Agenda of Regional Planning Committee

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 15 May 2019

Subject: Outstanding Water Bodies Plan Change

Reason for Report

1. This item provides the means for the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) to make recommendations to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (the Regional Council) with respect to:

1.1. The content of the draft Outstanding Water Bodies (OWB) plan change

1.2. The draft list of ‘Outstanding Water Bodies’ for inclusion in the draft OWB plan change

1.3. Undertaking targeted pre-notification consultation on the proposal.

2. This report summarises the background, engagement process and options for the OWB Plan Change. The Outstanding Water Bodies Plan Change: Selecting a List of Outstanding Water Bodies in Hawke’s Bay (OWB Main Report) has been separately circulated to committee members and summarises the key values for nominated water bodies to assist the Committee to select a robust, evidence-based list of outstanding water bodies. That report also addresses the Resource Management Act (RMA) requirements to consult with various parties prior to notification.

Background

3. The Regional Council intends to change its Regional Policy Statement (RPS) to include a list of the region’s outstanding water bodies, together with a framework which prescribes a high level of protection for these water bodies in future plan making. This change is referred to as Plan Change 7 or the OWB plan change.

4. The identification of outstanding water bodies commenced in 2012, when Proposed Plan Change 5 was being developed and following the release of the first National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management 2011 (NPSFM) which introduced the requirement for regional councils to identify and protect outstanding water bodies. The OWB Main Report provides a summary of actions undertaken (pages 8-9), including participation in national research to better understand OWBs, known as the CEF Outstanding Freshwater Body Project (2017), which collated useful information but was inconclusive with respect to the process to be used.

5. In 2017, based on recommendations from the RPC, the Regional Council made a number of key decisions about the scope and direction of the plan change, specifically:

5.1. Endorsement of an approach that was co-designed with the tāngata whenua representatives of the RPC to identify OWBs in the Hawke’s Bay region for the purposes of the NPSFM

5.2. Agreement that to be outstanding, the water body must contain a cultural, spiritual, recreation, landscape or ecology value which is exceptional, or stands out from the rest

5.3. Inclusion of coastal water bodies (i.e. estuaries) in the OWB Plan Change

5.4. That the approach would be underpinned by existing information, with no new studies or investigations to be commissioned to further investigate a water body’s ‘outstandingness’.

6. In March 2018, a Recreation, Landscape and Ecology Values Table (including natural character and geology values) was presented to the RPC, summarising existing assessments on these values from published literature, for 62 water bodies across the Hawke’s Bay region.

7. A Cultural Values Table was also presented, summarising a high-level review of over 70 documents associated with 118 water bodies across the region. An RPC tangata whenua representatives’ hui was held in April 2018 from which candidate water bodies for cultural and spiritual values were identified.

8. The RPC then selected a list of 22 candidate OWB set out in Table 1 following.

Table 1: Candidate list of outstanding waterbodies
Cultural, recreation, landscape and ecology value sets (including natural character and geology)	Cultural value set only
Heretaunga Aquifer	Karamu River
Lake Whakakī	Lake Waikareiti
Lake Whatumā	Lake Tūtira (including Aropaoanui River + Papakiri Stream)
Lake Waikaremoana	Lower Ngaruroro River (below Whanawhana)
Mangahauanga Stream	Makirikiri River
Ruakituri River	Porangahau River
Ruataniwha Aquifer	Tūtaekurī River
Taruarau River	Waipunga River
Te Whanganui a Orotū (Ahuriri Estuary)
Tukituki River
Upper Mohaka River
Upper Ngaruroro River (above Whanawhana)
Waipawa River
Wairoa River

9. Staff completed secondary assessments for each of the candidate water bodies to provide a clearer picture of the values associated with each water body. The secondary assessments have been shared with the region’s 27 iwi authorities, key stakeholders, and city and district councils, who were invited to provide comments during mid-late 2018. The secondary assessments were also made available online for wider public comment.

Overview of recent consultation

10. Staff met with territorial authorities, key stakeholders and several iwi authorities in September 2018. Feedback from some of these organisations highlighted a need to consider additional water bodies as OWBs and to broaden stakeholder involvement in the process.

11. The additional water bodies nominated by iwi authorities, key stakeholders and the public for consideration as OWBs are listed in Table 2 following.

Table 2: Additional nominated OWB requested during feedback
Waihua River	Ngamatea East Swamp
Boundary Stream, including Shine Falls	Nuhaka River
Kaweka and Ruahine Ranges wetlands	Opoutama Swamp
Lake Rototuna and Lake Rotoroa (Kaweka Lakes	Porangahau Estuary
Lake Poukawa and Pekapeka Swamp	Tarawera Hot Pools
Lake Whakaki - Te Paeroa Lagoon - Wairau Lagoon: interconnected wetland complex	Te Hoe River
Putere Lakes	Waitangi Estuary
Lower Mohaka River (below Willowflat)	Waikaretaheke River
Maungawhio Lagoon	Waiau River
Morere Hot Springs	Lower Ngaruroro River

12. A local expert panel was contracted to assess the OWB candidate list, and the additional nominated water bodies in Table 2, and make recommendations to the RPC. The panel was formed from locally knowledgeable experts nominated by the city and district councils, iwi authorities and key stakeholder groups, including Ngāti Kahugnunu Iwi Incorporated, Royal Forest & Bird Society, Fish & Game, Whitewater NZ, and Jetboating NZ. The Panel’s report is included as Appendix 6 of the OWB Main Report.

13. Further opportunities to engage with iwi were created through hui across the region. Two sub-regional hui and one individual hui were held in March 2019 to seek feedback on the candidate list and request further nominations. Summary notes of these meetings are available at Appendix 5 of the OWB Main Report. A third sub-regional hui is being held at Waipukurau on Monday 13 May 2019.

14. A generic feedback form was also added to the Regional Council website to enable members of the general public to provide feedback on the candidate OWB list (Table 1). There were 5 responses to this form and a summary is provided in Appendix 5 to the OWB Main Report.

Options for selection of the Draft OWB List

15. The OWB Main Report suggests possible options for identifying the list of OWBs to include in the Consultation Draft of Plan Change 7 (refer to pages 11 – 13). It also provides a summary of the key evidence available for selecting the OWBs.

16. Staff note that there is no right or wrong approach for identifying outstanding water bodies. Table 3 following sets out the two principal options for selecting OWBs for the recreation, landscape, geology, natural character and ecology value sets suggested by staff.

Table 3: OWB selection options – recreation, landscape, geology, natural character and ecology value sets

Options

Recreation, landscape, geology, natural character and ecology value sets

Option 1

Select those water bodies which feature one or more values that:

· Clearly ‘stand out’ and are superior when compared to the other water bodies in Tables 1 and 2; and

· Are consistently identified as ‘outstanding’ in published literature.

Option 2

Select those water bodies which feature one or more values that:

· Clearly ‘stand out’ and are superior when compared to the water bodies in Tables 1 and 2; and/or

· Are of excellent quality, despite being similar to one or more water bodies in Tables 1 and 2; and

· Are identified as ‘outstanding’ in published literature.

17. Table 4 provides an option for selecting OWBs for the cultural and spiritual value set. As noted in the Tāngata Whenua Considerations section of this report, all waterbodies are important for spiritual, physical and customary reasons.

Table 4: OWB selection option – cultural and spiritual value set

Options

Cultural and spiritual value set

Option 1

Select water bodies which are clearly supported as featuring cultural or spiritual values which ‘stand out’ when compared to other water bodies in Tables 1 and 2, using:

· The traditional knowledge of the RPC tāngata whenua representatives;

· Information in HBRC Report 4978 Summary of cultural values associated with water bodies in Hawke’s Bay;

· Feedback from iwi authorities;

· Preliminary findings of the local expert panel.

18. Staff note that the knowledge base for the cultural and spiritual value set is held by local marae and hapu. Staff have attempted to incorporate this information in HBRC Report 4978 Summary of cultural values associated with water bodies in Hawke’s Bay. That report (which has previously been presented to the Committee) identifies the key values associated with these water bodies as set out in a number of documents including: deeds of settlement, statutory acknowledgements, statements of association, Treaty settlements, customary usage reports and Waitangi Tribunal reports.

19. Notwithstanding, staff recognise that there are likely to be a number of gaps in HBRC Report 4978, where the knowledge is held with local marae and hapu, but not discussed in those documents which were reviewed to inform this report. As such, it is recommended that significant weight be given to feedback received from iwi authorities, marae and hapu.

20. In an attempt to gain additional information and fill any knowledge gaps, over the next four weeks the council’s Maori Partnership team will endeavour to contact those marae and hapu associated with the water bodies in Tables 1 and 2 to gain further information on their values. Information collected during this period will be reported back to the RPC in July, at which point the RPC can take this into account, and amend Plan Change 7, prior to notification (if necessary).

21. To ensure the list of outstanding water bodies is defendable, and to minimise the risk of litigation, staff recommend that the RPC selects only those water bodies which can be clearly supported as featuring outstanding value(s).

Water Conservation Order application for the Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers

22. Staff note that in 2015, a quite separate process to the OWB plan change was initiated when a joint application for a Water Conservation Order for the Ngaruroro River was lodged with the Minister for the Environment by a number of parties. The application states the Ngaruroro River contains a number of nationally outstanding values, including cultural, spiritual, scientific, recreation, landscape, natural character and ecological values.

23. A Special Tribunal, appointed by the Minister for the Environment, is currently considering all evidence which has been presented in support of and opposition to the application and its claimed outstanding values, with a decision anticipated in late 2019.

24. Given the nature of conflicting evidence presented to the Special Tribunal regarding the values associated with the Ngaruroro River, staff have chosen not to directly discuss this material in the OWB Main Report.

Draft Plan Change 7

25. The draft proposed Plan Change 7 to the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) is attached. Key features of the draft include:

25.1. Changes to Chapter 3.1A to better reflect the NPSFM provisions which require the protection of the significant values of OWBs. These changes include a new policy, POL LW3A Decision Making Criteria – Outstanding Water Bodies, which provides guidance for resource consent decision making, and a new Anticipated Environmental Result, Significant values of outstanding water bodies are protected.

25.2. A new objective and two new policies in Chapter 3.2 to ensure a consistent framework is in place to protect OWBs (such as estuaries) in coastal areas, in the same manner as for fresh water bodies.

25.3. Two new definitions in the Glossary (Chapter 9).

25.4. A new Schedule 4 which lists the proposed OWBs within the Hawke’s Bay region.

25.5. No changes to the rules of either the RRMP or the Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP) as part of this plan change. Rules will be proposed as necessary through future plan changes, when catchment specific provisions are introduced (such as for the draft TANK plan change). It is anticipated that such rules would specify how the significant values are to be protected; if they are not already protected by provisions of existing plans and regulations.

