Agenda of Environmental Management Committee

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 10 November 2010

SUBJECT: Submission on Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill

REASON FOR REPORT:

1. The Government has released the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill and is inviting submissions. The Bill follows an independent review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 (‘FSA’) which was part of the National Party and Maori Party coalition government agreement.

2. This paper presents an overview of the Bill’s key features as described in the media release by Minister Christopher Finlayson. The paper then proposes a submission be lodged on the Bill before the closing deadline of 19 November 2010.

Background

3. In 2009, an independent Ministerial review panel concluded that:

3.1. the FSA was discriminatory and unfair; and

3.2. failed to balance the interests of all New Zealanders in the foreshore and seabed.

4. Now, the Bill:

4.1. Repeals the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.

4.2. Applies to the area formerly known as the foreshore and seabed, which will be known in future as the ‘marine and coastal area.’ This extends from mean high water springs to the 12 nautical mile limit (approx 22km offshore).

4.3. Creates a common space in the marine and coastal area (the ‘common marine and coastal area’) which allows the interests and rights of all New Zealanders in the marine and coastal area to be recognised in law.

4.4. Proposes common marine and coastal area as incapable of being owned (as opposed to FSA which vested ownership in Crown).

4.5. Guarantees free public access in the common marine and coastal area.

4.6. Does not affect private titles in the marine and coastal area.

4.7. Guarantees and, in some cases, extends existing rights for navigation, ports, fishing and aquaculture.

4.8. Provides for the customary interests and rights of Maori in the common marine and coastal area to be recognised in three ways:

4.8.1. Customary marine title - the right to go to the High Court (or negotiate an out-of-court settlement with the Crown) to seek customary marine title for areas with which groups such as iwi and hapu have a longstanding and exclusive history of use and occupation. Customary marine title will:

· be subject to the right of public access and cannot be sold;

· give rights to permit activities requiring a resource consent (known as a ‘RMA permission right’), some conservation activities, protection of wahi tapu, ownership of taonga tuturu found in that space, and ownership of non-Crown minerals (ie: not petroleum, gold, silver, and uranium).

· give title holder the right to create a planning document setting out objectives and policies for the area. Councils must recognise and provide for the planning document in their regional plans and regional policy statements.

4.8.2. Protected customary right - groups such as iwi and hapu will also be able to gain recognition and protection for longstanding customary rights that continue to be exercised.

4.8.3. Mana tuku iho – iwi and hapu groups will also be recognised through a status known as mana tuku iho, which formalises existing best practice in coastal management. This will allow them to take part in conservation processes in the common marine and coastal area (eg: establishment of marine reserves and conservation areas, and the management of stranded marine mammals).

4.9. retains current ownership of roads and structures in common marine and coastal area. Abandoned structures shall pass to the Crown.

4.10. preserves any leases, permits, resources consents, licences etc granted before Bill becomes an Act.

4.11. does not affect the regulation of activities within the common marine and coastal area under other legislation. In particular, there is no change to the granting of resource consents, except that an ‘RMA permission right’ may apply to an area within a customary marine title area.

4.12. ‘RMA permission rights’ do not apply to existing structures or infrastructure that is nationally or regionally significant. This exception may also apply to new structures or infrastructure deemed nationally or regionally significant by the Minister of Land Information.

5. The Bill has been referred to the Maori Affairs Select Committee. Closing date for submissions is 19 November 2010.

Council Submission

6. There are strong similarities between the Bill’s proposals and the regime that applies under the existing FSA. There are some obvious differences, the most notable being no ownership of the marine and coastal area as opposed to the Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed.

7. Senior council staff have reviewed the Bill’s explanatory papers and participated in technical workshops with government officials and facilitated by Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ). The Bill itself is an extremely complicated piece of legislation.

8. LGNZ has led the way for assessing implications of the Bill for local government, particularly regional authorities. LGNZ intend making a detailed submission on the Bill. To inform that submission, LGNZ commissioned a legal opinion in response to a number of questions around clarity, implementation, and jurisdictional arrangements set out in the Bill. Copies of that legal opinion will be circulated to Committee members when finalised by LGNZ.

9. Given the complexity of the Bill itself and LGNZ’s intention to lodge a very detailed submission, it is recommended that Council still make a submission on the Bill. A draft submission is set out in Attachment 1. The draft submission does not tackle the detail (but LGNZ’s submission will). The draft submission focuses on presenting a ‘Hawke's Bay flavour’ of the Bill’s implications.

10. Due to timing of Council meetings relative to 19 November submission deadline, a decision is required at this meeting so a submission can be formally endorsed and lodged prior to the scheduled Council meeting on 24 November 2010. Under changes made to the Terms of Reference for Committees in July 2009 (and possibly to be restated at Council’s First Ordinary meeting on Wednesday 3 November), a Committee may make a decision that is a binding decision of Council if the matter is one of urgency and is agreed to by the Committee unanimously. It is suggested that the Committee exercise this delegated power for this matter.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS:

11. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

11.1. Sections 97 and 98 of the Act do not apply as these relate to decisions that significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

11.2. Sections 83 and 84 covering special consultative procedure do not apply.

11.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of the Council’s policy on significance.

11.4. The persons affected by this decision are all entitled to also make a submission on the Bill.

11.5. The options considered are to make a submission on the Bill or not to make a submission.

11.6. Section 80 of the Act covering decisions that are inconsistent with an existing policy or plan does not apply.

11.7. Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others having given due consideration to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the decisions to be made.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the Environmental Management Committee :

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.

2. Agrees to lodge the attached submission to the Maori Affairs Select Committee on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, subject to any further amendments arising at the meeting.

3. That the Committee decides to exercise its delegated powers to make a decision that will have the same effect as the local authority could itself have exercised or performed and that the decision deserves urgency and the decision is carried unanimously.

Gavin Ide

Team Leader Policy

Liz Lambert

Group Manager External Relations

Attachment/s

1 View

Draft submission on Marine & Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill

Draft submission on Marine & Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill

Attachment 1

November 2010

Our Ref :4/42/1

Clerk of the Committee

Maori Affairs Select Committee

Parliament Buildings
WELLINGTON

via online submission at www.parliament .govt.nz

Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill

SUBMITTER: HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

1. Introduction

1.1. The following submission by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has been prepared in response to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. Councillors formally considered the submission at a meeting held on 10 November 2010.

1.2. In addition, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is a member of Local Government New Zealand and supports the submission lodged by Local Government New Zealand. We acknowledge LGNZ’s submission is thorough and addresses many details in virtually a clause by clause analysis. Our submission does not intend repeating that detail.

1.3. This submission should be read as an endorsement and extension of LGNZ’s detailed submission. The Council’s submission sets out more general comments providing a local ‘flavour’ to the Bill’s implications for Hawke's Bay.

2. general statement

2.1. The Council supports the intent of the Bill in seeking to ensure public access to the coastal marine area and the preservation of navigation rights for all. We also support the Bill’s proposal providing clarity and certainty around preservation of existing reclamations, permits, consents etc, and the associated ownership of structures and infrastructure.

2.2. The Council also offers qualified support to the provisions of the Bill which seek to provide recognition for customary rights of Maori in the use of coastal resources.

2.3. However, we do not support the establishment of those rights for Maori to undertake activities outside of the environmental management frameworks established under the RMA.

3. Council and IWi/Hapu Relationships

3.1. The Council also works collaboratively with a wide range of interest groups, stakeholder and kaitiaki for the maintenance and enhancement of coastal resources. The Council actively engages with iwi/hapu in undertaking its extensive range of activities and projects.

3.2. There are nine Treaty Claimant Groups with interests in Hawke's Bay. The Council is currently in discussions with each of those groups about the form and function of a ‘joint plan committee.’ This committee would oversee the review and development of the regional policy statement and regional plans for Hawke’s Bay including any plans for the coastal marine area.

3.3. The co-governance of natural resources as proposed in Hawke’s Bay has the potential to circumvent the need for the recognition and provision for a plethora of planning documents that could apply along the Hawke’s Bay coastline.

4. Protected Customary rights

4.1. The Council does not support the Bill’s proposal for ‘protected customary rights.’ The Council supports acknowledgement of long-standing customary use of resources along parts of the region’s coast, but we do not support the proposal for such rights to be virtually immune from the current RMA framework.

4.2. The Council has prepared a second generation regional coastal plan (combined with regional plan provisions for the wider coastal environment). That ‘Regional Coastal Environment Plan’ (RCEP) has been through an open consultative process with the Hawke's Bay community to determine an appropriate regime for the management of the region’s natural and physical coastal resources. The RCEP manages the effects of activities in accordance with the principles of the RMA and in doing so, gives effect to the 1994 NZ Coastal Policy Statement.^{^[1]} The Council does not support the Bill’s proposal for protected customary rights to be allowed irrespective of degree of their environmental impact.

4.3. While the Bill does provide for monitoring and intervention by the Minister in protected customary rights if there are significant adverse effects, the Council considers those provisions to be inappropriately reactive rather than proactive sound resource management practice. The environment could suffer irreversible damage prior to necessary conditions being put in place under the Bill’s proposals.

4.4. The Council also opposes the Bill’s proposal for ‘protected customary rights’ in relation to abilities for protected customary rights:

a) to potentially be undertaken in a contemporary setting (ie: not restricted to historic and traditional methods, but potentially undertaken using 21st century techniques and technologies); and

b) to be undertaken for commercial purposes; and

c) to be transferred to third parties.

4.5. The full exercise of the above rights could have perverse and undesirable outcomes for the location, scale and type of activities undertaken in Hawke's Bay’s coastal area.

4.6. The Council considers that the same resource management regime should apply to all activities regardless of what proprietary rights exist to establish the activity.

