifying its new land and water plan until December 2025 — by then the government hopes to have notified its new national policy standard for freshwater.
This had serious environmental and planning implications, the report said.
"It results in an unfair and complex planning regime for water users, allowing some to apply for longer consent terms while others are unable to; and it impacts on the council’s ability to manage water quantity and/or water quality under a future freshwater planning framework."
Although the council could create a new plan change addressing these discrepancies, "such a plan change could take six months to develop and another six months to notify".
The councillors will debate the issue during tomorrow’s meeting, but some councillors responded to requests for comment yesterday.
Cr Elliot Weir said ministers and lobbyists pushed for "an ideological ‘win' at any costs and achieved it by striking down our land and water plan last year".
"The future is unclear, but those aforementioned costs are now taking shape and it is likely that council, farmers, and the environment alike will all suffer from such a poor decision from central government."
Cr Gary Kelliher said the government intervention was necessary and he understood the government would help where issues emerged.
"This government wants less red tape and to grow the economy, but I'm not sure that is being grasped or accepted by council staff.
"The sooner farmers are left to get on with farming and not be constantly fighting bureaucracy the better."
Cr Tim Mepham said the existing "old" plan had been "patched up with plan changes to keep it operating".
"The new plan is long overdue and now can't be notified until the government has created a new national policy standard for fresh water, something that doesn't seem to be is an urgent priority."
He agreed the present situation had produced unintended consequences and "uncertainty for farmers".
"This uncertainty could have been avoided if the council hadn't been prevented from notifying the new plan."
Cr Alan Somerville said the government had created a "mess".
"We will do our best to find a way to mitigate the damage caused by the government's decision."
Cr Alexa Forbes said the situation was a "farce" and "a cluster, not of our own making".
Ms Simmonds said she was aware of the issues and would "consider any requests regarding legislative changes when they are received”.