26. The operative RPS methods identified in POL LW4 Role of non-regulatory methods do not require change as they already enable the Regional Council to provide information to implement the NPSFM.

Strategic Fit

27. The OWB Plan Change is necessary to implement the NPSFM and give effect to RRMP POL LW1A: problem solving approach – Wetlands and outstanding water bodies. This policy states that, amongst other matters, the identification of outstanding freshwater bodies will be completed and an associated change to the RPS will be publicly notified prior to public notification of any further catchment-based plan changes. Consequently, it is necessary to publicly notify this proposed change before the TANK Plan Change 8.

28. The OWB Plan Change contributes towards achieving two of the Regional Council’s four strategic outcomes: water quality, safety and certainty, and healthy and functioning biodiversity.

Considerations of Tāngata Whenua

29. Tāngata whenua have special cultural, spiritual, historical and traditional associations with freshwater. For Māori, water is a taonga of paramount importance. The relationship between tāngata whenua and freshwater is based in whakapapa, which is the foundation for an inalienable relationship between Māori and freshwater that is recorded, celebrated and perpetuated across generations.

30. The approach to identifying OWB in the region has been co-designed with the tāngata whenua representatives of the RPC to ensure tāngata whenua values are addressed as part of a robust process to identify OWB.

31. All water bodies are important for spiritual, physical and customary reasons. The OWB plan change sets up a proposed policy framework for those water bodies having cultural and spiritual values that warrant protection in terms of the NPSFM ‘outstanding’ requirements, without diminishing the importance of other water bodies that are not labelled ‘outstanding’ or compromising the way in which these water bodies are managed in the RRMP and RCEP.

32. The Regional Council is required to consult with iwi authorities prior to a proposed OWB Plan Change, and must also indicate how issues that they have raised have been or are to be addressed.

Financial and Resource Implications

33. The development of the OWB plan change is provided for within the existing budgets.

34. Subsequent changes to the regional plan parts (including rules) of the RRMP to protect the significant values of OWBs will be made as part of the catchment-based plan development programme, so should not require additional resourcing.

Next Steps

35. Once the RPC has agreed on a draft list of OWBs, and is satisfied with the draft changes proposed to the RRMP, the Regional Council must undertake pre-notification consultation as required by Clause 3 of Schedule 1, RMA.

36. The Regional Council must consult with:

36.1. The Minister for the Environment

36.2. Other Ministers of the Crown who may be affected by the change

36.3. Local authorities who may be so affected

36.4. Tangata whenua of the area who may be affected through iwi authorities

36.5. Any customary marine title group in the area.

37. The Regional Council may also consult with additional parties it considers relevant during preparation of the plan change.

38. Staff have prepared a list of agencies, local authorities, iwi authorities, for pre-notification consultation (attached) for consideration by the RPC.

39. Staff will consider all comments received and suggest any further changes to better achieve the purpose of this plan change to the RPC. Staff will also identify how matters raised by iwi authorities are addressed, and will present a final draft version of Plan Change 7 back to the RPC prior to notification.

40. The next stage will be to notify the proposed OWB plan change and call for submissions. There will be opportunity for further submissions on any submitter’s request for change, and then a hearing will be arranged to enable those submitting to present their submissions before the hearing panel of accredited RMA hearing commissioners. These processes are summarised in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Steps in Making the OWB Plan Change

Step	Process
1	Preparatory work
2	Pre-notification consultation on draft plan change	← We are here
3	Notification of proposed plan change & receipt of submissions
4	Hearing and decisions on submissions
5	Address any appeal to Environment Court
6	Make plan change operative

41. The RPC should also consider making recommendations to the Regional Council on the composition of the OWB hearing panel prior to notification of the OWB Plan Change.

Decision Making Process

42. The Regional Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

42.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

42.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is prescribed by legislation.

42.3. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the region’s management of water resources under the RMA.

Recommendations

1. That the Regional Planning Committee:

1.1. Receives and notes the report SD 19-18 Outstanding Water Bodies Plan Change: Selecting a list of outstanding water bodies in Hawke’s Bay (separately circulated).

1.2. Receives and notes the report SD 19-19 Outstanding Water Bodies in Hawke’s Bay: Report of the Expert Panel (April 2019) (separately circulated).

1.3. Agrees on a draft list of Outstanding Water Bodies for inclusion in draft Plan Change 7. Note: Staff will provide further recommendations on the draft list of OWB at the RPC meeting.

1.4. Agrees that the Draft Proposed Plan Change 7 (Attachment 1) should be released for pre-notification consultation.

1.5. Requests staff identify a shortlist of suitably qualified and experienced Resource Management Act accredited Hearing Commissioners for consideration by the Committee.

2. The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

2.1. Releases Draft Outstanding Water Bodies Plan Change 7 for pre-notification consultation with relevant Ministers of the Crown, local authorities, iwi authorities and stakeholders in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA.

2.2. Provides for a period of four weeks for pre-notification consultation with those parties identified in 2.1 above.

Authored by:

Dale Meredith

Senior Policy Planner

Belinda Harper

Senior Planner

Approved by:

Tom Skerman

Group Manager
Strategic Planning

Attachment/s

⇩1	Draft Proposed Plan Change 7 - Outstanding Water Bodies
⇩2	List of Agencies for Pre-notification Consultation
⇨3	Outstanding Water Bodies Plan Change - Selecting a List of Outstanding Water Bodies in Hawke’s Bay	Under Separate Cover
⇨4	OWB Main Report - Appendix 1 Frequently Asked Questions	Under Separate Cover
⇨5	OWB Main Report - Appendix 2 Project Approach OWB Plan Change	Under Separate Cover
⇨6	OWB Main Report - Appendix 3 Location Maps, OWB Main Report - Candidate OWB and Nominated OWB	Under Separate Cover
⇨7	OWB Main Report - Appendix 4 Candidate Outsanding Water Bodies Secondary Assessment Reports	Under Separate Cover
⇨8	OWB Main Report - Appendix 5 Engagement	Under Separate Cover
⇨9	OWB Main Report - Appendix 6 Report of the Expert Panel	Under Separate Cover
⇨10	OWB Main Report - Appendix 7 List of OWB, Selection Options 1 and 2	Under Separate Cover
⇨11	OWB Main Report - Appendix 8 Summary Tables	Under Separate Cover

Type	Agency
Ministers of the Crown (Required)	Ministry for the Environment
Department of Conservation
Ministry of Health
Ministry for Business, Innovation & Employment (Energy & Resources)
Ministry for Primary Industries (Agriculture, Forestry)
Iwi authorities & other entities requiring notice re RMA plan changes (Required)	Mana Ahuriri Trust
Ngāti Pārau Hapū Trust
Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust
Tāmanuhiri Tutu Poroporo Trust
Te Kōpere o te iwi o Ngāti Hineuru
Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Inc
Wairoa Taiwhenua
Te Taiwhenua o Te Whanganui-a-Orotū Inc
Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga (hapu)
Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea (hapu)
Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust
Te Runanga o Ngāti Manawa
Ngāti Pāhauwera Development Trust
Te Kotahitanga o Tūwharetoa
Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board
Mokai Marae Reserve / Turopaki A Trust
Te Runanga o Ngāti Whare
Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā Trust
Rangitāne o Manawatū Settlement Trust
Taneuiarangi Manawatu Incorporated
Rangitāne o Tāmaki nui a Rua
Rangitāne o Wairarapa
Rongowhakaata Iwi Trust
Ngati Ruapani ki Waikaremoan (affiliiated to Te Tatou Pounamu o Waikaremoana)
Te Iwi o Rakaipaaka Inc
Tatau tatau o te Wairoa Trust
Te Rākatō Marae
Tūhoe - Te Uru Taumatua
Local authorities within or adjoining Hawke’s Bay region (Required)	Napier City Council
Central Hawke's Bay District Council
Hastings District Council
Wairoa District Council
Rangitikei District Council
Taupo District Council
Gisborne District Council
Horizons Regional Council
Waikato Regional Council
Bay of Plenty Regional Council
Stakeholders (Optional)	Hawke's Bay District Health Board (Public Health)
Federated Farmers
Fish and Game Council (Hawke's Bay)
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society Inc
Horticulture NZ
Genesis Energy
Whitewater NZ
Jet Boating NZ
Tourism Hawke's Bay
Public (Optional)	Via website, press release

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 15 May 2019

Subject: TANK Plan Change - Feedback and Recommendations Following Pre-notification Consultation

Reason for Report

1. This report summarises the advice received during the pre-notification consultation of Draft Plan Change 9 and seeks direction, based on the officers’ assessments of the feedback received, in relation to recommended amendments to the Change prior to public notification as a proposed plan change.

Background

2. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (the Council) intends to change its Regional Resource Management Plan for the management of the waterbodies in the Tūtaekurī, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro and Karamu catchments (TANK) in proposed Plan Change 9.

3. At the RPC meeting on the 12 December 2018 the Committee agreed that the draft TANK plan Change 9 (version 8) be recommended to Council for adoption as a draft for targeted consultation with relevant iwi authorities, territorial local authorities and relevant Ministers of the Crown. This pre-notification consultation was subsequently agreed at Council on 19 December 2018.

4. Letters and supporting reports/documentation were sent to those identified pre-notification parties on 1 February 2019, seeking feedback and comments to the Draft TANK plan change. Responses were to be received by the 15 March, however an extension was sought by HDC (and approved by RPC) to 29 March 2019.

Feedback

5. Advice and feedback has been received from:

5.1. Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga (TToH) received 10 April 2019

5.2. Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated (NKII) received 5 April 2019

5.3. Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust (HTST) received 17 April 2019

5.4. Mana Ahuriri Trust received 6 March 2019

5.5. Hastings District Council (HDC) received 29 March 2019

5.6. Napier City Council (NCC) received 29 March 2019

5.7. Department of Conservation (DoC) received 18 April 2019, and

5.8. Horticulture NZ (Hort NZ) received 29 March 2019.

6. It should be noted that no response was provided by the Minister for the Environment, however the Minister acknowledged receipt of the letter and documents. In addition to the Minister, no response was received from:

6.1. Tuwharetoa Māori Trust Board

6.2. Te Taiwhenua o Whanganui o Orotu

6.3. Ngāti Parau Hapū Trust

6.4. Maungaharuru Tangitu Trust

6.5. Taupō District Council

6.6. Rangitikei District Council.

7. The Council must have particular regard to any advice received on a draft proposed policy statement or plan from iwi authorities. This does not mean that the Plan Change must be amended as requested by the iwi authorities, but the RPC must at least consider that feedback alongside the many other considerations. Feedback from other parties has also led to staff now recommending for amendments to further improve the draft.

8. Legal advice on some aspects of the Plan Change has also been received and there are recommendations for some amendments in relation to this advice.

9. Each of the feedback documents received has been summarised with a brief staff response or explanation provided for all feedback items. The feedback documents are provided in full as attachments 1-8, and the summaries for all of the feedback along with an assessment of the matters raised and recommendations provided in attachments 9-15.

