The Government's freshwater reform programme continues apace. The latest paper out for discussion is proposed amendments to the National Policy Statement (NPS) for freshwater.
It's a 70 page document but, for time-challenged readers, go straight to the picture on the back page: it sets out an excellent values-led, evidence-based process for communities to decide what they want to achieve and how they're going to get there.
Briefly recapping - the NPS was promulgated in 2011 as a management framework to provide for both environmental integrity and economic growth.
The NPS identified two groupings of national values, first those providing for the wellbeing and amenity of people and communities, and secondly, those recognising and respecting fresh water's intrinsic values.
The national values were not prioritised: instead, the NPS directed it is for regional communities to consider values and priorities locally.
The expectation at that time was that overall water quality must be maintained, but that regional communities may set objectives for improvement.
The NPS made it clear that the setting of regional objectives, and hence limits, must be made in the context of environmental, social, cultural and economic values.
So what's changed? Three key things: first, two of the national values (the health and mauri of water, and of the people) are now proposed as "compulsory" for all waterways. Second, the NPS would provide A/B/C/D bands for water quality attributes. Thirdly, the government has boldly proposed national "bottomlines" for a number of attributes.
The first change may not be contentious: safeguarding our indigenous fish, most of them unique to New Zealand, is a widely held value. Recreating around waterways is also dear to New Zealanders - picnicking, paddling and boating.
Making provision for these values - alongside a "pick and mix" menu of other values from food production to hydropower to trout - should not unnecessarily constrain community decision-making.
The second proposal has been widely welcomed: offering communities a banded framework for helping make choices from fair to good to excellent, without re-inventing the science and the numbers in every catchment.
The third proposal - setting national "bottomlines" - is already attracting vigorous debate. This proposal is a significant shift from the current NPS directive to overall "maintain" water quality.
If a particular waterway falls below the bottomline, then maintaining would not be an option - the community must put plans in place to improve it. Setting national bottomlines is a big call, not least because there are no hard edges in nature. And not least because shifting from D band to C band may entail re-winding the legacy of the last century or more of human settlement.
This process of setting national bottomlines needs a national conversation and the Ministry for the Environment have invited submissions by February 4.