4.7. In Hawke's Bay, the Council is not aware of any evidence to suggest any customary activities have faced undue problems or interference arising from the RMA and regional coastal plans since 1991.

5. Planning documents

5.1. The Council does not support the Bill’s proposal for incorporation of ‘planning documents,’ prepared by customary marine title holders, into regional planning documents. By virtue of the requirement to “recognise and provide for” such planning documents, the Bill elevates these planning documents to the same status as matters of national importance (under s6, RMA). This may occur without the open consultative engagement expected of councils when preparing regional policy statements, regional plans or district plans. Planning documents can cover a wide array of matters, but of most concern to us is the manner in which they can be prepared (ie: without any public or council input) followed by the consequential inclusion of the document into the RPS and/or regional plans.

5.2. It is the Council’s opinion that the Bill’s proposals regarding preparation of planning documents and their subsequent incorporation into regional planning documents shows little consideration for existing statutory processes under the RMA. This results in the Bill elevating planning documents to an unjust and untenable status all without consultation or reference to existing statutory frameworks.

5.3. We suggest that planning documents prepared by customary marine title holders should be accommodated within the existing RMA framework and not elevated to a matter of national importance without a fuller open consultative process for their preparation.

6. Infrastructure

6.1. The Bill will have implications for the Council’s asset management role and infrastructure, particularly flood control works in river mouths and estuarine locations of the coastal marine area. While the Bill provides for existing ‘nationally or regionally significant’ infrastructure (ie: within the meaning of ‘accommodated activity’ in Clause 8(2)), we consider the Bill misses an opportunity to properly provide for new nationally or regionally significant infrastructure.

6.2. By way of example, Council sometimes erects hard defences along margins of river channels to prevent damage to stop banks. A type of reinforced concrete armouring has been constructed at Haumoana on Tukituki River to protect stop banks and prevent major flood risk to the community. Tukituki River design capacity at 4800cumecs. Severe and extensive flooding would occur if the stop banks failed. This armouring sits within bed of river and is within the Marine and Coastal Area. Regardless of ownership, RMA permissions could restrict or prohibit further flood protection works, despite their significance to the regional and national productivity.

6.3. We recommend that the meaning of ‘accommodated activities’ be amended to include all ‘nationally or regionally significant’ infrastructure – regardless of whether it is existing, upgraded or new.

6.4. The Council is now a 100% shareholder in Port of Napier Limited – the port company for Port of Napier. It is imperative long-term investment decisions made by the Port company reflect infrastructural nature of assets being developed. Port of Napier is totally dependent on reclaimed land for current and future land requirements. We accept that the Bill attempts to consolidate existing property rights approval procedures for reclamations (as distinct from resource consenting processes). Economic development of Hawke’s Bay and other regions like it could be severely curtailed if ports cannot secure title and tenure for future reclamations and wharf developments.

6.5. Compared to the Foreshore and Seabed Act’s provisions for reclamations, we support the Bill’s proposals for developers of reclaimed land to have ‘first option’ on applying for property rights. Without this improved certainty of occupancy and ownership, ports may not reclaim foreshore and seabed.

7. Ministerial Discretion and Regional Council Functions under RMA

7.1. The Council is concerned with the extent of proposed Ministerial RMA discretions under the Bill. These discretions are not required to draw on any policy contained within any regional planning documents prepared under the RMA. This is not acceptable given the complex processes and commitment of resources to develop plans in the first place. The discretions must to take into account policy and regulatory frameworks already developed under the RMA (eg: NZCPS, RPS, RCP, etc). These planning documents have all involved extensive public consultation often in combination with detailed scientific research and information.

7.2. We reiterate that many of the Ministerial discretionary RMA powers are reactive to environmental impact rather than proactive sound resource management practice.

7.3. Council notes that the Bill (in Schedule 3) proposes replacing s30(1)(d)(ii) of the RMA. The effect of the substitution as proposed would be significant on the respective roles and responsibility of regional councils and the Minister of Conservation. However, government officials have recently indicated that the replacement clause contains a drafting error (the word “not” unintentionally appears). We assume officials will bring this error to the Select Committee’s attention for it to be remedied.

7.4. We would support the error being corrected. In effect, the correct would revert roles and responsibility for controlling occupation of the common marine and coastal area to regional councils. Similarly, the correction would maintain the status quo with regional councils having responsibility for control of extraction of sand, gravel, shell etc in the common marine and coastal area.

8. Hearing of submission

8.1. Council wishes to appear at the Select Committee meeting on this Bill to be heard on this submission.

Yours faithfully

Fenton Wilson

CHAIRMAN

Address for service: Hawke's Bay Regional Council

Private Bag 6006

NAPIER 4142

Attn: Gavin Ide

p: (06) 833-8077

f: (06) 835-3601

e: gavin@hbrc.govt.nz

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 10 November 2010

SUBJECT: Review of Compliance Monitoring Programme for Domestic On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems

REASON FOR REPORT

1. To explore options for more cost effective and efficient approaches to the compliance programme for domestic wastewater consent monitoring while at the same time ensuring compliance with resource consent conditions and achieving environmental outcomes expected by the RRMP.

Background

2. Compliance monitoring of discharge consents for domestic on-site waste water treatment plants commenced in 1999 with approximately 10 consents issued. The Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) was notified in April 2000. Rules 35 and 37 of the RRMP permit discharges of waste water from existing and new domestic on-site waste water systems provided minimum performance standards and criteria are met. If these are not met, then a resource consent is required for the discharge. Rule 35 also stipulates that existing systems that are modified after April 2000 are considered to be new systems that may require consent under Rule 37.

3. The current monitoring programme arose from the last Council endorsed review in July 2004 when there were 164 consents. The total number of consents has continued to increase and currently there are 513 consents for domestic onsite wastewater systems.

Growth of domestic on-site discharge consents

4. The above graph clearly demonstrates the growth in resource consent numbers for this activity. As a result of this growth a greater amount of staff time has been required to resource this programme for what is relatively low risk activities at the expense of more compliance inspections of higher risk activities.

5. Rules for domestic on-site waste water discharges are the subject of a plan change process currently in progress. Council has previously endorsed July – October 2011 as an indicative timeframe for this plan change (and several others relating to infrastructure and growth).

6. A National Environmental Standard (NES) for On-site Wastewater Systems was proposed in August 2008, this is currently on hold. The Ministry for the Environment is considering options to amend the proposed NES based on the feedback received during consultation. The NES, if it proceeds, will require owners in specific “hot spot” locations to obtain and hold a ‘warrant of fitness’ confirming their system is functioning properly and is being maintained to appropriate standards.

Current consenting and monitoring programme in Hawke’s Bay

7. Council’s current policy is that the overall compliance programme for all activities is based on a 70%/30% split between private good and public good funding. To achieve this, the programme needs to charge 100% of all costs directly attributable to resource consent compliance monitoring to consent holders.

8. The current monitoring programme for on-site wastewater treatment systems is detailed in Council’s Annual Plan and consists of:

8.1. An initial inspection for all consented systems after installation, charged to the consent holder ($305 + GST).

8.2. Three yearly ‘audit monitoring’ for system types that HBRC has tested and is confident of a satisfactory level of treatment (systems accredited as part of the Audit Monitoring programme). This includes a site visit and a sample taken for analysis. A review in 2004 resulted in the cost of these inspections being met 100% by the general rate and not passed onto the consent holder. This was as a result of submissions to Council from some domestic discharge consent holders who objected strongly to being charged for monitoring costs. This is further discussed below.

8.3. Annual monitoring for individual consented systems not included in the Audit Monitoring Programme, or where there are site constraints, is charged to the consent holder ($305 + GST).

9. The sample analysis information gathered through the audit programme has shown that although not all secondary treatment plants are consistently meeting 30/30 (30 mg/L BOD₅, 30 mg/L suspended solids) the level of treatment is significantly greater than the majority of un-consented systems which are believed to be mainly septic tanks. Collection of this data has little use for environmental monitoring, being of more use to the industry than HBRC. Consented secondary treatment systems also receive six monthly service checks from the installer.

10. The initial inspection for consented systems is also seen as a duplication of tasks by installers and consent holders because the TLA drainage inspector also inspects the waste water system under the Building Act if a TLA building consent has also been required. This perceived duplication is more perception than reality as the building inspector’s inspection stops at the ‘treatment system’ and does not assess the disposal field.

11. The existing compliance monitoring program has a high cost, of approximately $45,000 per year on the general rate and does not monitor the effects of the older higher risk septic tanks in our communities that are more likely to have an adverse effect on the environment.

12. The programme has struggled to meet 100% cost recovery in the domestic on-site discharge programme. This is in the main due to a disproportionate amount of time spent with new manufacturers/installers, chasing up some existing manufacturers/installers for information for they should be supplying and general liaison with the industry. An increasing number of consents and rising costs will add to this in the future.

13. For the 2009/2010 year, $30,544 was spent on initial inspections of which $15,555 was recovered (nett cost $14,684). An additional $30,073 was spent on the Audit programme which is funded by general rate.

New Consenting Approach

14. A new standardised consent template approach has been developed for all domestic on-site wastewater discharge consent applications in order to reduce processing costs for applicants. Additional monitoring conditions are typically added for higher risk sites and conversely less onerous consent conditions for low risk sites resulting in cheaper compliance costs.

15. The current compliance monitoring programme focuses on consented discharges only. These are generally secondary treatment systems that produce a higher level of treatment and therefore a lower level of environmental risk.

16. However consented systems, and therefore monitored systems, make up only a small proportion of all domestic discharges, estimated at less than 10% (i.e. up to 90% are permitted activities/un-consented).

17. This is seen as an inequity and a source of frustration for many consent holders. Consent holders who have invested heavily in a secondary treatment plant ($12,000 to $20,000) that produces higher quality effluent, achieves more even effluent distribution, and therefore poses less of a threat to the environment, incur consent processing and compliance monitoring costs. A neighbour who may have a septic tank in an equally high risk situation attracts no consent processing or compliance monitoring costs.

