Hi
For those who have an interest in the Dunedin district, they currently have a new bylaw under review that will prohibit camping or new dredging or mining of any kind in their controlled area that includes the Deep Stream catchment and Silverstream. Submissions can be made online through the link below and are due by 2 April.
Thanks Darryl. The battle just never ends does it!
Post deleted by author for personal reasons.
JW
JW,
I would suggest that you make a submission that states-
Power & Control, John. These dipshits will do anything to justify ‘their salaries’
Just submitted the form while sipping a cup of Dunedins finest tap water. It doesn’t taste like tailings, so keep digging!
Email received today:
Thank you very much for your submission on the Dunedin City Council’s proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026.
With regard to your concerns around access to Te Papanui Conservation Park, I just wanted you to let you know that we made an error in the mapping that was included in the public consultation material which mistakenly included the Department of Conservation land in the Te Papanui Conservation Park. We apologise for this, and the confusion this may have caused. The controlled classification only refers to the DCC owned land in the catchment (not the Conservation Park) which is the same as in the Water Bylaw 2011, and our map on the DCC consultation page now shows the correct area that the controlled classification refers to. There isn’t any change to public access to Te Papanui Conservation Park
The updated map can be seen here at this link: Draft Proposed Water Supply Bylaw 2026 - Dunedin City Council
Water supply catchments (clauses 4.10-4.15)
1.1 We acknowledge the Council’s intent to protect drinking water sources through the classification of water supply catchments as open, restricted, or controlled. However, we seek clarification on the scope and legal application of these provisions.
1.2 The relevant legislation does not appear to provide the Council with authority to impose land use controls on land it does not own or manage i.e Te Papanui Conservation Park, administered by the Department of Conservation. As drafted, the provisions could be interpreted as applying more broadly, creating uncertainty for landowners and potentially exceeding the Council’s legal bylaw-making powers. We therefore request that the Bylaw explicitly state that catchment classifications apply only to Council-owned land (and any mapping be corrected accordingly).
1.3 In addition, we question the inclusion of restrictions on “undertaking any new activity related to dredging or mining of any kind” within clauses 4.11–4.13, including non-mechanised methods such as panning, high-banking, sniping or detecting.
1.4 Hobby gold mining is part of Otago’s historical fabric and should be enabled where reasonable. Dredging and mining activities are already comprehensively regulated under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), including through regional and district plans. These frameworks are specifically designed to assess and manage environmental effects, including those on water quality. Further, the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water) Regulations 2007 establish clear requirements for Councils establishing rules and granting consents to manage risks to drinking water sources.
1.5 Fuel storage and refuelling is carefully managed either through consent conditions or through Regional Plan:Water Rule 13.5.1.7. There is negligible risk to fuel loss within the catchment. In relation to the risk of contamination by hobby miners and toileting, this can be easily managed as part of any access agreement.
1.6 Sediment remobilised through hobby dredging will mostly fall out of the water column within 20m of the dredge, with only the finest sediment fractions remaining beyond 50m. There is no risk to the City water supply by the short-term and localised disturbance of the riverbed as part of hobby dredging. In the worst case scenario, during a high rain event the entire watercourse will be compromised by mobilised and Council’s treatment facilities are designed to manage entrained sediments in water.
1.7 In this context, singling out dredging and mining within the proposed Bylaw appears inconsistent, particularly when many other activities governed under the RMA have comparable or greater potential to affect water quality. The selective inclusion of these activities’ risks creating duplication, regulatory inconsistency, and unnecessary complexity.
1.8 We note the absence of any other limitations that may affect water quality in a far greater manner than the mobilisation of natural river sediments from dredging. There is no controls applied to pest poisoning within the catchment, the aerial application of fertiliser, herbicides or pesticides where spray-drift may occur. The use of foams in fire-fighting responses has also been ignored as a risk to water quality in the catchment, despite containing ‘forever’ chemicals, hydrocarbon surfactants and solvents. Despite the recent removal of some toxic compounds, the use of fire-fighting foams for aerial application are still considered a Class 9 hazardous substance. As recently as November 2019, aerial firefighting foams where used in the Deep Creek catchment closing the water supply take for some time. The application of these chemicals to the catchment is a risk many orders of magnitude greater than hobby mining to the water supply, yet only hobby mining is identified for control. This is illogical.
1.9 We consider that the proposed provisions may:
a) Duplicate existing statutory controls;
b) Create potential conflicts with RMA-based consenting processes;
c) Introduce uncertainty for resource users and decision-makers.
1.10 If the Council’s intent is to manage risks to drinking water sources, a more appropriate approach would be to rely on, and where necessary advocate for, robust implementation of existing RMA mechanisms rather than introducing overlapping Bylaw controls.
Recommendation 1
We request that:
The Bylaw be amended to clarify that catchment classifications apply only to Council-owned land; and
The associated mapping of catchments apply only to Council-owned land;
All references to dredging and mining activities in clauses 4.11–4.13 be removed.
Address the application of hazardous substances into the catchment rather than targeting hobby mining.
Alternatively, if the Council considers additional controls necessary, it should clearly justify why existing RMA and national environmental standard frameworks are insufficient, and ensure any additional provisions are effects-based, consistent, and legally robust.
Believe it or not whatever land doc MANAGE(are the stewards of) that land is owned by the local council. DOC own no land anywhere in NZ they are merely the stewards of it n.s
DOC think they own it and so do most of the councils, find top dude in the council and for some reason he is the only person who knows that they do in fact own the land,its bloody weird set up but i assure ya its true.
Land paid for by the rate payers. So who really owns the land?
JW 
Most river beds over 3m wide are owned by the Crown and usually managed by either DOC or LINZ, in fact most riverbeds are administered by LINZ. While local authorities like to think they have control over river beds, they only have control over lands that have tiles issued or are capable of having a title issued, so is DCC acting above the law with its By-law proposal?
You state queens chain to any govt dept they will claim all sorts of shit, ask them to put in writing queens chain doesnt exist on any specific river, i bet ya $1000 cash they will not put that in writing and send to ya.
I assure you they own nothing local council owned it before doc ever existed as govt depts cant buy sell between selves, doc were set up as stewards or managers. Only bugger seems to know without doubt is top council chap, everyone else regardless who they work for think doc own it. Im slowly opening eyes like i say coppers ask farmers and doc exactly where on map i am before they tell them hes right. N.s.thats on paper rds or doc land
Thats on paper rds or doc land had cops rung by farmers mayb 8 times and doc rung em 4 ,they came twice from farmers once from doc, i was never doing nothing wrong possuming mostly but few whitebaiting calls too. Now when my name comes up cops ask heaps of questions to farmer or doc and i can tell what theyve said by there face and attitude adjustment. Push every boundary amazing sometimes what ya find, i could tell ya a gold hack ya wouldnt believe either for why ya would only claim on 4 rivers in whole of nz, kamara pub read the old £1000 gold bounty offered for certain amount of gold found that river only one £1000 collected, any gold at time was £45 collected only collected 3 rivers then study bounty laws duration, £45 inflationary $240 000 imagine getting arrested with enough for £1000 inflationary. People can tell me a lot of things but not many can tell me about law true maritime law which any law ever written goes back too,here in nz govt write it in public domain as laws, very few are, and even if they are law they are unenforceable if ya reasons for being there are just. Cause maritime law rules this world,in nz thats king and queens law trumping any law written after no one can break those laws bring it to englands attention,then even police and doc start to listen,cause people at top of those chains who are untouchable by any others hate getting told off by england the ultimate disgrace. Lol