10. It should be noted that as a matter of courtesy a copy of the summary of the NKII response, matters raised including the recommendations from staff was provided to NKII in advance of the RPC meeting. An invitation to meet with staff to further discuss matters which may still require further consideration was extended. At the time of writing this report no meeting had been scheduled.

11. Further amendments recommended by staff and explanations are either reported on in this report, for more substantive items, or collated and provided in Table 1 of this report for more editorial amendments, corrections or clarifications. All of the recommended amendments are presented as tracked changes in the attached draft Version 9 of the TANK Plan Change 9 (Attachment 16).

12. The significant issues raised in the feedback and described in more detail include:

12.1. Ensuring values are properly provided for

12.2. Managing stream depletion effects of groundwater takes

12.3. Allocation limit for high flow abstraction and water for Māori development

12.4. Urban development and freshwater

12.5. Allocation Limits

12.6. Integrated and long term solutions for managing stormwater

12.7. The role of mana whenua in the TANK collaborative process.

Assessments

Section 1 - Ensuring Values are Provided for

Iwi advice

13. TToH, NKII and HTST consider the Plan does not clearly provide for Māori values. Mana Ahuriri conversely have supported the Plan stating that the ‘in terms of iwi values we support that the plan has clearly articulated these provisions…’

Other feedback

14. The Department of Conservation seeks more explicit recognition of natural character including wild and scenic values and protection for the Ngaruroro mainstem. Additional recognition for indigenous biodiversity is sought.

Officers’ Assessment

15. As noted in the advice from iwi, considerable Council resource and tāngata whenua effort was expended in gathering information about Māori values and how they were to be provided for in the plan change. The Ngaruroro Attributes and Values document and subsequent work by the Catalyst Group to understand what attribute states would provide for Māori values proved very helpful in drafting the Plan and establishing freshwater objectives. The table of attributes at the end of the Ngaruroro report aligned very well with the final selection of attributes that are now in Schedule 1 of the draft. The selection of attributes was necessarily governed by the availability of data and established guidelines or information to show how the attribute state provides for the value identified.

16. Attention was given specifically to other attributes that might better reflect Mātauranga Māori. This is reflected by the placeholder in Schedule 1. The input by Māori that is required to complete this work is further reflected by Policies 33 and 35. This same issue clouded development of the Tukituki Plan Change process and as part of implementation of that plan Council committed significant funds to enable iwi, local marae and hapū to develop the necessary information. It was to be hoped that the Tukituki work was sufficiently advanced to help inform the TANK plan change.

17. The values diagrams remain separate to reinforce a distinct Māori world view rather than attempting to develop a more integrated approach to how water values could be articulated. Nonetheless, the plan objectives refer to specific types of values including mauri and mahinga kai that are included in the Māori values diagram. Ecosystem targeted objectives and protections are understood to align with the Māori world view of Te Mana o te Wai, the concept of mauri and that the awa comes first - and that this also means fundamental protection of the ecosystem. It also enabled the Freshwater NPS to be given effect to in terms of the compulsory national standard for ecosystem health.

18. Insofar as the scope and purpose of the Plan Change allows, provision for Māori land and Māori communities have been incorporated within the Plan, specifically in relation to high flow water allocation (see section 4), addressing community water supply for papakāinga and marae and addressing concerns about the Paritua catchment.

19. Water uses relevant to human health and cultural practices, such as encompassed by the term Uu (values within water e.g. immersion, swimming, cleansing, tāonga rongoa), are also specifically recognised in Schedule 1. It is suggested that this can be made more explicit in Objectives 6 (c), 7(c) and 8(c) which refer to people safely carrying out a range of social cultural and recreational activities by including practices relevant to Uu.

20. Kaitiaki, as it is defined as an expression of stewardship or guardianship, is a term reflected throughout the plan. Clearly for Māori, kaitiaki may require additional responsibilities as defined by their culture, however TANK Group members also wished to acknowledge their own responsibilities for good stewardship as expressed by this concept. This shouldering of responsibility is to be celebrated as it illustrates the commitment of the TANK stakeholder members.

21. This plan change does not address structures in waterways and fish passage directly so, in as far as this aspect of whakapapa is concerned, provisions in the rest of the RRMP already cover this.

22. Natural character is not specifically mentioned anywhere in the Plan change although it was part of TANK discussions about water body values. Natural character also informs understanding about and provision for wai Māori. A wide range of site specific characteristics combine to provide a natural character including biophysical, ecological, geomorphological, geological aspects, natural movement of water, location, the presence of indigenous species, colour and clarity of the water.

23. Evidence presented to the Special Tribunal in its proceedings for the WCO application for the Ngaruroro River illustrate the significant natural character in some parts of the TANK catchments. The Department of Conservation feedback also mentions a need to specifically mention this. Other work is also being considered in relation to outstanding water bodies. It is plausible that some waterbodies in the TANK catchments will be considered outstanding. The draft plan will be reviewed in light of any decisions made by the RPC about outstanding water bodies and any necessary amendments to PC9 reported back to the committee before notification.

24. The protection of the Ngaruroro and Tūtaekurī River’s significant natural character value and its habitat for indigenous birds is already provided for in the plan through restrictions on damming and Objectives 6(d) and 7(d). Both those clauses should refer also to natural character.

25. The values of wetlands are specifically identified and provided for. They are a key waahi taonga and the Plan change contains several objectives and policies targeted at protecting existing wetlands and increasing wetland areas. The words ‘waahi taonga’ could be included in Objective 10 to make it even clearer that this Māori value is being provided for.

26. The values diagram also requires amendment to include natural character and deletion of reference to ‘commercial’ eeling.

27. Whilst some values or matters may not be explicitly mentioned in the Plan it should be noted that the RRMP’s existing provisions in many instances already address the key issues which have been raised e.g. rules controlling drainage of natural wetlands. The TANK plan should be considered as an addition to the RRMP, not in isolation from it.

Suggested amendments

28. Staff recommend that the objectives are amended as follows.

28.1. Objectives 6 (c), 7(c) and 8(c) - Insert ‘and cultural practices of Uu’

28.2. Objectives 6 (d) and 7(d) - Insert ‘natural character and’ before instream values

28.3. Objective 10 - Insert the words waahi taonga after wetland and lakes.

Section 2 - Managing Stream Depletion

Iwi advice

29. The mana whenua members of the TANK Group expressed concerns about the stream flow enhancement measure to address stream depletion during the TANK plan development and various alternative management options were explored. The TANK mana whenua member concerns are also reflected in advice from NKII, TTOH and HTST and iwi agencies again seek deletion of this management solution. Advice also requests that the allocation limit is not classified as interim.

TLA advice

30. HDC seeks that the flow enhancement schemes for Karamū tributaries need to be developed prior to water permits being reviewed. HDC considers that better understanding of the off-setting benefits of stream flow enhancement may allow a higher volume of consented water without compromising outcomes sought and providing retention of existing consented allocations.

31. NCC expresses reservations about how such a scheme will be implemented and the implications of this requirement on their consented water takes.

Other feedback

32. Hort NZ suggests that water users who are not consent holders should also contribute to such a scheme.

33. DOC consider that Objective 9 does not adequately recognise the importance of flow in the Heretaunga Aquifer to the Karamu Stream. They suggest a maximum water take at peak season and on-site storage provisions to complement Policy 36.

34. Legal advice has also been received in respect of the obligations and management of the scheme.

Current state

35. HBRC’s extensive science and modelling work has confirmed that the Heretaunga Plains aquifer is more connected and transmissive than previously thought. The cumulative effect of all groundwater abstraction contributes to reduced flows in connected surface streams and rivers. The Heretaunga Plains integrated ground and surface model was used to predict the effectiveness of a range of management options to manage this stream depletion effect. These options included:

35.1. Restrictions or bans

35.2. Reductions in allocations

35.3. Stream flow enhancement.

36. The stream flow enhancement option was endorsed by the majority of the TANK Group as the preferred option, but did not receive support from mana whenua. Consequently, this was highlighted as one of the non-consensus matters that the RPC needed to consider further in its deliberations during late 2018.

37. This solution is especially targeted for review within 10 years of the Plan being operative and all water permits have been re-issued in line with plan requirements. It is clearly acknowledged that if environmental objectives for the aquatic ecosystems are not being met, alternative management responses may need to be developed.

38. The scheme is based on how the Twyford Group of irrigators maintain stream flows in order to avoid triggering a take ban. This group collectively work together to maintain stream flows by pumping groundwater (allocated to them) to adjacent streams and by reducing or rostering water takes to reduce the impact of their water abstraction on flows. There is no specific advice as to whether this scheme is supported or not, but it does operate successfully. It has provided local water users with better information about the effects of their water takes on stream flows and enables them to manage that more effectively.

39. Irrigators in the Tywford Group were previously judged to be affecting stream flows depending on their proximity to the stream and whether or not they abstract water from the confined or unconfined aquifer. However, the new model demonstrates all water users cumulatively impact on stream flows. It demonstrates that all groundwater takes have some stream depletion effects and that the effect is variable depending on location. The model also indicated that a take may potentially affect more than one river or stream.

40. New modelling tools have been developed that show the relative contribution to stream depletion for each point of take. It enables the stream depletion effect from each point of take to be calculated (in litres per second) for all of the streams affected by the abstraction.

41. There is still some feasibility and modelling work required to refine the scheme and management options for each affected stream and in relation to each consent holder.

Draft Plan Change proposal

42. The Plan manages the cumulative stream depletion effects by:

42.1. requiring that the stream depletion effect for each abstraction be offset by an equivalent discharge into an affected stream by the permit holder

42.2. requiring stream augmentation if stream flows fall to a specified trigger flow

42.3. requiring flow enhancement water to be part of the total allocated to the permit holder

42.4. noting that stream flow enhancement may not be required every year

42.5. enabling permit holders to collectively consider other measures to ensure stream flows do not fall below triggers. This might include more targeted management of abstraction points with a larger stream depletion effect, rostering water takes and reducing inessential water use during low flow periods

42.6. enabling Council to support permit holders to work collectively; and

43. requiring the permit holder, if the contribution is not made, to cease take when the trigger flow is reached.

Officers’ Assessment

44. The Draft Plan Policy 38, as currently worded causes confusion regarding the role of Council in developing, constructing and operating stream flow enhancement schemes. The policy requires redrafting to more clearly indicate that it is an enabling provision. It provides an opportunity for flow enhancement as an alternative to a more stringent water take ban.

45. The current policy describes a lead role for Council and includes a requirement for consent holders to contribute to a scheme and enable Council to recover costs from permit holders for any development and operational costs. However, the policy is not intended to limit stake holders’ ability to mitigate stream depletion effects by making them reliant on the Council to establish the scheme. Imposing a condition on a consent which requires a third party (i.e Council itself) to do something is ultra vires.