18. The review in 2004 partially addressed this inequity by instigating the “audit programme” Consent holders who installed a system type that had been tested and “approved” by HBRC received three yearly compliance visits, the cost of which is met from the general rate.

19. However, since 2004 the number of wastewater consents issued has tripled to just over 500, resulting in the nett cost to the ratepayer increasing to $45,000 in 2010.

Options for moving forward

20. Staff have reviewed the programme and believe that greater cost efficiencies and effectiveness can be achieved given the current situation outlined above. Detailed below are two options for continuing the waste water monitoring programme.

Option 1. Maintain the Status Quo.

With a continued steady increase in the number of domestic discharge consents issued, by 2015 the cost to the general rate is predicted to be in the order of $67,000.

Option 2. Revise the consenting and monitoring programme.

21. Staff believe that a better process can be achieved in terms of outcomes, and cost to Council and consent holders, by a consent and compliance process based around the following.

22. Cease:

22.1. Initial inspection

22.2. three yearly audit inspection

22.3. HBRC testing of new systems

22.4. monitoring domestic wastewater treatment systems.

23. Introduce:

23.1. an accredited installer system, who are also accredited to inspect and report on performance.

23.2. a more formal accredited systems process

23.3. random audits of approved installations

23.4. a two tiered consenting process

23.5. contribution of $5,000 per year to the On Site Effluent Treatment National Testing Programme (OSET)^{^[2]} trials. Council is currently a funding partner, a return on this investment would be to use the test results as part of the accreditation program and negate the need for HBRC audit testing.

23.6. redirection of some of the cost savings to monitoring higher risk systems and communities as a whole.

24. This revised programme could be implemented relatively quickly without implementing a plan change as the proposed principles are within the scope of our existing plans and able to be implemented within the discretion of the consent and compliance programmes.

Introduce a more formal accredited systems process

25. ‘Accredited’ systems would include systems already tested and approved by HBRC through the Audit monitoring programme, and also those systems that have been approved by the OSET (national) trials. Refer appendix 1, HBRC approval testing and OSET trials.

26. In the future it is suggested that only systems that have been approved by the OSET programme will be able to become accredited systems with HBRC, removing the need for HBRC to test systems. If Councils stop approving individual systems within the regions and require them to be approved by the OSET programme, there will be greater consistency nationally which should ensure a more robust assessment process compared to individual Council’s each undertaking their own auditing programmes.

Introduce accredited installers

27. Staff suggest that accreditation of installers could be gained by HBRC inspecting in detail, a specific number of new installations at the cost of the installer. If fully complying with resource consent conditions & AS/NZS 1547^{^[3]} the installer would receive accreditation. The accreditation would also involve ongoing review of accreditation and if necessary accreditation could be suspended or lost. Criteria for suspension or loss of accreditation will need to be developed further if this option is adopted.

28. Accredited installers would benefit from their clients receiving reduced consent processing and savings of approximately $275 monitoring costs when first installed. There would be minimal cost to the general rate due to the Council ceasing the existing audit program.

Undertake random audits of accredited installations

29. Accredited installers would then receive random audits, of up to 10% of their installations per year. If not fully compliant all previous installations for that year would be inspected, at the installers cost. The use of accredited installers would negate the need for initial inspections and reduce the amount of HBRC resources required to run the monitoring program. An accredited installer would need to include maintenance contracts that provide for six monthly maintenance visits for a minimum period of two years after installation of the system.

30. Criteria would need to be developed to outline when installers could lose accreditation if performance did not consistently meet adequate standards.

Create a two tiered consenting process

31. Staff also suggest the introduction of a two tier consent approval process for simple and more complex waste water consents with a commensurate processing fee differentiation.

32. Simple consent applications submitted by accredited installers which clearly demonstrate that they meet the required criteria could be subject to a more streamlined consent process. Criteria could be developed that helps accredited installers easily identify lower risk installations. Such criteria would likely include good soil type, low water table, low slope angle, and low concentration of housing.

32.1. The consents process for waste water consents has been recently reviewed and streamlined, but the formal introduction of accredited installers and accredited systems would likely allow further efficiency gains.

32.2. A more detailed process for applications that don’t fit the criteria for lower risk installations would continue to be processed in accordance with current practice. The introduction of accredited installers and accredited systems would also lessen the chance of out of town installers supplying lower quality systems and under spec installations as a one off quick buck and then leave the system owner with no ongoing service as has occurred in the past in the Hawke’s Bay.

Redirect cost savings

33. If this amended programme was adopted staff resources would be redirected to focus monitoring in high risk waste water discharges areas such as historical coastal settlements and unserviced communities with high water table.

Monitoring the Right Risk

34. Anecdotal evidence and existing monitoring evidence suggests that in some high risk areas there are many systems that fail to meet permitted activity criteria, with some failed systems being repaired without appropriate consents. The existing programme, by itself, does not identify and address such failed systems, but more resources could be deployed to such areas if option 2 is adopted by Council.

35. An example of this is the settlement of Kairakau where there are approx 57 dwellings but only three have discharge consents. These three are in the audit monitoring programme but HBRC has no information or monitoring data on the remaining 54 systems. Council has received several second hand complaints that during peak Christmas loading many systems in this community fail and that some failed systems are “repaired” without TLA or HBRC consent. This is likely to be typical of other un-reticulated communities.

Summary

36. There is currently no recognition or streamlining of the consent process or monitoring programme for robust proven disposal systems installed by reputable trades people with discharges in low risk locations.

37. All consent applications are treated equally, irrespective of whether or not the system is:

37.1. installed by a reputable trades person

37.2. a ‘proven’ disposal system

37.3. located in a ‘low risk’ environment.

38. Staff consider that Council’s current consent and compliance process can be improved to provide cost savings for the consent holder and up to $40,000 per year to the general rate.

39. The adoption of Option Two would reduce consenting and compliance monitoring costs for the consent holder and free up Council resources that can be redirected to monitoring higher risk communities that include older unconsented septic tanks and other higher risk activities.

40. This will in turn provide information which will inform future waste water plan changes and long term planning.

41. Additionally, it is recommended that $5,000 per year could be redirected to co-fund the OSET trials (Attachment 1) from the savings made to Council. This $5,000 contribution would provide long term cost and outcome benefits directly to the Council and indirectly to consent holders.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

42. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

42.1. Sections 97 and 98 of the Act do not apply as these relate to decisions that significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

42.2. Sections 83 and 84 covering special consultative procedure do not apply.

42.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

42.4. The persons affected by this decision are on-site domestic wastewater consent holders.

42.5. The options considered are to either maintain the status quo, or to revise the current consenting and monitoring programmes.

42.6. Section 80 of the Act covering decisions that are inconsistent with an existing policy or plan does not apply.

42.7. Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others having given due consideration to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be effected by or have an interest in the decisions to be made.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Environmental Management Committee recommends that Council:

2. Agrees that staff shall develop the details of the accredited installer procedure, approved system procedure and ‘lower risk’ criteria, through consultation with the waste water industry and report back to Council via the Annual Plan process for 2011/12.

3. Agrees that staff will assess if the Annual plan will need to set a nominal annual fixed charge to cover the cost of information returns associated with administering the proposed new consenting process.

4. Agrees that the consent and compliance procedures and policy be amended to implement the:

2.1 Cessation of routine inspections for accredited installers and systems

2.2 Introduction of accredited installers

2.3 Introduction of a more formal accredited systems process

2.4 Introduction of random audits of approved installations

2.5 Creation of a two tiered consenting process

2.6 Contribution of $5,000 per year to the OSET trials

2.7 Redirection of some of the cost savings to monitoring higher risk systems and communities as a whole.

Keith Peacock

Team Leader Compliance

Bryce Lawrence

Manager Compliance

Darryl Lew

Group Manager Resource Management

Attachment/s

1 View

HBRC and National Testing Programmes

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 10 November 2010

SUBJECT: Introduction of National Water Meter Regulations and Implications for Council

REASON FOR REPORT

1. On 10 November 2010 the Resource Management (Water Measurement and Reporting) Regulations 2010 come into force. A copy of the Regulation has been attached.

2. The regulations will apply to any water take consent for 5 L/s or more, granted after this date 10 November 2010.

3. Existing water permits for more than 5 L/s have a lead-in time before they must comply with the Regulations. For those takes the Regulations will be applied between 2012 and 2016, depending on the rate of take allowed by the permit.

4. There are a number of aspects of the Regulations that Council has discretion around. There is a need to have consistent decisions made to ensure that the regulations are applied consistently and fairly across the region.

5. Because these Regulations affect diverse areas of Council business, this paper has been jointly prepared by the Consents, Compliance and Water Information Services teams.

Summary of the Regulations

6. The Regulations have been made pursuant to section 360(1)(d) of the Resource Management Act, which allows the Governor General to make regulations for the purpose of requiring holders of water permits to keep and return records. This differs from the original intention of the Ministry for the Environment in preparing a National Environmental Standard (NES).

7. The regulations come into force on 10 November 2010.

8. The regulations only apply to consumptive water permits that allow fresh water to be taken at a rate of 5 L/s or more.

9. The regulations require the permit holder to keep records of the volume of water taken (in cubic metres) per day, unless the Regional Council gives written permission for the records to be kept on a weekly basis.

10. The permit holder must keep these records in a form that the Council deems to be “suitable for auditing”, and must provide these records to the Council no later than one month following the end of each “water year”, which is deemed to be the period starting from 1 July and ending on the 30 June the following year.

