The latest National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research report on the state of our lakes bears disappointing tidings.
Of lakes monitored, 32% have poor water quality, 44% are unhealthy and more lakes are deteriorating than improving.
As Environment Minister Nick Smith himself says: "New Zealand needs to improve its freshwater management to ensure our lakes measure up to our clean, green reputation."
Naturally, Dr Smith justifies Government actions and plans, claiming increased spending on freshwater clean-up initiatives, saying water quality is still better than Europe and North America, and maintaining that the Government was correct to take over management of Environment Canterbury - where 15 of the 19 lakes that have deteriorated between 2005 and 2009 are found - and "fast-track water plans and rules to better manage pollution".
Naturally, too, the Green Party says strong rules are needed to make farmers act responsibly, with the link between deteriorating lakes and nutrient enrichment from livestock farming clear.
Labour, for its part, says the Government has to use the report as a "dam" on the ambitions of Cabinet colleagues for rapid growth in intensive farming.
Federated Farmers, meanwhile, rejects the views that farming is only to blame, pointing to the decline in 40% of lakes with native plants around them.
Because serious issues are worsening, it can be concluded that current mechanisms and arrangements are failing.
Even the improvements in the Rotorua lakes are being achieved with huge funding that should not have been required in the first place.
Politicians, generally, can be relied on to respond in their usual ways, fiddling with this and that while much carries on as before. What is required, therefore, are fresh approaches and innovative solutions.
It is now 21 years since local government was reorganised - with regional councils taking over the role of catchment boards - and water concerns have largely become more serious rather than matters improving.
For some, the answer would be to ditch these councils and set up "unitary" authorities.
After all, a unitary authority was set up for the Auckland super city, and they are in place for Gisborne, Tasman and Marlborough districts and Nelson City.
But that "solution" - applied across the country - would be neither fresh nor innovative and could well lead to even worse outcomes.
Pressure from local interests can be more acute, undermining water quality and best use of water.
Local councils, whatever their supposed separation of regulatory and operational powers, would be making decisions about themselves.
In Dunedin's case, for example, one arm of the city council would be setting discharge consents for the city's sewage while another would be overseeing the building of the facilities and a third would be faced with finding the funding.
Given the vested interests that can abound, and given the nature of local and national politics, the best possible approach to regulation of water and natural resources might only be possible after new independent thinking and analysis.
That is what the South Island Neurosurgical Service Expert Panel achieved, and a similar approach is needed in this instance.
A group with the best possible expertise, with as few conflicted interests as possible and with part offshore membership, could be given an open brief to examine the issues and come up with answers.
They would need to be given an open brief to come up with new solutions.
It might well be that, after searching for other options, the current system with tweaks is recommended as the least harmful set-up. So be it.
If, however, as might be expected, different proposals are produced, then that would present a big test for the politicians and the people of this country.
Would they, and we, have the will to make the necessary changes?
Because water disquiet has been building, because the quality of our fresh water is hugely important, and because the present system is not working satisfactorily, the time could be ripe for a fresh approach.
