Fish and Game posted this photograph on Twitter of cattle getting "free access" to Canterbury's Lake Taylor.

Not one Canterbury land owner has been prosecuted for allowing stock to roam in waterways, despite nearly 500 complaints being lodged with the regional council (ECan) about the issue.

ECan staff visited a North Canterbury farm owned by Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias on Wednesday, following a complaint by holidaymaker Allan Brown, who photographed cattle from the farm wading in Lake Taylor north of Hawarden.

It is the third complaint since 2012 filed against The Lakes station, which Elias owns with her husband, businessman Hugh Fletcher.

SUPPLIED Cattle grazing on the shore of Lake Ellesmere, as seen from the Little River Rail Trail, in 2012.

A former complainant described a "disturbing amount of cow shit" at Lake Sumner, which is also on the property, and said the farmer was "riding roughshod" over other users of the area.

READ MORE: Cattle belonging to chief justice are repeat offenders

Seven months later, an angler said he saw both cattle and sheep in Lake Taylor.

On Monday, Fletcher acknowledged to RNZ that he occasionally let the cows into the lake on hot days.



ECan had yet to decide if it would take further action against Elias and Fletcher.



The maximum fine is $750.



Data from ECan reveals 479 complaints have been made regarding animals in waterways since 2011, including sightings of pigs, horses, dead sheep, and hundreds of cattle at a time in lakes and rivers.

The sightings include 15 complaints regarding stock at high country lakes Lake Pearson and Lake Grasmere, and sightings near popular swimming spots such as Coe's Ford.

None of the 479 complaints were prosecuted in court, and just 12 resulted in abatement notices.

About 71 per cent of complaints were followed up with field visits by ECan staff.

Monitoring and compliance manager Marty Mortiaux said most offences did not require enforcement action.

"Our first course of action is to work with farmers to ensure they understand the rules and keep stock out. This approach generally results in not having repeat offenders, so further enforcement action is not required."

He said rules had become stricter over time, and staff directed their efforts towards intensive farming situations where the impacts were likely to be worse.

Documents from ECan show some farmers had been reported multiple times for allowing their stock to access waterways, with some refusing to comply with warnings from enforcement officers.

One complainant said they had been threatened by a farmer after confronting him about his stock.

Federated Farmers North Canterbury president Frank Brenmuhl did not believe failure to exclude stock from waterways was a widespread issue, and said most farmers were proactive.

He said the situation involving Elias and Fletcher was "unfortunate."

"We're not happy with it, simply because it's bad publicity. But it also takes the focus away from what we consider to be real issues."

Those issues included waste, such as rubbish and faeces, left by people at sites such as Lake Taylor.

Green Party water spokeswoman Catherine Delahunty said farmers had an obligation to keep their stock out of waterways.

"There's not much point in a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket about this. Fresh water should not have stock in it anywhere."

The Government's standard for wadeable, not swimmable rivers, was a low bar, and projected a message that protecting waterways was not as important as it should be.

"There needs to be some leadership. Maybe a fine of $750 is insufficient to deter people doing this. We really do need total exclusion, and councils need the power and the political will to enforce this properly."

Path to prosecution:

Before a prosecution takes place, several warnings can be issued to those breaking the rules.

Written and verbal warnings are used for minor offences, and simply allege an offence against the owner.

An abatement notice is a formal written notice, issued by a warranted officer, requiring certain actions and a timeline to resolve what they believe (on the balance of probabilities) to be an issue.

The next step, an infringement notice, alleges an offence and requires payment of a fine — in this case up to $750. Payment of the fine means there is no criminal conviction.

Prosecution is the final step.