11. The records must be kept using a system which can do the following:

11.1. Measure the volume of water to within +/-5% of the actual volume taken (or +/-10% for a an open channel take)

11.2. Is able to provide data in a form suitable for electronic storage

11.3. Is sealed and is as tamper proof as possible

11.4. Is installed at the location from which the water is taken (unless written approval is granted by the Regional Council to locate it at any other location which is as near as practicable to the location from which the water is taken).

12. The system must be verified as being accurate by a person that the Regional Council deems to be “suitably qualified”. The verification must occur initially during the permit’s first water year, and then once within ever 5 year period thereafter.

13. The records must be provided in writing, or electronically if requested by the Regional Council.

14. The regulations prevail over a condition in a water permit, and do not require any change to consent documents in order to apply. However, a condition of a resource consent that is more stringent will prevail over these regulations.

15. The regulations do not apply immediately to existing water permits. Instead, the regulations will start to apply 2, 4 or 6 years after the commencement of the regulations, depending on the rate at which water can be taken by the permit. The following lead-in periods apply before permits have to comply with the regulations:

15.1. A permit that authorises 20 L/s or more – 10 November 2012

15.2. A permit that authorises 10 L/s up to 20 L/s – 10 November 2014

15.3. A permit that authorises 5 L/s up to 10L/s – 10 November 2016.

Water Permits in the Hawke’s Bay Region

16. A large number of water permits in the Hawke’s Bay Region will be affected by the regulations. The following statistics are relevant:

17. There are more than 2400 water take permits currently in existence in the region. Of these, approximately 2100 allow water to be taken at a rate of 5 L/s or greater (and therefore the Regulations will apply to them). 1371 of those permits currently have no metering requirement, and of the 771 that do have conditions requiring a water measuring device to be installed, the systems will still require auditing (and possible upgrading) to ensure that they are compatible with the Regulations.

18. There are 1097 permits for 20 L/s or more for whom the regulations will apply in 2012; 706 permits for 10 L/s - 20L/s that will have to comply by 2014; and 339 permits for 5 L/s – 10 L/s that will need to comply by 2016.

Decisions

19. The Regulations allow the Council discretion over the following matters:

19.1. Determining who is suitably qualified to verify the accuracy of measurement systems.

19.2. Requiring permit holders to provide evidence that their system has been verified.

19.3. Supply of information in writing or electronically.

19.4. Installation of measuring devices “as near as practicable” to the location of the take.

19.5. Requiring permit holders to record their use daily or weekly.

20. The combined regional council Compliance and Enforcement Special Interest Group have been tasked with drafting a best practice document for Regional Councils to use nationally which will ensure consistent standards for the matters in paragraphs 19.1- 19.4.

21. This best practice document should be drafted by February 2011 for use and adoption as councils see fit.

22. Paragraph 19.5 - Requiring permit holders to record their use daily or weekly is a matter that should be dealt with at a regional level depending on the level of information needed to manage a water resource on a catchment / regional basis.

23. Council has the following options:

23.1. Maintain the default position in the Regulations and require all water permit holders to provide daily readings

23.2. Allow some (or all) permit holders to provide weekly readings.

24. Daily readings will be more onerous on permit holders, but will result in a more robust set of data, particularly for surface water takes. This requirement is not onerous if permit holders choose to install data loggers and telemetry to assist them in their record keeping.

25. Weekly readings will have the benefit of being less time consuming for consent holders who choose to record the data manually, and are generally consistent with existing consent conditions for the region. For groundwater takes where there are not any known water allocation issues, weekly recording may be sufficient.

26. As such, the staff recommendation is that permits allowing a take from water bodies as per Table 9 of the RRMP (or from connected groundwater takes which are subject to minimum flow cut off conditions) / takes in groundwater catchment nearing or deemed to be at full allocation such as Poraiti or Ruataniwha be required to record daily useage.

27. For other groundwater takes in all other areas that are less sensitive, it is recommended that approval be granted for weekly recording of water use.

28. However, while it is not a requirement of the Regulations, where consent holders choose to install data loggers and telemetry and transmit the information directly to the Council, the question around daily or weekly record keeping ceases to be an issue, as is any concern around the onerous time requirements to records daily use manually. The cost to consent holders for the administration of water use data has been structured to reflect the lower administration costs when telemetry is used as the reporting method. This is detailed in Table 2a of the Council’s annual plan.

29. The Council’s Approved Installer process has been designed to ensure that new water meter installations will meet the requirements of the regulations. Where an installation has not been undertaken by an Approved Installer, the installation will be checked for accuracy and conformity to the Council’s installation requirements. The Approved Installer process has also created a competitive market for the supply and installation of water meters to the advantage of the consent holders.

30. The Council’s water use web entry system has been modified to be more user-friendly. Where consent holders have chosen not to use telemetry this web entry system is being actively promoted to record water use.

31. Once decisions have been made for each of these issues, a communication strategy will be developed in conjunction with Council’s Communications Team. Some preliminary work has begun on this.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

32. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

32.1. Sections 97 and 98 of the Act do not apply as these relate to decisions that significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

32.2. Sections 83 and 84 covering special consultative procedure do not apply.

32.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of the Council’s policy on significance.

32.4. Section 80 of the Act covering decisions that are inconsistent with an existing policy or plan does not apply.

32.5. Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others having given due consideration to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be effected by or have an interest in the decisions to be made.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Environmental Management Committee recommends Council:

2. Requires that water permits for the taking of water which are subject to minimum flow restrictions in rivers and streams set out in Table 9 of the RRMP, and takes from sensitive groundwater areas, record their water use on a daily basis.

3. Allows takes from other less sensitive areas to record their water use on a weekly basis.

Emma O'Neill

Senior Consents Officer

Dave Moule

Manager Consents

Bryce Lawrence

Manager Compliance

Darryl Lew

Group Manager Resource Management

Kelvin Ferguson

Water Information Services Manager

Bruce Corbett

Group Manager Water Initiatives

Attachment/s

1 View

Resource Management Measuring and Recording of Water Takes Regulations 2010

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 10 November 2010

SUBJECT: Status of Resource Consent Appeals to the Environment Court

REASON FOR REPORT

1. This report provides an update on the progress of appeals currently being dealt with by Council in relation to resource consents. A similar paper was presented to the Environmental Management Committee on 08 September 2010, which provided an update on not only appeals to resource consent decisions but also those appeals to plan changes. This paper focuses solely on updates relating to resource consent decisions, as the plan change appeals situation has essentially not changed since September.

2. Dealing with appeals requires significant resources in terms of staff time, expert witnesses and legal costs, especially as appeals are often technically and legally complex. Consequently, it is desirable to resolve these appeals as expeditiously as possible, while still achieving good environmental outcomes that are consistent with Council’s plans and policies, and uphold the intent of Hearing Panel decisions.

Resource Consent Appeals

Ngaruroro River Catchment Appeals

3. Decisions on the 68 Ngaruroro River catchment water permit applications were released on 9 April 2009. Fifty appeals were lodged with the Environment Court with respect to Council’s decisions on the various Ngaruroro water takes by Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga, and four appeals were lodged by three applicants who were granted consents to take water from the Maraekakaho Stream Management Zone.

4. A paper entitled ‘Maraekakaho and Ngaruroro Mediation Outcomes’ was presented to Council on Wednesday 25 August 2010, which surmised the outcomes of mediation with respect to these appeals.

5. Fifty of the 52 consent appeals have now been settled between the parties. Simpson Grierson has filed all of the correlating draft consent orders for those appeals with the Court, apart from the draft consent order for Matariki Holdings Limited that is circulating for signing by the parties due to its settlement having been delayed until 18 October 2010. The appeals are not legally settled until an Environment Court judge agrees to and signs the Consent Orders.

6. The outstanding appeals are those relating to the two consents granted to Te Puia Trust. Counsel had filed a draft consent order with the Court before mediation occurred for these two appeals, but did not include Fish and Game as a section 274 party, as they were not notified that they had joined the proceedings. The applicant is now in discussions with Te Taiwhenua about whether their draft consent order can be amended to include similar conditions to those agreed upon between the majority of the parties at mediation.

7. Simpson Grierson advises that they have had notice from the Court that they are processing the draft consent orders, and that some of the sealed consent orders have started to arrive back from the Court as at Friday 22 October 2010.

AFFCO Appeal

8. AFFCO was granted resource consent to discharge stormwater and wastewater into the Wairoa River on 24 July 2009. An appeal of four conditions of the consent was received on 17 August 2009 from the applicant. Mr David Renouf became a section 274 party to the proceedings.

9. A mediation meeting was held with AFFCO on 21 October 2009. During the meeting Council staff were informed by AFFCO that there had been confusion regarding the data required by the previous consent, and that inadvertently the wrong data for ammonia levels had been supplied by the company with the resource consent application. Had there been a proper understanding as to the basis upon which ammonia levels had been reported, the recommendation on the application at the hearing would have been materially different. Staff are currently working on identifying the next steps to take in these proceedings, as advised by Simpson Grierson.

10. AFFCO currently have a mean wastewater faecal coliform level of 110,000 cfu/100 ml. AFFCO are appealing a consent condition requiring a reduction to 2,460 cfu/100 ml by December 2012. This will require a wastewater plant upgrade which will cost AFFCO approximately $1 - 2 Million.

11. The Department of Conservation (DoC) has become a section 274 party to the appeal.

12. Mediation with a Court appointed mediator was held in Napier on 9 September 2010.

13. While the specific details discussed during mediation are legally privileged, work is currently being undertaken by AFFCO to identify site specific guidelines for both ammonia and faecal coliforms. AFFCO is also undertaking further work to develop a protocol with which the qualitative health risk assessment (QHRA) shall be undertaken in accordance with.

14. It was agreed at mediation on 9 September that by the end of November 2010 a report will be provided to the Court which states whether or not further mediation will be required. At that point it should be apparent whether all issues can be resolved, or whether the appeal is likely to proceed to a hearing before the Court.

