To: Environment Committee

Parliament Buildings

Wellington

Submitter Details:

Full Name: Save Our Springs Aotearoa New Zealand Inc

Contact: Kevin Moran

Address for Service: 1075b Upper Tākaka Highway, RD1, 7183

Email: saveoursprings2018@gmail.com

13 February 2026

Submission on the Natural Environment Bill and Planning Bill

Introduction

1. Save Our Springs Aotearoa New Zealand Inc (SOS) is an incorporated society. It was

formed in 2017, and its current membership numbers around 120 people across

New Zealand. It currently has a list of just over 30,000 supporters. The primary

purpose of SOS is to protect the aquifers, lakes and rivers of Aotearoa New

Zealand. Actions the society may take to carry out this purpose include:

a. making submissions and advocating for the protection and care of any

aquifer, lake or river; and

b. disseminating information to inform the public about the state of these water

bodies and any threats to their health.

2. The focus of SOS’s work has been to protect the pristine waters of Te Waikoropupū

Springs, including restoring the health of the Tākaka catchment near the top of the

South Island and the aquifer that feeds the Springs. SOS was instrumentally involved

in the water conservation order (WCO) recently made in respect of the Springs.1

3. SOS thanks the Environment Committee for the opportunity to make a submission

on the Natural Environment Bill (NEB) and Planning Bill (PB) (together, the Bills).

4. The focus of our submission is on aspects relevant to WCOs, particularly:

a. The importance of retaining WCOs in the new system. WCOs remain

necessary as they provide the primary instrument for freshwater protection

equivalent to those established for coastal and terrestrial environments such

as marine reserves and national parks.

1 Te Puna Waiora o Te Waikoropupū Springs and Wharepapa Arthur Marble Aquifer Water

Conservation Order 2023

2

b. The deletion of “spiritual” and “cultural” purposes from the list of matters that

WCOs may provide for.2 SOS considers spiritual and cultural considerations

should be retained because deleting them would leave an unconscionable

and unjustifiable gap.

c. The restriction of appeals to points of law only.3 SOS considers merits

appeals to the Environment Court should be provided for, to improve rigour

and because the Environment Court is the most appropriate forum in which

contentious merits-based issues relating to the environment should be finally

considered and decided.

d. The express obligation on “the relevant consent authority” to monitor the

effect and implementation of a WCO.4 This is supported by SOS, but further

amendments are needed to clarify that consent authorities are responsible

for enforcing compliance.

Retaining WCOs is strongly supported

5. SOS strongly supports the retention of WCOs in the new resource management

system. Aotearoa New Zealand’s freshwater is under significant pressure from a

multitude of stressors, including from the effects of climate change and land use

intensification, and our most outstanding water bodies are not immune from these

effects.

5

6. WCOs offer powerful protection by setting rules which authorities must abide by

when managing outstanding waterbodies and associated land use activities. They

have been aptly described by some as the “national parks of freshwater” and,

without them, Aotearoa New Zealand’s outstanding water bodies will be at risk of

irreversible degradation.

2 Natural Environment Bill, Schedule 4 cl 1(2)(b)(v)

3 Natural Environment Bill, Schedule 4 cl 12

4 Natural Environment Bill, Schedule 4 cl 3(2)(d) and s 227

5 Ministry for the Environment & Stats NZ (2023) New Zealand’s Environmental Reporting Series:

Our freshwater 2023, available here; Ministry for the Environment & Stats NZ (2025) New Zealand’s

Environmental Reporting Series: Our environment 2025 | Tō tātou taiao, available here

3

Figure 1: New Zealand’s existing water conservation orders (N.B. the Order for Te Waikoropupū

Springs was confirmed in 2023. Orders for Ngaruroro and Clive rivers remain under consideration).6

7. Given the ongoing and significant decline of quality and ecological health of

Aotearoa New Zealand’s water bodies, water conservation orders remain a critical

tool in the planning toolbox. They remain necessary as they provide the primary

instrument for freshwater protection equivalent to those established for coastal and

terrestrial environments such as marine reserves and national parks.

