Otago Fish and Game is ''fundamentally opposed'' to attempts to weaken the protection by which Water Conservation Orders are provided on New Zealand waters.
The focus of one of two Government freshwater discussion documents was on ''indigenous species'' and failed to include introduced species, such as salmon and trout, which require higher standards of water quality and act as a barometers of an ecosystem's health, Fish and Game environmental officer Peter Wilson said.
''This is implicitly accepting degraded water quality from the beginning and in other places, it creates a floor for water quality to fall to.''
Fish and Game raised concerns in its submissions to the Government's discussion document Freshwater Reform - 2012 and Beyond and the proposed Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms discussion document Improving Our Resource Management System.
Water Conservation Orders were about the protection of wild and scenic rivers, a conservation and protection concept placed in the RMA at the time of drafting.
New Zealand needed the continued protection of rivers with outstanding wild and scenic value, as well as a framework of sustainable management, he said.
The orders had been arrived at through long community action and democratic debate, including many tribunals and court cases.
''To override this now risks provoking many years of litigation from those organisations and the community who value these rivers.''
The changes proposed in the RMA discussion document were ''far-reaching and profoundly damaging'' to the integrity and purpose of the Act, he said.
''These changes change the emphasis...to that of economic development at the expense of the environment.''
The removal of considerations such as ''intrinsic values of ecosystems'' and ''enhancement of amenity values'' in section seven was a ''direct assault on the environment'', Mr Wilson said.
Fish and Game was also opposed to the proposal for national templates for local authority plans.
''To suggest there is one central government-directed approach that will be applicable in all regions is ludicrous.''
Mr Wilson called the proposal to allow flexibility in consents ''highly dangerous'' as it effectively encouraged law-breaking and getting away with it.
Proposals reducing public participation in the consents process were also dangerous and would only lead to people engaging in other action, he said.