Mexted, Williams and van Breda Malherbe Appeal

15. Resource consent was granted on 26 January 2010 by a joint hearing committee (Wairoa District Council and HBRC) for various applications relating to a proposal to subdivide and develop six lots at the northern end of Judges Parade, Mahanga. An appeal was received on 19 February 2010 from Mahanga E Tu Incorporated, a submitter in opposition to the proposal. Mediation with a court appointed mediator was held in Wairoa on 21 June 2010.

16. An offer of settlement was made by the applicant as a result of discussions at the mediation, however this has been rejected by the appellant group, and it is likely that a hearing will be required before the Environment Court to resolve the substantive issues of the appeal. An application by the applicant for security of costs is still being considered by the Court and Council continue to await the Court’s decision in this respect.

Opoutama Community Wastewater Scheme Appeal

17. A hearing was held on 12 – 13 August 2010 to consider an application by Wairoa District Council to discharge contaminants (treated municipal domestic effluent) to land and (odour) to air associated with the operation of the Opoutama Community Wastewater Scheme on Ormond Drive, Opoutama, Mahia.

18. The Hearing Panel, consisting of Christine Scott, Morry Black and Michael Garland, granted consent on 14 September 2010, subject to a number of conditions.

19. On 6 October 2010, Council received two separate appeals to the decision. The first being from Alice Wairau on behalf of Te Rakato Marae and Hapu, and Ngai Rakato Hapu, and Jim Keil as Chairperson of Te Rakato Marae and representative for Ngai Rakato Hapu for treaty claims. The second appeal was lodged by the applicant, Wairoa District Council.

20. The Te Rakato Marae and Ngai Rakato appeal is against the decision to grant in its entirety and raises concerns over Treaty claims, Ngai Rakato’s status, urupa and the land in question, section 6(e) (ancestral relationship), section 7(a) (kaitiakitanga) and section 8 (treaty principles) of the RMA, and the consideration of alternatives.

21. The Wairoa District Council appeal is ultimately centred on the conditions of consent relating to the monitoring and sampling regime imposed to mitigate the effects of the wastewater discharge and the costs associated with complying with these conditions.

22. Council has engaged Simpson Grierson to act on our behalf, and the Environment Court has been advised that Council agrees to mediation. Officers are in the early stages of developing an approach to mediation and will prepare a paper to Council in due course with respect to delegations.

Cost Implications

23. It is important to recognise the significant limitations the Resource Management Act (RMA) imposes on local authorities with respect to recovering costs associated with appeals and cost objections. There are no provisions in the act to enable Councils to recover the actual and reasonable costs incurred as part of these processes. Council has no control over the initiation of these processes and has no choice but to participate in accordance with due process as required by statute.

24. The Consents team at HBRC has faced several complex appeals and cost objections this last financial year (2009 / 2010) which has had a substantial impact on bottom line cost recovery. This is largely due to the complexity and the consuming nature of appeals, which often necessitate representation from legal providers and external experts to mediate or litigate Council’s decisions.

25. The impact of such factors needs to be acknowledged and contextualised with respect to financial performance. The following table provides a breakdown of those appeals and objections referred to above in respect of the costs borne by Council in administrating its functions under the RMA represented as non-recoverable costs.

Table 1. Non-Recoverable Costs Associated with Resource Consent Appeals & Objections.

APPEALS	Costs accrued prior to current financial year (From date of receipt to 01 July 2010)	Costs accrued 2010/2011 Financial Year (01 July 2010 to date)	Total Costs accrued to Date
Ngaruroro River Catchment Appeals	$58,734.00	$71,503.00	$130,237.00
Affco Appeal	$36,222.00	$40,761.00	$76,983.00
Garrity Land Company Limited Appeal^*	$77,540.00	$5,660.00	$83,200.00
Mexted, Williams and Van Breda Malherbe Appeal	$13,737.00	$1,912.00	$15,649.00
Total	$186,233.00	$119,836.00	$306,069.00

OBJECTIONS	Costs accrued prior to current financial year (From date of receipt to 01 July 2010)	Costs accrued 2010/2011 Financial Year (01 July 2010 to date)	Total Costs accrued to Date
Force Five Ltd - Cost Objection^*	$2,236.00		$2,236.00
Ngaruroro River Catchment - Cost Objections^*	$48,780.00		$48,780.00
Walmsley Contracting Ltd - Cost Objection^*	$397.00		$397.00
Mangatahi Metals Ltd - Cost Objection^*	$1,568.00		$1,568.00
Omarunui Sands Ltd - Cost Objection	$2,232.00		$2,232.00
Kairakau Development Society - Cost Objection^*	$2,259.00		$2,259.00
Mexted, Williams and Van Breda Malherbe - Cost Objection	$1,344.71	$370.00	$1,714.71
Hettinga Estate – Objection to Conditions^*	$1,382.00		$1,382.00
Huggins DT & M - Cost Objection	$379.00		$379.00
Affco Limited - Cost Objection	$2,113.94	$1,111.00	$3,224.94
Garrity S - Cost Objection	$4,285.10	$2,475.00	$6,760.10
Linn BW - Cost Objection^*	$1,680.00		$1,680.00
P Hill & KC Sandler - Cost Objection^*	$5,919.00		$5,919.00
Karamu Stream - Cost Objections^*	$9,906.00		$9,906.00
Aitkin, DT & MJ - Cost Objection^*	$1,874.00		$1,874.00
Hautapu Partnership - Cost Objection^*	$5,916.00		$5,916.00
Crasborn Group Limited - Cost Objection^*	$1,303.00		$1,303.00
Crafarm Limited - Cost Objection^*	$676.00		$676.00
Total	$94,250.75	$3,956.00	$98,206.75

^{* =}Appeal/Objection resolved

26. Given the significant financial exposure for Council that cannot be forecast or estimated, staff will continue to regularly update Council on appeals, objections and their associated costs.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

27. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Environmental Management Committee receives the report.

Dave Moule

Manager Consents

Darryl Lew

Group Manager

Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 10 November 2010

SUBJECT: Ruataniwha Groundwater Allocation - Implications for the Consents Process

REASON FOR REPORT

1. Council’s Ruataniwha Basin Transient Model was recently completed and reported to the Environmental Management Committee meeting on 8 September 2010. The model confirms Council’s earlier conceptual understanding of the hydrogeology of the Ruataniwha basin and the actual effects of groundwater abstraction upon overlying surface water. The purpose of this paper is to present the Committee with information derived from initial modelling, and inform the Committee that the existing resource consent application management approach should be continued.

Background

2. In 2007, two papers were presented to the Council which summarised the then current state of knowledge of the interactions between groundwater in the Ruataniwha basin with surface water flowing across the basin area (the Tukituki and Waipawa rivers and their tributaries).

3. The 2007 papers noted that:

3.1 Abstraction of groundwater from the Ruataniwha basin resulted in a 13% reduction in summer flows in each of the Tukituki and Waipawa rivers based on the ‘Gyopari’ groundwater flow model. Also the combined reduction in flow in these rivers was estimated at 900 L/s.

3.2 Increased abstraction of groundwater would result in an increased reduction in stream flows.

3.3 Staff recommended that applications for consent to take groundwater from the Ruataniwha basin be publicly notified, with a likelihood of the staff recommendation being to decline the application.

3.4 Council endorsed the resource consent application management approach proposed.

4. Groundwater and surface water in the Ruataniwha basin area are inextricably linked, and therefore groundwater allocation cannot be considered in isolation of surface water allocation limits. In a planning context, Council is guided by the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) water allocation policies and objectives relating to both groundwater and surface water resources.

5. The RRMP does not quantify groundwater allocation limits for the Ruataniwha basin. However, the RRMP does contain some relevant objectives and policies including:

5.1 Objective 23 - the avoidance of any significant adverse effects of water takes on the long-term quantity of groundwater in aquifers and on surface waters

5.2 Objective 44 - the maintenance of a sustainable groundwater resource

5.3 Policy 77 - (a) to manage groundwater takes so that the abstraction does not exceed the rate of recharge, and (d) to manage takes of groundwater to ensure that abstraction does not have an adverse effect on rivers, lakes springs and wetlands.

6. The RRMP also provides allocation limits for specified Stream Management Zones (SMZ) (Policy 74, Table 9), including those within the Tukituki River and its tributaries. These stream management zones are fully allocated.

7. Since 2007, no new consents have been issued to authorise the taking of additional water from the basin. The management approach established by the 2007 Council papers has been adhered to.

8. There are currently 80 consents authorising the abstraction of approximately 450,000 m³ per week of groundwater from the basin. A significant group of current consents will expire in 2015 (36), at which time the cumulative effects of these takes can be considered.

9. Existing groundwater consents authorise the irrigation of approximately 7,000 hectares of land, predominantly for pasture and cropping.

Scientific Context and Update

10. In 2003 Council commissioned Phreatos Consultants to upgrade an earlier attempt at modelling the Ruataniwha basin in order to better represent the surface and groundwater interaction in the basin and to enable more robust predictions to be made. This work produced a new model (the Gyopari Model) in 2004 which was constructed in Modflow software and consisted of two layers to better represent the hydrogeology of the basin.

11. The results of the Gyopari Model concluded that existing groundwater takes were connected to and depleting surface water. The results of the model indicated a flow reduction in the order of 500 L/s from the Tukituki River, and 400 L/s from the Waipawa River (total 900 L/s) and a loss of groundwater storage.

12. The Gyopari Model tried to overcome the limitations of the previous model by calibrating the water balance. Some changes to the input parameters were made but the model was still limited in its consideration of surface water/groundwater interactions, as the river data that was used was empirical and not based on actual field data. In summary, the two previous groundwater flow models were unreliable because of a lack of data to calibrate the model and inadequate water balance analysis to quantify basin recharge.