46. The consent holder alone, or with a third party (such as in the Twyford model), may establish a scheme themselves. Conditions on such a consent will impose responsibilities on the consent holders to be part of and contribute to such a scheme.

47. In some circumstances, it may be appropriate for a scheme to be administered by Council, provided costs were recovered from permit holders. However, it is not the intention in the drafting of Policy 38 that the Council be responsible for a consent holder’s stream enhancement obligations, the application or management of any associated consents that will be necessary for such a scheme. Rather, the Council could provide support for the modelling and design for any stream flow enhancement scheme that is available to consent holder.

48. An applicant could seek to offset stream depletion effects by contributing to an enhancement scheme administered by either a third party or the Council. This would avoid the need for a particular charge to be set as the payment for the provision of the enhancement scheme would essentially be a commercial development.

49. There is uncertainty about the extent to which the actual and reasonable assessments will reduce water permit allocations and the effect on the interim allocation limit. The stream depletion effects of each take have yet to be calculated and accounted for in the scheme for each permit holder.

50. However, some advance modelling and working with permit holders will enable consent processing to be more stream-lined in relation to the opportunities the flow enhancement and the extent to which the stream depletion effect can be off-set.

51. No changes to the plan in respect of the timing of the schemes are recommended by staff, however, it is suggested that Council commence discussions soon with industry groups, water permit holders and iwi about the development of flow enhancement schemes and their management. Having this work done in advance of permit re-allocation processes provides more certainty and clarity for both the Council and applicants when permit applications are being processed and conditions applied.

52. The inclusion of iwi in the design of the stream enhancement schemes ensures the maximum benefit to stream flows at their upper reaches is considered, and design is not limited to meeting a flow trigger at the most downstream site.

53. Also required is further development of the Stream Depletion Calculator (SDC) including its public (on-line) availability to assist permit holders understanding of their stream depletion effects in advance of permit expiry. The speedy development of the SDC is also important so that water permit holders can gauge the effect of this plan change on their water take to inform any submissions that they may lodge on PC9.

54. Item 51 of the Implementation Plan refers briefly to the stream enhancement solution. It requires further refinement, timelines and specification of other stakeholder roles. This is being considered by staff.

55. There is a range of small scale water use that is permitted (and does not require a resource consent). The Council does not hold information on the location of each and every permitted water take, nor does it require such use to be metered. The individual impacts of such takes are minor, and while the cumulative total permitted take has been modelled, it is a relatively small proportion of the total. There are no requirements to impose stream flow enhancement requirements on permitted activities. The administrative and compliance costs for Council and water users of establishing such a requirement as a condition of permitted activities would outweigh any benefits.

56. The allocation limit applies as part of this Plan Change and calling it ‘interim’ is not necessary. It had been included to signal to water users that further reduction may be necessary following assessment of the stream flow enhancement scheme and other measures to reduce allocations and improve efficiency. Policy 40 clearly sets out the review requirements and indicates that the allocation limit may require adjustment upon review of the Plan.

Suggested amendments

57. Delete from Policy 33(e) the word “interim”

58. Amend Policy 38 as follows.

The Council will remedy, or offset if remedying is not practicable, the stream depletion effects and effects on tikanga Māori of groundwater takes in the Heretaunga Plains Water Management Zone on the Karamu River and its tributaries by;

a) Regulating water takes and enabling consent applicants to either

(i) develop or contribute to ~~developing~~ stream flow and habitat enhancement schemes that;

1. improve stream flows in lowland rivers where groundwater abstraction is depleting stream flows below trigger flows and;

2. improve oxygen levels and reduce water temperatures;

(ii) be subject to water take restrictions when flow triggers are reached and to;

b) support and contribute to ~~consult on~~ the design and management of the stream flow enhancement regime by permit holders either individually or collectively;

c) assess the contribution to stream depletion from groundwater takes; and

(i) require stream depletion to be off-set equitably by ~~impose costs equitably on~~ consent holders ~~based on the level of stream depletion~~ while providing for exceptions for the use of water for essential human health; and

(ii) work with permit holders to progressively develop and implement flow enhancement schemes as water permits are replaced or reviewed, including through the establishment and support of catchment collectives in the order consistent with water permit expiry dates;

(iii) allow site to site transfer of water to enable the operation of a flow enhancement scheme

d) ~~Regulate groundwater abstraction so that water use ceases when the minimum flow for the affected stream is reached if a permit holder does not contribute to an applicable low enhancement scheme~~ This condition (d) is deleted because it is already provided for in (a)

59. Amend TANK Rule 7(f) and (g) as follows.

Stream Flow Enhancement

Either:

f) The stream flow depletion (in l/sec) will be calculated using the Stream Depletion Calculator.* A ~~and when a stream flow enhancement scheme for the affected stream contribution to stream~~ flow enhancement will be calculated for the affected stream according to the extent of total stream flow depletion and based on the allocated amount of water, and

g) The volume and rate of water able to be abstracted is reduced by an amount equivalent to the stream flow depletion calculated in (f) (as determined by the Stream Depletion Calculator*) at any time the flows in the affected stream reduces below the minimum flows in Schedule 6

h) The water take ceases when flows in the affected stream fall below specified trigger levels in Schedule 6

60. Insert into RRMP Rule 31 a new condition.

(d) The discharge is not discharge of groundwater into surface water in the Heretaunga Plains Groundwater Management Unit.

61. Insert new rule-

RULE

ACTIVITY

STATUS

MATTERS

Stream Flow Enhancement

Discharge of groundwater into surface water in the Heretaunga Plains Groundwater Management Unit

Restricted Discretionary

1. Rate and timing of the discharge

2. The quality of the groundwater and the quality of the receiving water

3. Location of the discharge

4. Riparian land management along the affected stream

5. Information to be supplied and monitoring requirements including timing and nature of water quality monitoring.

6. The duration of the consent (Section 123 of the Act) as provided for in Schedule timing of reviews and purposes of reviews (Section 128 of the Act).

7. Lapsing of the consent (Section 125(1)).

Section 3 - High Flow Water Allocation Including for Māori Development

Iwi advice

62. Advice from TToH, HTST and NKII about the reservation of water for Māori well-being was negative, opposing the plan provisions (Objective 13, policies 56 and 57 and Schedule 7). Their advice noted in particular that while water rights for Māori were supported, the policy is “offensive” and “tokenistic” - and that the policy was not written or requested by Māori and iwi were not involved in its development. Advice from TTOH for its deletion is because it is probably ultra vires. By implication the advice from all of the iwi groups is to delete the objective, policies and accompanying rules.

63. Related to this issue is the allocation limit for high flow allocation. Iwi advice is that their high-flow allocation preferences have been over-ruled by potential economic considerations. They consider the allocation limit for the high flow allocation from the Ngaruroro River should be reduced from 8,000 to 5,000 litres per second and that abstraction should cease at a higher trigger of 24m3/sec rather than 20m3/sec.

DOC feedback

64. The Department of Conservation raises concerns about the lack of direction provided by policies 51 and 52 in relation to the phrase ‘avoid, remedy or mitigate’ and consider not enough guidance is provided.

Other feedback

65. Legal advice is that this solution for addressing historic inequity in relation to access to water by Māori can be successful, provided some amendments to ensure clarity about what activities are being provided for can be more clearly defined.

Officers’ Assessment

Intent and Opportunities

66. The intent of the TANK stakeholders in promoting this policy was to address historic inequities in looking forward to new allocation regimes. The TANK members had been particularly influenced by the reporting on the social and cultural impact assessment from Dr Cole and the current social, economic and cultural challenges faced by TANK Māori and local iwi and hapū.

67. The TANK stakeholders considered this high flow allocation was a way to address some of those issues. The objective and policy provide opportunities for both new environmental management solutions to be developed and social and economic needs for water to be met and help to enable the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions.

68. The amount of water being reserved to meet the objective of improved Māori well-being depends on the high flow allocation limit. If the limit remains as in the draft this represents an allocation of 1,600 litres per second at times of high flow for Māori well-being activities. While bearing in mind that this needs to be stored for later use or discharge, it represents a considerable amount of water and an opportunity for Māori organisations to work with any applicant wanting to develop a high flow storage solution. To help put the 1600 l/s in context, this flow roughly equates to the total Tutaekuri-Waimate stream flow that is often observed during typical summer low flow conditions and which is illustrated in figure 1. The amount of reserved water represents considerable potential environmental flow benefit, irrigation, or commercial/industrial potential.

Figure 1 Tutaekuri-Waimate River at 1500l/sec

69. This policy approach is a novel and innovative way to address some of the water allocation inequities suffered by Māori but there are some legal concerns about scope and implementation. However, it requires support of local Māori and iwi in order to make it work. Feedback was sought from iwi (via the letters sent during the pre-notification consultation), on how the policy could be improved to better describe the kinds of activities that this reserved water could be used and the types of Māori organisations who should be consulted when making decisions about applications to take this water.

70. No further input into how this policy could be improved was provided in the iwi feedback. In view of the strength of opposition to this provision by NKII in particular, the RPC may not wish to pursue this plan provision.

71. However, given the potential water quantities involved and the opportunity being provided for Māori to be directly involved with water storage initiatives, staff advice is that this policy could provide significant benefits to develop Māori well-being and should be retained and further developed to ensure it can be effectively implemented. This report is progressed on that basis.

Implementation

72. Legal advice notes that there is case law in respect of providing allocation for specific Māori customary and cultural purposes. It also informs us that while neither plan provisions nor case law exists in relation to allocating for Māori economic and social well-being, and while neither of these things are specifically included as matters to be afforded particular protection under the RMA, Council nonetheless has broad discretion to:

72.1. allocate water under Section 30

72.2. provide for Māori interests and

72.3. enable people and communities to provide for social, economic and cultural well-being.

73. However, some constraints and challenges still exist, as has been noted in earlier staff briefings. Council cannot allocate water for exclusive use by a particular person, group or class of people, including a body representing iwi. This is relevant also to how water permits issued directly to any Māori consent holder are managed; i.e. special consideration or priority cannot be made for Māori consent holders as sought by NKII.

74. An application should be able to be made by any person in a particular area or location irrespective of ownership or any relationship with an area.

75. It is also not permissible to use a plan to give preference or priority access of resources to tāngata whenua or other specified parties. The allocation is controlled by the status of the activity, not the status of the applicant. Legal advice considers the policy must be careful not to favour applicants who are Māori organisations or holders of land newly acquired by Treaty settlements. Requests for the reserved water to be allocated directly to Māori are therefore not able to be given legal effect to.

76. The policy and allocation rule must provide sufficient clarity and direction as to the specific activities that provide Māori well-being. The current provisions are not sufficiently clear as to the types of activities that provide for Māori well-being. “Providing for well-being” is more of an outcome than an activity for which water can be allocated.