8. The provisions of the NEB relating to WCOs (Schedule 4 and s 124) are very similar to

those found in the RMA. However, some changes have been made that have

6 Ministry for the Environment Information sheet: Water conservation orders, available here

4

significant implications for the identification and protection of outstanding

waterbodies. These are addressed below.

Spiritual and cultural aspects should be reinstated

9. The NEB reduces the types of characteristics of a water body which may be identified

for protection as outstanding, by removing cultural and spiritual considerations from

cl 1(2)(b)(v) of Schedule 4.

10. SOS considers cultural and spiritual considerations should be reinstated. They are

currently recognised in s 199 RMA and have been applied effectively. Deleting them

would leave a significant gap, because it would exclude important relational and

deeply human aspects of spirituality such as sacredness that may not otherwise be

protected. The concept of spiritual or sacred waters connotes a pristine quality,

rather than a functional but degraded water quality.

11. Furthermore, the Courts and other decision-makers are well-used to considering

Māori spiritual and cultural values of outstanding waterbodies under cl 199(2)(c).7

That clause has largely been retained in the NEB (except that the reference to

tikanga has been deleted).

8 SOS supports the retention of that clause and would

support reinstatement of the reference to tikanga Māori in that clause to avoid

continuing erosion of indigenous rights.

12. However, SOS submits that it would be inconsistent to protect waterbodies’

outstanding Māori cultural and spiritual values while refusing to protect outstanding

cultural and spiritual values where they are held by non-Māori.

Rangitata River

13. Spiritual and cultural values are listed as outstanding characteristics of the Rangitata

River in the Rangitata River WCO.9

14. The Special Tribunal that considered the Rangitata WCO application considered:10

“spiritual purposes” to be those that concern the dimension of reality that gives worth

or value to something that is witnessed or experienced; this dimension is intangible

and resists definition and measurement, but it is readily understood from

comparable experiences.

7 Section 199(2)(c) is: The protection of characteristics which any water body has or contributes

to, and which are considered to be of outstanding significance in accordance with tikanga Māori

8 Clause 1(2)(c) of Sch 4 NEB

9 Ministry for the Environment, Water Conservation (Rangitata River) Order 2006 (NZ Gazette, 23

June 2006), Schedule 2

10

Rangitata River Water Conservation Order Application, Report by the Special Tribunal (October

2002), at [326]

5

15. The Tribunal further considered:11

Cultural and spiritual attributes are closely linked and cover a spectrum of values. We

consider that the following characteristics contribute to cultural and spiritual values:

• shared community history

• inter-generational transfer of cultural values, information and skills

• physical health and sustenance

• significance for present and future generations

• contribution to spiritual and cultural cohesion

• spiritual continuity.

16. The Tribunal described evidence from submitters about the feelings and emotion

they experienced at the River, and their attachment to it.12 These included explicit

comments about spirituality, such as experiencing "the powerful aura of the place"

and being "inexplicably attracted to the Rangitata River".13 They also included

experiences not explicitly labelled as spiritual:14

In addition to those who mentioned spiritual values directly, others spoke of similar

feelings including: the magic of the Rangitata River, the pure pleasure of being there

and how it has held a spell over their lives. They spoke of the peace, tranquillity, the

beauty and grandeur, and the inherent wild and scenic qualities, especially in the

upper river. The wild turbulence of the white water in the gorge and the sheer

volume of water in this river demands respect (Tipa 2000). The feeling of space and

wideness of the sky at the mouth, and beautiful sunrises and sunsets were described.

17. In relation to the relevant factors of spirituality, the Tribunal concluded:15

It is not only Māori who perceive that water bodies, especially those largely in a

natural state, have a life-giving vitality. The value of the river for these purposes is

clearly something that is wider than their fishing or other active and passive

recreational pursuits. The factors that are considered to provide the spiritual importance

are generally those that are linked to the highly natural appearance, as well as the wild

character and behaviour of the river. We note that in the lower [braided] river, these

values persist under the current flow regime even where the waters are no longer in

their natural state.