13. In 2007 Council commenced development of further modelling to address the deficiencies of the previous models and establish a more scientifically defensible position to support the Council’s development of water management policies for the basin.

14. A water balance model for Ruataniwha was completed in 2008 (Baalousha 2008) and used groundwater abstraction data (based on compliance monitoring) and crop water requirement. This model quantified groundwater abstraction as having increased from 3 million cubic metres in 1990 to approximately 24 million cubic metres in 2009 (Figure 1). This model was used as a basis for development of a steady-state groundwater flow model.

Figure 1: Annual Groundwater Abstraction Trends in Ruataniwha Basin

15. A steady-state groundwater flow model was completed in 2009 (Baalousha 2009) and was used as the basis for the transient groundwater flow model. The model was peer reviewed by independent experts. The next stage was the development of the transient model, which has recently been completed and peer reviewed.

16. The new transient model confirms that there is a strong interconnection between the groundwater and the surface water in the basin. Model results also showed that the actual groundwater abstraction across the basin over the last 20 years has caused a decline in aquifer storage of approximately 66 million m³. This will result in a continued decline of aquifer water levels and more importantly stream and river flows within the basin until a new dynamic aquifer equilibrium is reached depending on the uptake and use of existing allocated volumes and any further allocation decisions. This will not only impact existing surface water consent holders, but also the ecological, cultural and other values associated with the rivers and streams in the basin and downstream beyond the basin.

17. The transient model has also confirmed that there has been a significant decline in spring flow and that the cumulative effect of current actual groundwater abstraction has resulted in a decline rate of 600 L/s from surface waters in the basin area. This decline is less than that predicted in the 2004 Gyopari Model (900 L/s). However the new model provides a greater degree of confidence considering it is significantly more sophisticated and supported by more robust data compared to the earlier Gyopari model, which relied on some conservative assumptions in the absence of data.

18. The transient model will be used to model different scenarios of groundwater use in the basin, to enable an assessment of the cumulative impacts of water use. These scenarios include full uptake of existing consented allocation, intensification of land use to 14,000 hectares, and scenarios that reflect the Proposed National Environmental Standard on Ecological Flows and Water Levels (March 2008) (35% of rainfall recharge). This information will then be used to support water allocation policy development for the basin.

19. A groundwater age isotope and tracing study has recently been completed for the basin which supports model calibration and conceptual understanding of complex and interconnected groundwater system.

Allocation and Demand

20. Demand for groundwater in this area continues. Three further applications have been lodged and are currently being processed following the approach established by the 2007 paper. These applications seek a total of 120 L/s and 62,556 m³/week.

21. The modelling work undertaken using the Transient Model confirms, and more accurately quantifies the earlier understanding of the link between groundwater and surface water in the Ruataniwha basin area.

22. Given the evidence provided by the Transient Model which indicates declining spring and stream flows as a result of current groundwater abstraction in the basin, staff will continue to recommend that the previously established allocation management approach be followed. Applications for consent to abstract groundwater from the basin will generally be publicly notified, and the staff recommendation is likely to be to decline such applications. This approach will continue to be followed as an interim measure until a plan change process has been completed, at which time it is envisioned that a revised plan will offer an allocation framework for the Ruataniwha basin aquifer and its associated surface waters.

23. Applications can still be made and staff are required to process any such applications as a moratorium is not legally available under the RMA. However an assessment of environmental effects (AEE) would be required to investigate the contribution of the proposed take on cumulative adverse effects, and ways to mitigate these effects. This assessment would be required in addition to an assessment of the localised effects of a proposed take, such as well interference and direct stream depletion through hydraulic connection with nearby surface waters.

24. Applicants who wish to abstract groundwater are advised to consider alterative options, including sharing of existing consented allocations, transferring permits between parties and increasing irrigation efficiency and water storage. A degree of sharing and transferring of consented allocations is already occurring in this area. Staff will also advise applicants that the Central Hawke’s Bay Water Storage Project may provide access to water for some parties in the intermediate to long term.

25. Communication of Council’s current position on groundwater allocation within the Ruataniwha basin will occur with key stakeholders in the Ruataniwha community via workshops and meetings with water user groups and other interested parties. Officers are also currently working on a communication strategy using traditional media such as newspaper articles, radio messaging and brochures, but also using industry group publications, internet forums, and rural interest group media to deliver some of the key messaging outlined in this paper.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

26. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Environmental Management Committee receives the report titled ‘Ruataniwha Groundwater Allocation – Implications for the Consents Process’.

Paul Barrett

Consents Officer

Dave Moule

Manager Consents

Husam Baalousha

Senior Groundwater Scientist

Dougall Gordon

Principal Groundwater Scientist

Graham Sevicke-Jones

Manager Enviromental Science

Darryl Lew

Group Manager

Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 10 November 2010

SUBJECT: Isotope Ageing in the Ruataniwha Basin

REASON FOR REPORT

1. This paper provides a summary of the results of the Ruataniwha isotope aging study.

Background

2. Water resources in the Ruataniwha Basin are used for agricultural, domestic and industrial purposes. Interaction between surface and groundwater within the basin is high, and the geology of the basin is complex.

3. There is a need to understand this complicated hydrogeological system and to better calibrate the conceptual groundwater/surface water model. Understanding of the flow regime in the system will also enable identification of recharge/discharge sources for better water resource management.

4. Isotope and tracer aging dating is a relatively new technique for identifying the recharge source and flow regime in an aquifer system and identifying the lag times for land use effects on groundwater, assessment of drinking water security, and used to help calibrate groundwater models.

5. All waters have "fingerprints" of natural and human introduced low level chemical signatures that can be used as tracers and to assess the age of waters. Rainwater carries the chemical signatures to the ground where it enters groundwater through the soil or river bed. The amount of tracer depends on the concentration at the time of recharge and therefore the time that the water was recharged can be calculated from known atmospheric concentration curves through time. From this information the mean age can be calculated.

6. Sampling for isotopes in the Ruataniwha Basin has been done in the past, in the early 1980s and 1990s. The last isotopes sampling has been done in February 2009. This study compiles all isotopes sampling results to build a time series, which enable a better and more certain estimation of water aging.

7. This investigation involved analysis of tritium, Chlorofluorocarbons [CFC] and Sulfur hexafluoride [SF₆] concentrations in samples collected, in addition to argon [Ar] and nitrogen gases [N₂]. Age determinations also relied on previous tritium measurements made at different sites as part of earlier investigations. Sampled bores and springs are shown in Figure 1.

8. The three tracers used covers different age ranges. Tritium is suitable for dating groundwater less than 80 years old, CFC is suitable for dating waters less than 60 years old and SFC is suitable for dating water less than 30 years old. Figure 1 shows the location of bores tested for isotopes.

9. Bores 1452 and 1518 have a long tritium time series record over 26 years, and bores 2220, 1944, 2043, 1558 and 3076 have time series data over more than 15 years. This allows for a robust age distribution.

10. Age values in this study have uncertainty of about 1–4 years. The magnitude of uncertainty depends on groundwater age and also on the range of time-series data available, where sites without time-series tracer measurements have a higher uncertainty.

11. A total of 25 bores, 2 springs and 3 river sites have been sampled for isotope analyses and major chemical analyses. Analyses have been done by Geological and Nuclear Sciences (GNS).

12. These samples are spread spatially to cover the whole basin, and vertically at different depths. Rivers and springs were sampled at lower Waipawa, Tukituki, and two springs at the eastern edge of the basin, in the limestone (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Locations and depths (in meters) of sampled bores, rivers and springs.

Results

13. Most water samples across the basin have old water with mean residence time (MRT) > 30 years. Only two wells that are likely to be linked to the river have younger water (bores 1452 and 3076 are 26 and 1.5 years old, respectively). (Figure 2).

14. Throughout the basin, old water of MRT mostly > 50 years indicates that this groundwater is being recharged at very slow rates.

15. Very little correlation between groundwater age and well depth indicates that this is a non-homogeneous aquifer with preferential flow paths along pockets of gravels.

16. Alternating hydrochemistry over time in several deep wells also indicates that pockets of water with different hydrochemistry exist, and can co-exist in close proximity. Such wells may tap just into the boundary between such pockets.

17. Five bores (2220, 3702, 4694, 4702, and 6722) have unusual chemistry, with extremely low SiO₂ down to 0.05 mg/L, and low iron [Fe], manganese [Mn], calcium [Ca], potassium [K], magnesium [Mg], sulphate [SO₄], cupper [Cu], Arsenic [As], zinc [Zn], radon [²²²Rn]. All of these are old anoxic deep groundwater with high methane, indicating that the unusual hydrochemistry is a result of a secondary stripping process in peat layers in the aquifer.

Recharge Sources

18. Bores 1430, 2043, 2220, 3702, 4694, 6722 and one of the springs have low concentrations of excess air and recharge temperatures close to the mean annual air temperature. Bores within this group may be expected to have a high component of river-derived recharge.

19. Bores 1381, 1402, 1452, 2579, 3104, 3426, 3852, 6719 and 11005 have higher concentrations of excess air and lower recharge temperatures. The lower recharge temperatures are indicative of several different processes. These bores may be expected to have a component of rainfall-derived recharge as indicated by the higher excess air concentrations.

20. Bores 1655 and 1944 have high apparent recharge temperatures and high concentrations of excess air. The groundwater from these bores may have excess nitrogen from de-nitrification and this implies a significant proponent of rainfall recharge.

Figure 2: Mean residence time of water in Ruataniwha Basin.

Conclusion

21. Age dating, in combination with hydrochemistry and stable isotopes, allows for new insights into the Ruataniwha Basin groundwater system. Water dating results show mostly old water. The young groundwater occurs in the shallow aquifer near the lower Waipawa River (i.e. where the river frequently dries in summer while the groundwater in the southern part of the basin (near Takapau) is old.