77. The staff recommendation is to reword the policy to provide for more clarity about the activity rather than the applicant. The provision relating to Māori employment benefits is deleted as it is considered an ultra vires provision; a consent holder would be affected by changing circumstances and third parties (employees), beyond their control to be compliant. It is likely that such a condition is also outside employment laws.

78. In the absence of further suggestions about which Māori organisations should be consulted in relation to applications for this water, it is recommended that only Post Settlement Governance Entities be consulted.

79. Consideration of further specific activities which would improve Māori cultural, economic and social well-being would also help strengthen the policy.

High Flow Allocation Limit

80. Iwi feedback suggests that the high flow allocation limit for the Ngaruroro River should be reduced, but aside from commenting that the amount appears to have been set in a way that over-rides instream values in providing for economic considerations, there is no further information as to why they hold this view.

81. The TANK Group took into account the role of high flows in contributing to the hydrological functioning of the river and its instream values in deciding on an allocation limit. They started with a presumption that the river functioning needed to be protected and used a statistical approach. They sought that the high flow frequency would not be changed by more than a maximum amount of 10% change.

82. The Group could not reach a consensus on whether the allocation should be a 4% or 6% change to the flood flow frequency. Both are significantly less than the conservative 10% change to flood flow frequency. No change is being recommended, although it is noted that this is an issue that may attract submissions and will enable further debate and evidence to be provided during the formal hearing phase.

83. Hort NZ considers further clarification is needed to guide high flow allocation from tributaries. Rewording is recommended to help address their concern. Full flow details are not available for each tributary and must be calculated for each new application for high flow abstraction.

Policy guidance

84. The policy requires an avoid, remedy, mitigate assessment to be taken when assessing consent applications and the effects of a proposal while also providing a limit to the amount of high flow water that might be abstracted. It is also supported by Policy 55 which provides a high level of protection to specified rivers with identified significant values.

85. This approach is considered to remain appropriate given that the particular circumstances of each application are not known. It is not possible to say in advance what options for managing adverse effects for any one proposal will be appropriate, and the circumstances under which decisions need to be made about whether effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

86. However, the policy does provide for bottom line protection through the allocation limit and the extent to which flood flows may be changed by abstraction. This bottom line ensures many effects listed in the policy will be avoided. There are also related policies that will also be relevant in making decisions such as those in relation to changes in water quality, meeting freshwater quality objectives, wetland protection and riparian management.

Suggested amendments

87. Amend Policy 56 as follows.

The Council will allocate 20% of the total water available at times of high flow in the Ngaruroro or Tūtaekurī River catchments for abstraction, storage and use for the following activities;

e) The use of water for any activity, provided that includes a direct (funding) ~~The improvement of M~~ā~~ori economic well-being by~~ to a Post Settlement Governance Entity Mā~~ori organisations contribution~~ at a financial rate that is equivalent to the amount of water allocated for Māori development ~~as a result of the use of the stored water at a rate proportional to the amount of water being taken~~

(i) A ~~direct increase in employment opportunities for M~~ā~~ori at a rate proportional to the amount of water being taken~~ improvement of access to water for domestic use for marae and papakainga;

(ii) contribution to environmental enhancement (that is in addition to any conditions imposed on the water storage proposal);

(iii) the development of land returned to a PSGE through a Treaty Settlement~~s or acquired through Treaty Settlement funding where there is insufficient water for full development of the land through existing water permits~~ .

And in making decisions on resource applications for this water the Council will;

(iv) require information to be provided that demonstrates how these activities will be provided for;

(v) have regard to the views of any affected PSGE Mā~~ori organisation~~ arising from consultation about the application and any assessment of the potential to provide part, or all of the 20% high flow reservation to Mā~~ori development~~ the activity

(vi) have regard to any relevant provisions for the storage and use of high flow allocation water for Māori development in any ~~joint~~ iwi/hapu management plans relevant to the application (where more than one PSGE is affected, the iwi management plan must be jointly prepared).

88. Amend Policy 56 as follows.

When making decisions about resource consent applications to take high flow water, the Council will take into account the following matters:

f) whether water ~~allocated~~ for development of Māori well-being is still available for allocation;

g) whether there is any other application to take and use the high flow allocation for development of Māori well-being relevant to the application.

h) the scale of the application and whether cost effective or practicable options for taking and using the high flow allocation for Māori development can be incorporated into the application;

i) the location of the application and whether cost effective or practicable options for including taking and using water for Māori development can be developed as part of the application;

j) whether there has been consultation on the potential to include taking and using all or part of the water allocated for Māori development into the application;

k) whether it is the view of the applicant that a joint or integrated approach for the provision of the reserved high flow water to Māori development is not appropriate or feasible, and the reasons why this is the case.

89. Amend column (D) in Schedule 7 as follows.

~~Proportionally in comparison to flow contributions to the main stem. This is included as~~ The high flow allocation from the tributary is proportional to its contribution to the mainstem. It is part of the total allocation for the mainstem high flow allocation.

Section 4 - Urban Development and Priority Water Management

Iwi advice

90. Advice from iwi generally notes the importance of water (available for abstraction) for essential human needs and community uses such as for marae and urban development. There is concern that the allocation policy does not sufficiently recognise a hierarchy for water allocation. TToH specifically has concerns about the changes to the permitted activity levels of water use.

TLA advice

91. The Napier and Hastings Councils support priority for community and human health supply. They also note the link between urban land development and the National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC) for this and the importance of primary production to the economic, social and cultural well-being of the two territorial areas.

92. The councils also note concern about the ordering and apparent priority of Policy 1 which sets out priorities for action.

93. Napier and Hastings Councils both stress that the HPUDS is secondary to the Urban Development Capacity National Policy Statement (NPS-UDC) and point out that in order to deliver on NPS-UDC, there must be adequate water supply and that this would prevail over any water needs contained within the HPUDS. The two councils consider the statutory responsibility to provide for sufficient development capacity applies to the associated allocation of water to support those land uses.

94. The Councils note that plan review cycle (10 years) is not aligned with either the HPUDS (2045 timeframe and based on 5 yearly revisions) or NPS-UDC.

95. NCC and HDC seek the deletion of references to the 2017 HPUDS which ties them to 2017 calculations for urban growth and water demand projections. They seek removal of this reference to allow flexibility to accommodate changing water demands as a result of urban development, driven by requirements of the NPS-UDC.

Other feedback

96. Hort NZ notes the importance of primary production to the economic, social and cultural well-being of the community and the dependence of this on the availability of water at a reasonable security of supply.

Officers’ assessment

Priority allocation of available water

97. Iwi and local council advice is that there needs to be better recognition of the human health and community needs for water. At present Objective 13 is somewhat vague about a priority regime, although policies specifically reserve water for municipal and community water use (Policies 46, 47, 48,). See below for further recommendations that also reinforce this priority approach. Use of water to irrigate land for primary production is also recognised with specific priority in relation to site to site transfer.

98. NKII expressed concern about Policy 46 and how re-allocation of water was to be managed. Two options for managing water that is returned to Council (such as through lapsed or unused consents) have been identified by staff, either:

98.1. Option 1- Water is re-allocated for irrigation of versatile land, or

98.2. Option 2 - Water is not re-allocated until the plan is reviewed.

99. The status of water allocation for versatile land could be reconsidered in light of the TLA obligations and RPS requirements for the protection of such land. A priority allocation recognises the value already given to the protection of such land and the interdependence between its productive capacity and water availability. Note too that the government is contemplating new national policy direction for the management of these scarce and highly valued resources.

100. However, given the degree of over-allocation across most water bodies, the possibility that substantial water will become available for re-allocation is quite small within the term of this plan. Furthermore, by then there may be new RMA allocation tools developed, new criteria for allocation could be developed or water remains allocated first in time.

101. It is suggested that Option 2 is the more conservative approach. It is recommended that Policy 46 is amended accordingly, and to remove the reference to the potential amendments to the RMA.

Urban water allocation and management

102. The tensions between the various national policy statements (for water, urban development and under development for versatile land) and legislative requirements under both the RMA and the LGA are acknowledged.

103. The Plan refers to the HPUDS strategy as it is the public expression for the strategic planning of urban development in the TANK catchments. HPUDS shows where development is anticipated and how it will be provided for. Expected water demand in the TANK draft plan is tied to the HPUDS to provide both certainty and clarity for the community generally, and the local authorities in particular, about the limits of natural resources that may constrain future urban development.

104. Council plans under the RMA are reviewable at any time at the Council’s discretion and resourcing, although reviews are required every 10 years. This provides opportunity to assess the alignment between the limits set and the available water. It allows for new assessments of growth to then inform Plan rules, including where re-allocation decisions to provide for urban growth are needed at the expense of other existing water investments. The first review of these TANK Plan change provisions also provides for an assessment of the effectiveness of stream enhancement strategies and whether they can provide for additional allocation.

105. The implication that more water can continue to be made available for urban development does not account for the fact that all available water is already fully allocated, nor does it provide the community with any certainty as to how limits will be met and how the resource needs of new development will be met.

106. New allocations to urban uses within a fully allocated water management unit will either come at the expense of other users or will need to be met by other water sources such as by augmentation. Within the current urban water supply networks, there is also scope to meet future demand by improving efficiency of water use and efficiency of the water reticulation network.

107. To provide more water beyond the limits set is not a sustainable solution. The functions and duties under sections 30 and 31 of the RMA are subject to Part 2 requirements for sustainable development, including in relation to water, as well as finite resources such as versatile land. PC9 clearly establishes limits for water abstraction (albeit tempered with some uncertainties). Any development, whether for irrigation, commercial use or urban development must be within those limits.

108. In this setting, to allow more water for urban use means another use has to be reduced. A wider community discussion about the costs and benefits and equity of that, as well as the other options that might exist is necessary before providing that solution.

109. HDC and NCC seek that the water allocation regime does not result in urban water takes becoming non-complying, however, while current and some future development is provided for, any new urban development that exceeds limits should be considered non-complying as it means the environmental limits for this development are being exceeded.

Other solutions

110. There are a number of management solutions to address water demand shortfalls that can be considered. These include:

110.1. water use efficiency by users of council supplied water

110.2. efficiencies within a council reticulation network

110.3. supply and demand management initiatives (pricing, water meters, pressure management etc.)

110.4. water storage, and

110.5. site to site transfers of water permits.

111. Other ways of meeting water demand can be explored by TLAs where limits are being reached. Both councils are addressing network management issues and developing opportunities for savings within their networks. While there is clearly room for better management in the short term, other strategies such as water metering and storage should also eventually feature in future discussions with the community about reductions in water use to allow for further urban growth.

112. Water storage is also an obvious solution – but consideration of water storage solutions by TLAs and their rate-paying communities would not occur without the pressure inherent in this limit context.