18. In relation to assessment of whether the relevant spiritual values were outstanding,

the Tribunal did not measure the spiritual values on a comparative national basis.

The Tribunal found that spirituality “resists definition and measurement”,

11 At [329]

12 At [331]-[334]

13 At [331]

14 At [332]

15 At [340], emphasis added

6

presumably because it recognised that spirituality is related to “something that is

witness or experienced”.16 The evidence summarised by the Tribunal of experiences

and emotions were related to the River itself. The Tribunal concluded that the

spiritual aspects “are very special, and therefore outstanding”.17 The closest the

Tribunal came to measurement was to note that the spiritual connections with the

River were “strong”.18

19. No person appealed or questioned the Tribunal’s findings on outstanding spiritual

characteristics,19 and they were included in the Draft Order.20 The final Order

includes spiritual values as outstanding characteristics of the Rangitata River.21

20. It is also noted that earlier decisions have also used other terms for assessment. For

example, pre-RMA, “outstanding” was defined as “conspicuous”, “eminent”, “special

by excellence” or “standing out from the rest”.22 It was confirmed in the first WCO

inquiry held under the RMA that the word “outstanding” in the RMA should be

interpreted in the same manner as it had under the previous legislation (the Water

and Soil Conservation Act 1967).23

Te Waikoropupū Springs

21. Spiritual and cultural values are also listed as outstanding characteristics of Te

Waikoropupū Springs in the Te Waikoropupū Springs WCO.24

22. The Special Tribunal considering the Water Conservation Order for Te Waikoropupū

Springs received some evidence on the Springs' spiritual values.25 The evidence that

was received was "from a wide variety of submitters regarding their emotional

response when experiencing the Springs’ environment"; this was considered "to be

evidence of the spiritual aspect and values of the Springs".26

16 At [326]

17 At [341], emphasis added

18 At [340]

19 Interim Report on a Proposed Rangitata Water Conservation Order, EnvC, C109/2004 (5 Aug

2004), at [102]

20 Clause 4, at Appendix 5.2

21 Ministry for the Environment, Water Conservation (Rangitata River) Order 2006 (NZ Gazette, 23

June 2006), clause 4

22 Re National Water Conservation (Mataura River) Order 1989 (Planning Tribunal, C 32/90, 4 May

1990) at 40

23 Re National Water Conservation (Kawarau) Order 1993 (Planning Tribunal, C 33/96, 13 June 1996)

at 20

24 Te Puna Waiora o Te Waikoropupū Springs and Wharepapa Arthur Marble Aquifer Water

Conservation Order 2023, cl 5(2)(a) and 5(2)(h)

25 Special Tribunal recommendation report on the application for Water Conservation Order on

Te Waikoropupū Springs and associated water bodies (March 2020) at [305].

26 At [309] (footnote omitted)

7

23. SOS produced evidence to the Environment Court on the spiritual qualities of Te

Waikoropupū Springs. This evidence draws on existing information regarding

peoples’ spiritual connection to the Springs, in terms of the characteristics set out in

the Rangitata Tribunal report.

24. A consultant’s report on community perceptions of Te Waikoropupū Springs found

that the community participants wanted the spiritual characteristics of Te

Waikoropupū acknowledged and protected.27

This Report is clear that the vision of

the participants was wide and inclusive, and not limited to the Māori cultural

dimension of spirituality, referring to the Springs as “sacred”,28 as an “essential

treasure”29, as “a place of pilgrimage and spiritual learning”30, and as” a place of

healing and spiritual renewal”.31 It was noted that:32

... visits [to the Springs] are primarily about contemplation of the wonders of nature and

reverence for important spiritual and sacred waters.

25. It was explained to the Court how people find the Springs to have a sacredness that

is unique and spiritually renewing and hence outstanding (and extraordinary). The

Environment Court held:33

Those are of course personal experiences. Nevertheless, our site visits enabled us to

appreciate how the special qualities of the Springs include the way people experience

them as spiritually rejuvenating and renewing. It is associated with the vibrancy and

purity of the waters in their peaceful setting. We adjudge that the Springs have

outstanding spiritual values.