22. Isotopes analysis and excess air were used as indicators for recharge sources. All bores show a mixture of recharge sources from rainfall and rivers. Some bores close to Waipawa and Tukituki Rivers have a higher component of river-derived recharge source. These bores are 1430, 2043, 2220, 3702, 4694 and 6722.

23. Inconsistency between bore depths and age reflects the complexity and non-homogeneity of the basin.

24. Communication of groundwater aging results of the Ruataniwha Basin will be made to with key stakeholders in the Ruataniwha community via workshops and meetings with water user groups and other interested parties. Officers are also currently working on a communication strategy using traditional media such as newspaper articles, radio messaging and brochures, but also using industry group publications, internet forums, and rural interest group media to deliver some of the key messaging outlined in this paper.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

25. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Environmental Management Committee receives the report.

Husam Baalousha

Senior Groundwater Scientist

Graham Sevicke-Jones

Manager Enviromental Science

Darryl Lew

Group Manager

Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 10 November 2010

SUBJECT: Security of Water Supply

REASON FOR REPORT

1. The information presented in this paper is intended to provide help in understanding how different minimum flow levels set in the RRMP influence the security of water supply of existing water take consent holders in a selection of Hawke’s Bay rivers. This information is a critical input into both the plan change process for water allocation and the water storage feasibility projects.

Background

2. Minimum flows have been established on rivers and streams via Policy 74, Table 9 of the RRMP. Minimum flows are set to ensure sufficient water is left in a river to help maintain identified river values (e.g. cultural, ecological, economical and social).

3. A minimum flow is the baseline flow level at which point all water abstraction must stop. When a river reaches or falls below its minimum flow, an abstraction ban is issued by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and all consented water abstractions with the relevant minimum flow condition attached must cease.

4. Various measures can be used to mitigate the interruption of water supply during periods of low flow conditions and abstraction bans. Measures such as water storage, developing water efficient practices and rationing/rostering can help reduce exposure to abstraction bans.

5. Council is currently exploring options for water storage in the Tukituki and Ngaruroro River catchments. The intention of water storage is to increase the security of water supply to water users while maintaining the identified river values in each catchment during low flow conditions.

6. In order to determine how security of supply can be increased, the existing security of supply must be first understood.

7. Council’s abstraction ban records start in 1994. These records detail the timing and duration of abstraction bans for each minimum flow site across the region. The records provide information on the security of supply to water users over time, however due to the short length of record, and the numerous changes to minimum flow levels and resource pressures over time, its use as a tool for assessing security of supply is limited.

8. Historical flow records enable a more detailed analysis to be undertaken. Current or future minimum flow limits or other flow thresholds can be modelled on historical flow records over longer periods of time and can provide a clearer picture of the security of water supply over time.

9. The data tables presented in Attachment 1 contain flow statistics calculated from four minimum flow sites in Hawke’s Bay: the Tukituki River, Waipawa River, Ngaruroro River and the Raupare Stream. For each flow record a number of thresholds including current minimum flows that have been set for each site; Mean Annual Low Flows (MALFs) and percentages of MALFs are compared based on the number of days below, the percentage of time below and the longest period of consecutive days below each specified flow. Essentially the periods of record where the flow is below each minimum flow would represent an abstraction ban period.

Data Table Statistics

10. From the data tables attached it is clear that the period of time below the different thresholds increases with higher thresholds and the periods of consecutive days below also increase as would be expected.

11. It must be noted that long-term rated flow records are currently not available for the Ngaruroro River and Raupare Stream, so in their absence synthetic flow records have been derived for analysis using a range of hydrological techniques. A synthetic flow record provides a valuable alternative for estimating flow statistics when there would otherwise be none available. However there are uncertainties associated with synthetic records. The statistics detailed below for the Ngaruroro River and Raupare Stream synthetic records include a comparison to the abstraction ban record. There are differences between the two figures which can largely be attributed to the uncertainties associated with synthetic records.

Number of Days below Thresholds

12. Identifying years with the greatest number of days below different thresholds can help with planning for water storage options. The current minimum flow can be used as a basis to start from. Decisions on water storage options will need to assess how much of an increase in security of supply would be required to reduce potential future abstraction ban periods.

13. For the Tukituki River the year with the greatest number of days below the current minimum flow of 1900 l/s was 1997-1998 with 44 days in total below. Compared to the range of higher thresholds for the same year, the number of days below increased to 183 for the highest minimum flow of 5000 l/s.

14. For the Waipawa River the year with the greatest number of days below the current minimum flow of 2300 l/s was 1997-1998 with 65 days in total below. Compared to the range of higher thresholds for the same year, the number of days below increased to 151 for the highest minimum flow of 3400 l/s.

15. For the Ngaruroro River the year with the greatest number of days below the current minimum flow of 2400 l/s was 1982-1983 with 40 days in total below. Compared to the range of higher thresholds for the same year, the number of days below increased to 95 for the highest minimum flow of 5000 l/s. In the abstraction ban record, the year with the greatest number of ban days recorded for the minimum flow of 2400 l/s was 2007-2008 totalling 24 days.

16. For the Raupare Stream the year with the greatest number of days below the current minimum flow of 300 l/s in the historical flow record was during 2008-2009 with 24 days in total below. The actual abstraction ban days recorded for the minimum flow of 300 l/s on the Raupare Stream total 39 days. The greatest number of days below the MALF (412 l/s) for the same year increases to 92.

Longest Period of Consecutive Days below Thresholds

17. Prolonged periods of low flow conditions and resulting abstraction bans can have the most detrimental effect on irrigators. There are numerous different crop types farmed in the Hawke’s Bay region with varied irrigation requirements. Short ban periods can often be managed by adjusting irrigation cycles/schedules but long periods of abstraction bans are very difficult to negate. Analysing periods of consecutive ban days in the historical record will help determine what measures should be adopted to mitigate the interruption of water supply in the future.

18. For the Tukituki River the longest period of consecutive days below the current minimum flow of 1900 l/s was 18 days during 2002-2003. In comparison, the longest period of consecutive days below the minimum flow of 5000 l/s for the same year increases to 44 days.

19. For the Waipawa River the longest period of consecutive days below the current minimum flow of 1900 l/s was 23 days during 1997-1998. In comparison, the longest period of consecutive days below the minimum flow of 3400 l/s for the same year increases to 152 days.

20. For the Ngaruroro River the longest period of consecutive days below the current minimum flow of 2400 l/s was 37 days during 1982-1983. In comparison, the longest period of consecutive days below the minimum flow of 5000 l/s for the same year increases to 45 days. In the abstraction ban record, the year with the greatest number of consecutive ban days recorded for the minimum flow of 2400 l/s was 2008-2009 totalling 16 days.

21. For the Raupare Stream the longest period of consecutive days below the current minimum flow of 300 l/s was 23 days during 2008-2009. In comparison, the longest period of consecutive days below the MALF (412 l/s) for the same year increases to 91 days. In the abstraction ban record, the year with the greatest number of consecutive ban days recorded for the minimum flow of 300 l/s was 2008-2009 totalling 35 days.

Communication

22. Communication of this information will be undertaken internally via presentations and workshops to the Water Initiatives Group and Environmental regulation, and communicated externally via presentations and workshops to key stakeholders including DOC, Fish & Game and Iwi, and to Water User Groups along with other streams of science work.

Summary

23. These tables can be used to generate numerous statistics, including the ability to estimate the quantity of water required to supplement low flows and reducing abstraction ban days to a level deemed acceptable. It must be remembered that bans will still be implemented on some of our rivers whether or not abstraction occurs, as they naturally reach low flow conditions over extended dry periods.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

24. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Committee receives the report titled ‘Security of Water Supply’.