113. A further solution that is not specifically provided for is transfer of water from other water users to community/municipal water supply. See in particular Policy 44 (d), (e) and (f). An opportunity to relax the transfer restrictions of takes for any other use to municipal supply would be consistent with the priority regime. It would enable a TLA to consider transferring irrigation, commercial or industrial permits to municipal use such as when land is rezoned for urban development and these permits become available. These transactions would allow for willing transfer, rather than a rule requiring a more general re-allocation of water to municipal supply. They would still be subject to discretionary oversight to ensure adverse effects remain the same or similar.

114. HBRC should also continue to support collaborative investigations between itself and HDC and NCC to understand water supply and demand constraints and opportunities, particularly in the preparation of urban growth strategies such as HPUDS and any other developments considered necessary to give effect to the NPS-UDC.

115. An amendment to the consent duration has been made to reflect concerns by the TLAs in relation to their urban planning under HPUDS and the NPS-UDC. It reflects their priority water use, but makes it clear that new water use is to remain within the identified limits, including the urban development limits within HPUDS for the 2015-2045 planning period.

116. The municipal water allocation provisions include water for both residential and non-residential use including schools and rest homes, parks and reserves and commercial and industrial areas. Reservation for future municipal use however, excludes water for industrial supply at rates higher than 15m3/day. This provides a check on new larger scale wet industries which might be expected to otherwise assess their own options for water availability in a water short area. It ensures existing urban supplies are not placed under additional pressure from economic developments, which have access to non-ratepayer funding and that might be located elsewhere.

117. It is also suggested that provisions for water transfers to municipal supplies also exclude transfer to large scale industrial takes within a municipal network.

Permitted quantities

118. There was concern from TToH about the impact of the Plan restricting existing and future individual household takes. The Plan has reduced the permitted quantity for new takes, including for individual household takes. Existing household and other permitted takes can continue.

119. The previous permitted limit was a relatively generous (20m3 per day) and enabled a range of takes in addition to household use not otherwise manage by a water permit. New household takes are still provided for, but the permitted amount now better reflects a reasonable level of domestic (and other) water use to 5m3 per day. The change reflects the overall concern about the amount of water currently being abstracted from TANK waterbodies and the fact that the water resources are either fully or over -allocated.

Suggested amendments

120. Amend Objective 13 as follows.

Subject to limits, targets and flow regimes established to meet the needs of the values for the water body, water quantity allocation management and processes ensure water allocation in the following priority order

a) Water ~~is available~~ for the essential needs of people;

b) The~~re is equitable allocation of the water between competing end uses including priority~~ allocation and reservation of water for community supply including for marae and papakāinga, and for municipal supply so that existing and future demand as described in HPUDS (2017) can be met within the specified limits

c) ~~And allocation for~~ primary production ~~especially~~ on versatile soils,

d) ~~And for~~ other primary production, food processing, industrial and commercial end uses;

e) other non-commercial end uses

~~water is allocated for municipal and papak~~ā~~inga water use so that existing and future demand as described in HPUDS (2017) can be met within limits to enable the community to provide for its economic, social and cultural well-being~~

and that;

a) The development of Māori economic, cultural and social well-being is supported through regulating the use and allocation of the water available at high flows for taking, storage and use ~~for this activity~~

b) Water is available for abstraction at agreed reliability of supply standards;

c) Water use is efficient;

d) Allocation regimes are flexible and responsive, allowing water users to make efficient use of this finite resource

121. Amend Policy 1 by replacing ‘prioritising’ at the end of the first paragraph with:

“…focussing on all of the following”

122. Insert new clause at the end of Policy 44.

(h) enabling the transfer of a point of take and change of water use to municipal or community water supplies, including for marae and papakainga, from any other use for the efficient delivery of water supplies and to meet the communities’ human health needs for water supply provided the transfer does not include any industrial take above 15m3/day and adverse effects on existing water users can be avoided, remedied or mitigated.

123. Insert into Policy 45.

‘will impose a consent duration for municipal water supply consistent with the most recent HPUDS and will impose consent review requirements that align with the expiry of all other consents in the applicable management unit’

124. Amend Policy 46 as follows.

The Council will recognise reasonably foreseeable needs for municipal, papakainga and community water supply for human health and community well-being (excluding any provision for industrial uses that take or are supplied with water from a municipal water supply at rates more than 15m3/day) as priority uses for water available for allocation within allocation limits and,

a) will reserve any water that becomes available for allocation or re-allocation for those uses;

b) if no application is made or no reasonably foreseeable needs identified for this water use within 5 years of it becoming available, Council will not re-allocate any of the available water until ~~such time as alternative allocation mechanisms are provided through the RMA~~ there has been a review of the allocation limits within this plan.

125. Delete clause (b) (iii) from Policy 47.

126. Insert new clause (c) to Policy 47

‘work with Napier City and Hastings District Councils to;

(i) develop an integrated planning approach through HPUDS that gives effect to National Policy Statements within the limits of scarce resources

(ii) develop a good understanding of the present and future regional water demand and opportunities for meeting this.

127. Insert into Rule 62a a new clause (h)(iii);

the transfer enables efficient delivery of water supply to meet the communities’ human health needs.

Section 5 - Allocation Limits

Iwi advice

128. The iwi advice includes a number of general observations about water allocation with specific comments by TToH and HTST for the Ngaruroro River minimum flow to be increased to 2,800l/sec. There is no specific advice about the allocation limits for surface water.

Other feedback

129. Hort NZ expresses concern about the nature of the security of supply (referred to in Policy 41) and the allocation limits established for the Ngaruroro River. It requests clarification about the effect of the new allocation limit for the Ngaruroro River.

Officers’ assessment

130. Options for managing both flow triggers and allocation limits were extensively modelled and this range of options were debated at length. River ecology and flows are affected by both the allocation limit and the minimum flow. The minimum flow restricts takes beyond a certain trigger (it may continue to fall naturally if the drought continues) and the amount of water abstracted has an impact on how quickly a minimum flow trigger might be reached.

131. There was a very high level of scrutiny given to minimum flow as if it were the only metric of river ecological health. Other advice showed that the allocation limit as a percentage of mean annual river flow was also a relevant metric to consider. While the minimum flow was not increased, the Plan proposes that the allocation limit is decreased. The new allocation of 1300l/sec from the Ngaruroro River is a significant decrease from 1581 l/sec.

132. For water users, it is important that when water is allocated, it is available at a reasonable security of supply so as to enable economic investment. This security is dictated by two management levers. One is the amount allocated for the specific end use. For example, irrigators are not allocated all the water they need, but enough to meet demand nine out of ten years. It enables more people to get access to water than if full demand were met all the time. This also reflects the way in which irrigation systems and infrastructure is designed and operated.

133. In addition, security of supply is also dictated by the combination of minimum flow and allocation limit. The larger the allocation the quicker the limit in any given river is reached during times when river flows are decreasing. The higher a minimum flow the more often a trigger for restriction is reached.

134. As Hort NZ points out, security of supply is an important consideration for water users when they are making investment decisions – particularly where water allocation regimes may mean water is not available all the time. There is data available about the security of supply for water users, but there is no common or widely used metric (it could be in relation to number of continuous days on ban or frequency of restrictions in an irrigation season). Suitable security of supply information has not yet been collated for inclusion within this report. Information about security of supply will be collated for each waterbody and made available to water permit applicants. This information will be provided to the committee for consideration prior to notification.

135. Re-allocation via resource consents of water from the Ngaruroro River will be in accordance with Policy 49 which seeks to manage over-allocation. It means that existing users are particularly scrutinised as to actual and reasonable water use. The evidence from the modelling for the Heretaunga Plains in relation to water meter data shows that there is considerable opportunity to reduce allocation and use with better measurement and more efficient management of the available water.

Suggested amendments

136. None at present. Further information is to be provided to the RPC regarding the security of supply for consideration prior to notification.

Section 6 – Stormwater

TLA advice

137. The Napier and Hastings Council’s generally support the stormwater policies and rules.

138. They support the requirement to update and align territorial frameworks for stormwater management where practicable, however, they seek clarity regarding TANK Policy timeframes to ensure they are coordinated and consistent.

139. They would also like amendments made to clarify the intent of the Policies and ensure there is no ‘blurring of lines’ between Regional Council and territorial authority roles and responsibilities.

140. Both Councils have concerns regarding the suitability and applicability of the Risk Matrix in Schedule 10 for TLAs, and would like to see this further refined to be more consistent with other tools that are already in use and currently being developed, including existing Codes of Practice, District Plan review/development and Stormwater Bylaws etc.

141. Further meetings have been requested by NCC and HDC to discuss this further.

Officers’ assessment

142. The timeframes within the policies refer to integrated management, amendments of plans, standards, codes of practice and bylaws, development of site plans, public advice, and reducing effects. The different timeframes and deadlines were put into policies in accordance with a decision making matrix for determining if an activity was low, medium or high risk. However, it is recognised that the policy requires redrafting to provide a more logical sequence of actions over time and to more clearly align the dates with other TANK policies and councils’ plan reviews.

143. It was acknowledged that the Risk Matrix tool in Schedule 10 needed some further refining to better assess the risk of stormwater contamination associated with activities. Napier City Council indicated that they also have an assessment tool which both council’s considered more appropriate and applicable to their territorial functions.

144. Staff from each of the councils met on the 30 April to further discuss the suitability of the Matrix, and also to determine whether there were any ‘loopholes’ within the rules as currently proposed. It was agreed a further meeting would be scheduled to test the robustness of the rules using case studies. It was also agreed that a legal review would be required, particularly of the rules.

145. Staff agree that the current stormwater policies need to be redrafted to ensure the obligations of each council are clearly articulated. Some amendments have been made to the stormwater policies of the plan but further amendments may be required following further assessment of the rule robustness by staff and legal review.

Suggested amendments

146. Amend Policy 26 and delete policy 27.

147. Amend Policy 28 as follows.

148. Amend Policy 29 date to 1 January 2025.

149. Amend Policy 30 date to 1 January 2025 and Insert footnote to clarify ANZECC Guidelines.

150. Amend RRMP existing Rule 43 “Diversion and Discharge of stormwater’ (Controlled activity) to read:

Activity - Diversion and discharge of stormwater except as provided by Rule 42 and Stormwater 1”

151. Amend existing RRMP Rule 52 to read:

‘Discharges that do not comply with rules 9-14, 16, 31-51 and Stormwater 1-4’

152. Include the Advisory note to follow Stormwater Rules 1-4 as follows.

1. Non-compliance with rules – if the rules in this section cannot be complied with, then the activity is a discretionary activity under RRMP Rule 52.

Section 7 - Role of Mana Whenua in the TANK Collaborative Process

Iwi advice

153. The iwi feedback showed a high level of unhappiness, in particular from NKII, TToH and HTST with the process and, as a result, with the final outcomes and plan content.

