PROFILE: Comparative Analysis of New Zealand and US Approaches for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Management

/ Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution from widespread agricultural/pastoral land use in New Zealand can result in receiving water quality problems, but the Resource Management Act of 1991 requires the sustainable management of land and water resources. Many similar types of problems occur in the United States, where the Clean Water Act is the primary legislation addressing NPS pollution and progress has been made on the development and use of a variety of management approaches. However, little evaluation and comparison of approaches or cooperation between the two countries has occurred in the past. This type of analysis could provide information that is useful for more effective management of the problem. The goal of this study is to evaluate and compare approaches used in New Zealand and the United States for management of agricultural NPS pollution.The role of the central government in New Zealand is generally limited to research and policy development, and regional councils are responsible for most monitoring and management of the problem. The role of the federal government in the United States includes research and monitoring, policy development, and regulation. States also have a significant management role. Both countries rely on voluntary approaches for NPS pollution management. Very few national water quality standards exist in New Zealand, whereas standards are widely used in the United States. Loading estimates and modeling are often used in the United States, but not in New Zealand. A wide range of best management practices (BMPs) are used in the United States, including buffer strips and constructed/engineered wetlands. Buffer strips and riparian management have been emphasized and used widely in New Zealand.Many approaches are common to both countries, but management of the problem has only been partly successful. The primary barriers are the inadequacy of the voluntary approach and the lack of scientific tools that are useful to decision-makers. More work needs to be performed on the evaluation of approaches developed in both countries that could be applied in the other countries. In addition, more cooperation and information/technology transfer between the two countries should be encouraged in the future.