Rob Waldron

Resource Analyst

Rob Christie

Team Leader – Hydrology

Darryl Lew

Group Manager Resource Management

Attachment/s

1 View

Minimum Flow Sites Analysis at Tukituki, Waipawa, Ngaruroro and Raupare rivers

Statutory Advocacy Update

Attachment 1

Statutory Advocacy Update – Period from 24 August to 15 October 2010

Received	TLA	Map Ref	Activity	Applicant/ Agency	Status	Current Situation
7 October 2010	HDC	1	Notice of Requirement The applicant seeks to designate land at 139 Arataki Road for Education purposes. The designation will provide land to construct a Primary School and early childcare facility. The site is currently owned by the Arataki Campground.	Ministry of Education Consultant – OPUS International Consultants	Notified by HDC	15 October 2010 · Proposal has been assessed. No issues warrant lodging a submission. · Detailed site development plans for site layout and configuration yet to be prepared by MOE. Detailed plans to follow if designation approved.
20 September 2010	NCC	2	Resource Consent – Subdivision The applicant proposes to subdivide an area of land currently part of the Snapper Holiday Park for a 2 lot residential subdivision. The address of the property is 10 Gill Road and the legal description is Lot 2 DP 28507.	J.A. & J.S. Coyle Consultant – Wallis Consultants	Restricted Discretionary – publicly notified by NCC	15 October 2010 · Proposal has been assessed. No issues warrant lodging a submission. · Resource consent for the discharge of wastewater from proposed lots previously granted.
17 September 2010	NZTA	3	State Highway 2 & State Highway 5 Intersection The purpose of the project is to improve the safety and efficiency of this section of State Highway network.	NZTA Consultant - MWH	Pre-application	15 October 2010 · Comments received from Operations Group. No preliminary issues of concern from Engineering and Operations sections. · Council has no land within the proposed area. Access for maintenance is through Wairoa Road (SH2).
17 September 2010	NCC	4	Resource Consent – Land Use The applicant proposes to establish a Napier Plunket Centre to be located within Lot 6 DP 10462 Recreation Reserve (1983/4071) which forms Onekawa Park in Napier.	Royal NZ Plunket Society Consultant – Eos Design	Discretionary – publicly notified by NCC	15 October 2010 · Proposal has been assessed. No issues warrant lodging a submission. · HAIL database records site as location of a historical landfill and that there maybe contamination issues. · In lieu of submission, letter sent to NapierCC and applicant advising HAIL classification. NapierCC already has this information. Letter suggested further investigation be undertaken to confirm landfill situation.
17 September 2010	CHBDC	5	Resource Consent – Subdivision The applicant’s agent sought information relating to the wastewater requirements for Lot 2 DP 430476 Pt Lot A DEEDS 16 DCDB Document ID: CT M2/629 or 793 SH2 Otane should an application for subdivision be sought.	Consultant - Dagg & Thorn Surveyors	Pre-Application	20 September 2010 · Land elevation contour information was provided to the consultant by the Engineering section. Policy provided regulatory advice on the RRMP. · Applicant yet to lodge formal application.
9 September 2010	NCC	6	Resource Consent - Subdivision The applicant seeks to undertake a 2 Lot subdivision to create one (1) 0.178 hectare residential Lot (being proposed Lot 1) and a balance Lot which will be 3.31 hectares (being proposed Lot 2). The address for the subdivision is 45 Rogers Road, Bay View, legal description Lot 4 DP 7344.	Cindy McKinnie Consultant – Consult Plus	Restricted Discretionary – publicly notified by NCC	8 October 2010 · HBRC lodged submission opposing application. Consent should be declined unless the proposed 2 residential lots are fully serviced or sufficient information is provided to show that adverse effects of on-site wastewater discharges (particularly in combination with the proposed soak-pit means of stormwater disposal), will be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated. · Submission stated installation of a reticulated sewage system for the Bay View community to be a sustainable long-term solution for the treatment and disposal of wastewater. · Submission also seeks clarification of floor level for flooding risk also requested.
23 August 2010	NCC	7	Resource Consent – Subdivision The application seeks to subdivide 58 McElwee Street, Jervoistown Certificate of Tile HBM2/1351 into two separate lots.	Mr B. Joseph Consultant – Consult Plus	Restricted Discretionary – publicly notified by NCC	20 September 2010 · HBRC lodged submission opposing application. · Reasons include: o no provision for stormwater disposal and will likely result in adverse conditions in terms of flood levels and duration of flooding at a local level and the wider Jervoistown community. o proposal to increase maximum site coverage from 10% to 25%. Concern that this will also increase adverse conditions in terms of flood levels and duration of flooding. · A 2009 report prepared by this Council (Jervoistown Drainage Analysis, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, April 2009) outlines the drainage issues and provides the conclusion that incremental development at Jervoistown will continue to result in reduced drainage standard for the existing houses. A copy of this report was provided to NapierCC shortly after its publication.
12 July 2010	NCC	8	Resource Consent – Land use The application seeks to locate two existing facilities to one building located at 82 Taradale Road, Napier, where an extensive refurbishment and revitalisation project is proposed.	Department of Corrections Consultants – MWH	Discretionary – limited notification by NCC	15 October 2010 · Applicant further reviewing options prior to hearing. 13 July 2010 · HBRC lodged submission in opposing application. Decision requested that application be declined unless the bus stop which the applicant proposes to remove is replaced with a new in-set bus stop on Taradale Road, midway between Carnegie Road and Austin Street.
24 May 2010	NCC	9	Resource Consent - Subdivision The application seeks to subdivide an area of land currently zoned as main rural on Franklin Road, Bay View into 6 lots and undertake earthworks.	Gerald Howe Consultant – Alan Petersen	Restricted Discretionary – publicly notified by NCC	15 October 2010 · No recent activity. 2 August 2010 · Policy staff have met with the applicant’s consultant. Options and scenarios for wastewater consenting and servicing are under consideration. 14 July 2010 · Council submitted in opposition to the application seeking that the application be declined unless all of the 6 Lots were fully serviced. 12 June 2010 · Comment has been sought from the Regulation and Engineering teams. The stormwater solutions for the site are acceptable due to the free draining nature of the soils. The same soil types present an issue with on-site wastewater disposal and insufficient treatment. Coupled with the proximity of the subdivision to the coastal marine environmental it is likely that the Council will submit against the application. Submissions closed 24 June 2010.
12 February 2010	HDC	10	Plan Change 50 – Irongate Industrial Zone and Associated Notice of Requirement The change seeks to rezone approximately 78.4 ha of Plains Zone land to Deferred Industrial 2 Zone (Irongate) in and around the Irongate Road and Maraekakaho Road junction. New standards are introduced which facilitate development of dry industries in the Irongate Industrial Area, and a structure plan to stage development. The Notice of Requirement includes an infrastructure corridor, road widening, stormwater attenuation and roundabout to support and enable the Proposed Plan Change.	HDC	Notified by HDC	16 September 2010 · HDC issued decisions on submissions. None of those decisions warrant appeal by HBRC. 28 July 2010 · Notice of hearing received. Hearing to be held 10 August. Officer’s report supports HBRC submission no further action required at this time. 26 March 2010 · Summary of submissions received. No action required. 12 March 2010 · Submission lodged supporting application in entirety. 16 February 2010 · Comment has been requested from Council’s Engineering team regarding the stormwater solutions; and from Environmental Regulation regarding Resource Consents required to undertake the designation.
18 January 2010	CHBDC	11	Plan Change 1 – Fault lines This change identifies more accurately the fault lines that Waipukurau, Waipawa and Otane and introduces new rules which reflect the expected level of risk associated with earthquakes.	CHBDC	Notified by CHBDC	15 October 2010 · Awaiting CHBDC to confirm hearing arrangements. 15 March 2010 · Further submissions invited. HBRC further submission unnecessary. 16 February 2010 · Submission lodged in support of the Plan Change. 4 February 2010 · This Plan Change is a result of work undertaken by Geological Nuclear Science (GNS) to locate and define fault lines in Central Hawke’s Bay at the instigation of HBRC and CHBDC. · The Study “Earthquake Fault Trace Survey: Central Hawke’s Bay District” (GNS Science Consultancy Report 2006/98) has been received and accepted buy Council Staff. · As HBRC instigated the work it is likely that a submission will be lodged in favour of the Plan Change.
26 June 09	HDC	n/a	Plan Change 49 – Rural Zone Subdivision The plan change seeks to amend the rules regarding the creation of lifestyle sites to ensure that the issues associated with applications for multiple lifestyle sites being created at once can be managed more effectively.	HDC	Notified by HDC	27 August 2010 · Hastings DC issued decisions on submissions. No decisions warrant appeal by HBRC. 3 February 2010 · Further submissions closed 29/010/10. · Council spoke with HDC staff no need for further submission as original submission supports PC in its entirety. 7 August 2009 · Council has submitted in support of PC49 as it considers that the PC will contribute to the sustainable management of the rural zone by restricting the current rate of rural subdivision for residential purposes. 17 July 2009 · PC 49 under evaluation.
20 January 2009	HDC	12	Proposed Private Plan Change The plan change will seek to rezone land at Elwood Road, Tomoana from Plains to Industrial. The subject land comprises 16.4286 hectares and is legally described as Lot 3 DP 27427 and Lot 1 DP 27890. The site directly adjoins land zoned Industrial 2 known as the Tomoana Industrial Area.	Elwood Road Holdings Consultant - MWH	Pre-Application	3 June 2010 · Council receives the applicant’s stormwater and water proposal for its comments. A meeting between Council and the applicant is scheduled for in late June. 23 March 2009 · Council provided comments to MWH on stormwater and the historical Tomoana Freezing Works offal disposal sites (pye holes). 20 January 2009 · MWH request Councils comments on the proposed Plan Change
14 March 2008	NCC	13	Plan Change 2 – Business Park Zone The plan change proposes to rezone 30 hectares located immediately north of Prebensen Drive and west of the Hawke’s Bay Expressway Legal Description (Lot 114 DP 377350) and backing onto the Southern Marsh, part of the Ahuriri Estuary.	NCC	Notified by NCC	31 May 2010 · Council’s Engineering Team assessed stormwater management plan and found contaminant solution acceptable. Council’s concerns would be satisfied by management plan’s proposals. · NapierCC to confirm hearing arrangements. 30 April 2010 · Council received stormwater management plan for the business park. 23 April 2010 · Letter received confirming Council’s submission and inviting further submissions. No further submission is lodged. 14 March 2008 · The Council opposes the Plan Change due to concerns related to the discharge of contaminants from stormwater into the Ahuriri Estuary.

[1] We note that the RCEP will need to be assessed and reviewed as necessary to give effect to the 2010 NZCPS to come into effect on 3 December 2010.

[2] OSET The On-site Effluent Treatment National Testing Programme undertakes performance testing of ex-factory on-site wastewater treatment units at a testing facility in Rotorua. It is jointly funded by Councils and industry. Refer Attachment 1.

[3] AS/NZS 1547: Australian/ New Zealand Standard for On-site domestic wastewater management.

Agenda Item	Action	Person Responsible	Due Date	Status Comment
12 Triennial Report on Hearings and Appeals	· Staff to provide a breakdown of the number of cost objections received for Hearing Panel (notified) decisions and Staff delegated (non-notified) decisions to Councillors via email	D Lew		Emailed 16 September 2010

Agenda Item	Action	Person Responsible	Due Date	Status Comment
16 Low Flow Monitoring Report	· Staff to provide an analysis of supply security and whether Council’s policy of having a 95% security is being met on a catchment by catchment basis.	D Lew	10 Nov	Statistical analysis to be provided at 10 November EMC

1 View	Statutory Advocacy Update
2 View	Statutory Advocacy Map

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.