Officers’ assessment

154. The Council adopted a plan review process in 2012 to develop new objectives and limits for waterbodies in the TANK catchments. They adopted a collaborative model whereby plan provisions would be developed jointly by a wide range and extensive number of parties with an interest in water management.

155. The Council was following a new national lead provided by the government and national stakeholder groups demonstrated by the Land and Water Forum, as well as building on the success of their own process which followed a similar model for the region’s Land and Water Management Strategy which was completed in 2011.

156. At the same time, new in-house decision making structures and processes were being set up as a result of Treaty Settlement initiatives. It was (and arguably still is) a time where there is lack of clarity from Central Government and within legislation with regards to the roles, responsibilities and expectation of Māori as Treaty Partners within the planning process and in decision making.

157. The range of requirements and opportunities provided by Treaty settlements and under various Acts (LGA, RMA and the councils own RPC Act in particular) and the Freshwater National Policy Statements has created uncertainty about how the TANK process was to properly account for Māori, their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands and water, both in terms of how decisions were made and how the consensus decision making was supposed to work.

158. Nevertheless, all parties entered into the challenge posed by the TANK plan change process and nearly all stayed with it for the entire programme. A great deal of time and resources by both the Council and the individual contributors was invested into the work. The discussions and debate were at times robust, but always illustrated the comprehensive, mature and committed approach to the TANK Group’s work and its significance.

159. Note: During the time since the TANK project was initiated the NPSFM has been amended twice and amendments have also been made to the RMA (passed in 2017).

Representation

160. The mana whenua members raised concerns at various times throughout the process including in relation to:

160.1. who was sitting around the table with a voice for Māori, and

160.2. how those people were selected

160.3. the status of the mana whenua members compared to other parties

160.4. the resourcing challenges relating to the time and financial commitments that were necessary, and

160.5. the level of understanding and capability of the mana whenua to contribute to discussions and solutions.

161. The Council adapted the process to accommodate many of the concerns. Some were outside the scope and functions of the Council and therefore could not be resolved, especially the representation and mandate of mana whenua. While the Group was set up with the best of intentions at that time, iwi and mana whenua were not themselves organised in ways which enabled optimal representation for Māori in this sort of collaborative process to be determined. Other changes including funding and additional resourcing were provided to assist meeting some of these challenges.

162. There has also been some misalignment in relation to the expectations about how Māori values should be provided for in a resource management plan. While the freshwater NPS establishes a process for the community identification of values, including Māori values, neither the NPS nor the RMA gives precedence to the protection of Māori values when setting objectives and limits – provided, of course, that plan safeguards life-supporting capacity and recognises Te Mana o te Wai. The NPSFM does not define Te Mana o te Wai per se but it states that Te Mana o te Wai is the integrated and holistic well-being of a freshwater body.

163. Many of the TANK members will be similarly frustrated that their specially held values or methods for addressing issues were not incorporated within the Plan. This is the nature of consensus, and as a result of the debate and discussions, there has been a great deal of change resulting from the TANK conversations about responsible resource management. There is nothing within the plan change content that can be amended in response to the design of the process which was utilised.

The paradigm

164. There has been a call within the feedback from iwi, for a paradigm shift in the way water resources are managed. The apparent lack of extensive new regulation is cited as not having achieved the required shift.

165. However, the TANK process has actually demonstrated a very significant shift in the way responsibility for water outcomes has been assumed by TANK members and their stakeholder organisations and landowners in the TANK catchments.

166. The focus on management of water to meet community held values has enabled the conversation to be more about solutions and reflects the willingness by various stakeholders to assume greater responsibility and develop innovative collaborative solutions. It is demonstrated as much by how the three councils (Napier, Hastings and HBRC) have to date worked together through the stormwater management challenges (some of which is still a work in progress), as it is by primary producers in meeting the challenges of managing diffuse discharges of contaminants.

167. Agreement about the desired states for water quality was one of the most momentous outcomes of this process and its significance should not be underestimated. Other plan change processes both in Hawke’s Bay and elsewhere have resulted in seemingly endless Environment Court debate about the most suitable water quality state. The draft TANK plan change again illustrates a considerable paradigm shift with a focus on priorities and solutions rather than technical debates about a single attribute state.

168. It is increasingly acknowledged that, while some limits may still be required (especially for nitrogen loss), the TANK Group supported a focus on supported a focus on solutions to meet community expectations and objectives for water. There was a strong desire by farmers in particular to be the drivers of innovation and solutions at a farm scale. A paradigm shift has occurred in land and resource users recognising they have a collective responsibility for meeting water quality objectives that are affected by complex catchment processes and cumulative effects of a range of always changing activities.

169. Further is the recognition that resource users need to be accountable for the effects of their practices on land and water quality and that there must be transparency in how efforts to achieve water objectives will be undertaken and monitored. Landowner and Council responsibilities for this are clearly articulated in the Plan and the accompanying Implementation Plan. The Plan is not without regulation. New rules as drafted will hold landowners accountable to better and more transparent resource management.

170. The ongoing efforts into making sure landowners and councils have the tools they need and the information necessary to make good decisions will be a challenge for the Council to ensure the success of this Plan.

Consensus

171. There a number of items where complete consensus was not reached by the TANK Group. These decisions were referred back to the Regional Planning Committee as decision makers. These non-consensus items will no doubt feature in submissions and will be further debated. Some of those matters are listed in the iwi feedback. Impacts of decisions about those non-consensus issues on resource users and the economic and social well-being require that such decisions are made with all the available information being taken into account.

Suggested amendments

172. All parties to the TANK Group, including staff would conclude that the collaborative process has had significant merits in terms of building relationships, sharing information and values, providing opportunities to develop wider community understanding of complex science and social and cultural issues and develop innovative solutions.

173. However, nothing is lost in conceding (with the benefit of hindsight) that the process was far too drawn out and ultimately time consuming and placed a heavy burden on those involved. Council staff are taking these learnings into account in the development of future freshwater catchment plan changes, particularly in relation to our engagement with iwi as the Crown’s Treaty Partner.

Section 8 - Summary of Remaining Issues

174. Some of the feedback contains quite detailed suggestions for amendments to the draft plan. Minor changes for editorial and clarity improvement are not reported on separately but are included as tracked changes in the attached Version 9 of Draft Plan Change 9.

175. Substantive feedback and advice is summarised in the preceding sections. The remaining associated recommendations for amendment are summarised in the Table below. The recommendations listed are also shown as tracked changes in the attached Version 9 of Draft Plan Change 9.

176. Where no change is recommended in response to the feedback, please refer to the summary sheets for each organisation for the assessment and explanation.