26. All parties involved in the WCO application agreed with the inclusion of spiritual

values in the WCO as an outstanding characteristic of Te Waikoropupū Springs.

27. Humans have always had a connection with water that goes beyond the practical.

The ancient Greeks revered sacred springs as sources of divine power, associated

with healing, prophecy, and religious rituals. 19th century Europeans recognised the

therapeutic value of water. That connection lives on. SOS invites members of the

Environment Committee who have not previously visited Te Waikoropupū Springs to

do so, and to experience for themselves the deeply human and undeniably spiritual

feelings that arise in the presence of this waterbody.

27 Lucas Associates, Te Waikoropupū Community Consultation Report (1999). [Report produced for

the Department of Conservation and Tasman District Council, June 1999.]

28 At p 8

29 At p 9

30 At p 20

31 At p 22

32 At p 67

33 Ngāti Tama ki te Waipounamu Trust and Andrew Yuill [2023] NZEnvC 157, at [54]

8

28. If the reference to “cultural” and “spiritual” values is not included as an outstanding

characteristic in the NEB, this will unjustifiably prevent other water bodies being

recognised and protected as outstanding on this basis.

Merits appeals to the Environment Court should be enabled

29. Unlike s 209 of the RMA,34 cl 12 of Schedule 4 restricts appeals to the Environment

Court to points of law only.

30. SOS considers this should be amended to allow appeals on merits in the same way

as s 209 RMA, because:

a. Most WCOs currently in place have undergone merits appeals and this is a

critical step as the Environment Court’s inquiry provides an added layer of

scrutiny, including further fine-tuning, of a proposed order. The inquiry into

merits enables a more rigorous testing of expert evidence, including via

cross-examination and Court facilitated conferencing, to determine whether

values meet relevant criteria or whether an order is in fact necessary.

b. The Environment Court is the most appropriate forum in which contentious

merits-based issues relating to the environment should be finally considered

and decided. The Court is often called upon to make judgments, based on

evidence, on the level or magnitude of considerations similar to those

required for WCOs, and it is not appropriate for Ministerially-appointed

special tribunals to be the only (and final) decision maker on these matters.

Councils should be tasked with monitoring and enforcement

31. SOS supports the monitoring requirements under cl 3(2)(d) of Sch 4 and s 227 of the

NEB. Clause 3(2)(d) will help to clarify that councils must undertake monitoring in

relation to WCOs and assist regional councils in undertaking their responsibilities,

including regulating and managing water quality and quantity, under cl 221.

32. However, SOS considers further amendments are needed to clarify that consent

authorities are responsible for enforcing compliance. Consent authorities are best

placed to enforce direct compliance with WCOs, rather than the Minister for the

Environment.

Recommendations

33. SOS recommends that the WCO provisions in the NEB are retained, subject to the

following amendments:

a. Clause 1(2)(b) of Sch 4 of the NEB is amended to include “cultural and

spiritual” values.

34 RMA, s 209

9

b. Clause 1(2)(c) of Sch 4 of the NEB is amended to refer to “outstanding

significance ... in accordance with tikanga Māori”.

c. Clause 12 of Sch 4 is amended to enable merits appeals to the Environment

Court.

d. In Part 6 “Enforcement and other matters” the words “restriction or

prohibition in a water conservation order” should be added to listed matters

in: NEB clauses 243(1), 245(1)(a)(i), the definition of “incident”, 258(1)(a)(i),

(b)(i), and (d)(iii), 266(1)(a)(i), (b)(i).

a. “Any relevant water conservation order” should be added to the listed

matters in cl 97(2)(a) of the NEB and cl 80(2) of the PB.

Wish to be heard

34. SOS wishes to be heard in support of this submission.

Kevin Moran and Ione Grace

For Save our Springs Aotearoa New Zealand Inc.

Full Name: Save Our Springs Aotearoa New Zealand Inc

Contact: Kevin Moran

Address for Service: 1075b Upper Tākaka Highway, RD1, 7183

Email: saveoursprings2018@gmail.com