Table 1

Plan Ref	Party	Concern	Assessment	Suggested Amendments
Objectives	NKII	The order does not reflect importance. Objective 15 should be first	No priority was intended. A different ordering according to type of objective may be helpful	Rearrange order of objectives as follows; General objectives concerning processes and relationships General objectives water quality Catchment or specific objectives Objectives for water quantity
Objective 13 (now 16)	NKII, HTST NCC, HDC Hort NZ	The objective should provide for priority allocations	The plan already provides for some priority end uses	Amend to provide explicit priority order. (see section 5 above for details)
Objectives	NKII, HTST and TToH	Māori values not sufficiently recognised	Additional reference to specific Māori values can be made to better reflect interconnected values and objectives.	As in section 2 of this paper. Delete reference to commercial eeling in Figure 1. Natural character protections explicit
Objective 1 and biodiversity	DoC	‘Protection’ of natural resources should be included. More emphasis on protecting biodiversity sought	Protection of natural resources has a very wide scope. It would be more appropriate to refer to indigenous biodiversity to be consistent with the Plan protection for wetlands, riparian margins and indigenous species. Note that this is not a plan for terrestrial biodiversity.	Amend Objective 1 to refer to protection of indigenous biodiversity (section 2).
Policy 1	HDC NCC	Concern about apparent priority order for actions	No priority order was intended – this policy provided a short list of the more essential or priority actions that were identified as necessary to meet water objectives.	Amend wording to show no priority is intended.
Policy 3	DoC	Establishing macrophytes to improve lake condition requires lake condition to be improved first.	Agree, clause needs re-wording.	Amend clause 3 (i) of Policy 3.
Policy 5 and others	HDC NKII	Both seek that the regulatory or non-regulatory directions in the policies be more clearly articulated.	Re-ordering the plan content will assist in distinguishing policy content and direction.	Re-order policies to assist interpretation and distinguish between regulatory and non-regulatory approaches. Clarify roles and responsibilities within policies (Policy 5)
Policy 6 (and where term used)	HDC NCC	A default protection zone may not be a circle to reflect g/w travel as indicated by Heretaunga Plains g/w model.	Amend default radius to refer to default area instead.	Amend all instances of ‘default radius to ‘default area’.
Policy 7	HDC	It was not intended that extensive monitoring be required by water permit applicants, but that the water supply authorities were aware of water abstractions and the potential impact on their supplies	Agree that it is information about water abstraction risks that is more relevant.	Amend policy 7(v) to; (v) ensuring the water supplier is aware of any abstraction of groundwater where abstraction has the potential to impact on direction or speed and/ or hydrostatic pressure.
Policy 8	HDC NCC	Clarify the need to share information across agencies.	Agree information sharing is important.	Amend Policy 8 to clarify information to be shared.
Policies 26 – 32 Stormwater	NCC HDC	A number of concerns need to be addressed and clarification provided.	The stormwater policies have been amended to provide clarity with regards to roles and timeframes	See amendments within this report.
Policy 33	NKII	Policy should not lump Matauranga Māori and landowners together	Matauranga integral to Māori culture. Landowners have individual responsibilities for good stewardship which includes awareness about their impacts on water. Other amendments to better articulate policy direction.	Amend policy 33 to mention matauranga Māori separately and clarify policy intent.
Policy 34	NKII	Concerned about resource commitment imposed by this policy	This policy is a key and fundamental policy for accountability, transparency and ensuring the stakeholder commitments made in the TANK process are followed through. Reference to tangata whenua was initially included at their request. Attendance by them is not considered obligatory. The kaitiaki responsibilities can be discharged through the oversight role provided by the reporting to Council requirement that is included within the policy.	Delete reference to mana whenua.
Policy 36 and 49 and TANK 7 and 8	HDC NCC NKII TToH HTST	Concern where water has been allocated but not yet used as part of major development requiring infrastructure development over time. Concerns about allocation limit	The Council should take into account the practical and economic realities of constructing and completing a major development including fluctuations in market demand and the need to raise finance. It should be a tightly controlled discretion so that new water use is not given a loophole opportunity Delete reference to interim – it is a limit for the duration of the Plan	Amend Policy 36, 49 and TANK 7, 8 to allow this consideration.
Policy 38 and TANK 7	As in section 3 above
Policy 41	HDC/NCC Hort NZ	The security of supply standards that apply for each of the rivers as a result of the allocation limit and the minimum flow need to be specified within the plan	Agreed that information about this is important for applicants for water so that they know the limits of the resource they have been allocated and can make investment decisions accordingly.	The data has yet to be collated for each of the rivers but will be made available to water permit applicants.
Policy 41	NKII, TToH, HTST	NKII strongly oppose the use of offsets for the effects of takes in Zone 1 to be implemented in another.	New water management units may change how some groundwater takes are classified. This policy provided for alternative stream depletion options for Zone 1 takes that were previously groundwater takes. Ngaruroro Zone 1 takes only have a water storage scheme option for mitigation and this could be specifically provided for rather than an arbitrary contribution to some other stream enhancement.	Delete reference to lowland stream enhancement where a lowland stream is not being affected.
Policy 41	HBRC	Clarity about recording and reporting on small takes required.	There are national water meter regulations for all water takes above 5l/sec that specify the need for water meters and define technical standards. They do not specify that telemetry is required to record and report data and there are no regulations for takes less than 5l/sec. The use of telemetry is increasingly required by Council particularly where the take is significant, where real time management of water is necessary (such as in meeting minimum flow restrictions). Telemetry takes advantage of technology that reduces workload and automates data management and reporting but is not always available at remote sites. An amendment is recommended in order to provide better direction and clarity around expectations for water meters.	Amend policy 41 (l) to read; l) requiring water meters to be installed for all water takes authorised by a water permit and water use to be recorded and reported via telemetry in zones that are fully or over-allocated provided that telemetry will not normally be required where the consented rate of take is less than 5 L/sec or where there are technical limitations to its installation.
Policy 42	HDC, NCC	Policy refers to allocation limits calculated with known security of supply, but this is not provided.	Agree that clarity around security of supply important – especially to assist resource users understanding about limits and constraints of water permits.	Information needs to be collated for each of the relevant water bodies as the combination of minimum flow and allocation limit will mean different security of supply standards for different water bodies. Detail still to come.
Policy 44, 45, 46, 47 TANK 7-10 RRMP 62	As above in section 5
Policy 47	HDC and NCC	Concerned about appropriateness of ILI requirement	Wording to be adjusted to reflect concerns about prescriptive in relation to the direction for good industry practice	Amend TANK 7 Matter 6 and Policy 47
Policy 48	HDC, Hort NZ TToH	Concerns about clarity of water shortage directions and emergency water.	Agree that more clarity and direction required. Don’t agree that separate allocation required for tree irrigation despite impact on trees in severe drought. Allocation of water not on the basis that water will always be available. See comments in relation to including security of supply. Impact of drought on tree survival should be in relation to water users investment into alternative supplies and management responses like shared water permits not continuing water take. Change to policy allows council to make decisions about continuing water use beyond specified flows for identified activities if necessary.	Policy rewritten to show it applies when drought continues and plan provisions and minimum flows are exceeded.
Policy 49	NKII, HTST, TTOH	Policy difficult to follow	Agree policy is lengthy and complex.	Delete unnecessary text.
Policy 49	NCC/HDC	As in section 5 above
Policy 50	Hort NZ	Pointed out that volumes not able to be predicted as frost occurs randomly from year to year with differing frequency.	Agreed direction need clarification.	Delete reference to volume and duration.
Policies 51, 52,	DoC	As in section 4 above
Policy 56 and 57 and TANK 11 and 12 and schedule 7	NKII, TTOH, HTST Hort NZ	As in section 4 above
TANK 4 and Schedule 4	Hort NZ	Provided additional nitrogen loss and definitional information	Agree new information necessary.	Amended to complete and provide clarity.
TANK 6	Hort NZ	Some landowners may have more than one point of take to access water for animals for example.	May increase compliance/enforcement effort if compliance necessary. May result in more bores being drilled.	Amend to delete reference to one point of take for surface takes.
TANK 7 and 8	Hort NZ	Concerned that alternative water management models not provided for.	Agree rules need to allow for collective management to enable more efficient water use.	Amend to allow collective applications.
	Hort NZ	Concerned that land use rule incorporated in water take rule.	Agree that makes the rule unnecessarily complex. Link to land use change rule a better way of tracking land use changes as a result of water use change.	Amend to manage land use change separately
RRMP 7	DoC	Include reference to lakes and wetlands	Agree that protection of indigenous riparian vegetation should include lakes/wetlands.	Amend RRMP 7 for TANK PC9 to include lakes and wetlands
TANK 7 and 8	HDC	Suggest improvements to wording and seeks that municipal takes do not default to non-complying status.	Municipal supplies can be discretionary where they don’t otherwise meet TANK 5-8, but it is important that they remain constrained by the allocation limit as a discretionary activity. A non-complying application can be considered in light of the applicable policies where necessary.	Minor amendment made partially as sought.
TANK 10 - 13	Hort NZ	Clarifications sought.		Amendments agreed as necessary for ease of interpretation and clarity.
RRMP 32	Hort NZ DoC	Suggestions for assisting application and interpretation Include reference to temperature	Reasonable mixing is a relevant consideration. Temperature is being managed through better riparian land management.	Amend to refer to reasonable mixing.
TANK 62a	Hort NZ, HDC	Transfers	Unreasonable limitation on transfers to sites where not consent is held. Rule already requires existing bore.	Amend to reduce restriction.
Stormwater 1 -3	NCC/HDC	As above in section 7		tbc
Schedule 1	NKII, TTOH, HTST DoC	Concern about lack of timeframes. Concern about context for both Schedules 1 and 2	Cross reference to objectives and timeframe needed. Preamble about quality objectives meeting needs of values needed in Schedule 1	Correct references to upper Tūtaekurī Include in Schedule 1 similar reference as in Schedule 2 about the water quality states specified enabling environmental, cultural and social needs for water quality to be met when they are achieved. Include statement that Schedule 1 is a first step with objectives being attained by 2040 and that the longer term and more integrated (fresh/coastal water) approach to managing water resources is reflected in Schedule 2
	HBRC	Concern that temperature limits not robust given existing information	The temperature objectives have been changed to better reflect reference site data and the Hawkes Bay summer weather temperatures	Amend temperature attributes.
Schedule 4	Hort NZ	Provide additional clarity around land use change. Provides for baseline land use as arable/vegetable rotation area can expand and contract for year to year because many crops have several years before they can be repeated in the same location.	Amendments necessary for completeness.	Amendments made for completeness. N loss rates for vegetable growing still to come.
Schedule 5	Hort NZ	A number of suggestions to aid clarity and interpretation have been made	These suggestions generally aid readability and clarity and are included in the attached draft. Agree that Section A 2(x) should be part of the plan, not the governance management.	A number of amendments have been made to the Schedule. It still contains the original requirements and obligations but the layout and ordering is now more structured and easier to follow.
General	Hort NZ	Concern about new allocation limit and effects on existing users	New limits for the Ngaruroro will mean it will be managed as an over-allocated resource and according to Policy 49. The joint effects of allocation limit and minimum flow affects security of supply which is known and can be specified for clarity and enable water users to understand effects of water allocation policy on investment decisions.	Information about security of supply statistics to be available to water permit applicants.
Glossary	HBRC	Some terms are still to be defined, particularly those relating to protection of source water for drinking water supplies.	Tbc	tbc

Strategic Fit

177. The TANK Plan Change is necessary to enable the Council to give effect to the Freshwater National Policy Statement. It enables the Council to establish objectives for freshwater management and set resource limits.

178. The Plan Change is consistent with all four of the focus areas of the Council’s Strategic Plan.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

179. Tāngata whenua have special cultural, spiritual, historical and traditional associations with freshwater. For Māori, water is a taonga of paramount importance.

180. Mana whenua and iwi have been involved throughout this TANK Plan Change process with the TANK Group itself and through this pre-notification consultation. This consultation report provides particular attention to issues raised by tāngata whenua and the Council must have particular regard to this advice.

Financial and Resource Implications

181. The development of this plan Change is provided for within the existing budget. The costs and benefits of the measures include in the Plan Change have been assessed in the accompanying Section 32 report.

182. Note that the final Section 32 report will be completed once the council has made its final decisions.

Decision Making Process

183. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

183.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

183.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is prescribed by legislation.

183.3. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the region’s management of water resources under the RMA

Recommendations

1. That the Regional Planning Committee:

1.1. Receives and considers the “TANK Plan Change - Feedback and Recommendations Following Pre-notification Consultation” staff report.

1.2. Receives the feedback and advice from iwi and stakeholders on the pre-notification draft (v8) of Plan Change 9.

1.3. Agrees to the suggested amendments to the draft Plan Change 9 (v9) as provided and as shown by tracked changes in Attachment 16.

1.4. Requests staff identify a shortlist of suitably qualified and experienced RMA-accredited Hearing Commissioners for consideration by the Regional Planning Committee.

1.5. Notes that further advice about the management of stormwater and minor amendments in relation to definitions will be prepared for recommendation at the 3 July 2019 Regional Planning Committee meeting.

2. The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

2.1. Accepts the amendments to draft Plan Change 9 (v9) as agreed by the 15 May 2019 Regional Planning Committee meeting.

Authored by:

Mary-Anne Baker

Senior Planner

Ceri Edmonds

Manager Policy and Planning

Approved by:

Tom Skerman

Group Manager
Strategic Planning

Attachment/s

⇨1	Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga feedback	Under Separate Cover
⇨2	Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated feedback	Under Separate Cover
⇨3	Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust feedback	Under Separate Cover
⇩4	Mana Ahuriri Trust feedback
⇨5	Hastings District Council feedback	Under Separate Cover
⇨6	Napier City Council feedback	Under Separate Cover
⇨7	Department of Conservation Feedback	Under Separate Cover
⇨8	HortNZ Feedback	Under Separate Cover
⇩9	Summary table of TToH responses
⇩10	Summary table of NKII responses
⇩11	Summary table of HTST responses
⇩12	Summary table of HDC responses
⇩13	Summary table of NCC responses
⇩14	Summary table of DoC responses
⇩15	Summary tableof NortNZ responses
⇨16	TANK Plan Change -PC9- Draft Version 9	Under Separate Cover

Name	Represents
Karauna Brown	Te Kopere o te Iwi Hineuru
Tania Hopmans	Maungaharuru-Tangitu Trust
Nicky Kirikiri	Te Toi Kura o Waikaremoana
Jenny Nelson-Smith	Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust
Joinella Maihi-Carroll	Mana Ahuriri Trust
Apiata Tapine	Tātau Tātau o Te Wairoa
vacant	Ngati Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum
Peter Paku	Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust
Toro Waaka	Ngati Pahauwera Development and Tiaki Trusts
Paul Bailey	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Rick Barker	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Peter Beaven	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Tom Belford	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Alan Dick	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Rex Graham	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Debbie Hewitt	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Neil Kirton	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Fenton Wilson	Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Item	Topic	Raised by
1.
2.
3.