Agenda of Hawke's Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee

Meeting of the Hawke's Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee

Date: Monday 3 August 2020

Time: 10.00am

Venue:

Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street

NAPIER

Agenda

Item Title Page

1. Welcome/Notices/Apologies

2. Conflict of Interest Declarations

3. Confirmation of Minutes of the Hawke's Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee held on 13 February 2020

4. Call for Minor Items not on the Agenda

Decision Items

5. Proposed submission to HBRC Plan Change 9 3

6. Work Plan Update 13

Information or Performance Monitoring

7. Groundwater quality and communications 17

8. Feedback on submission on Taumata Arowai Bill 25

9. Three Waters Update

10. Discussion of Minor Items Not on the Agenda 37

Hawke's Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee

Monday 03 August 2020

Subject: Proposed submission to HBRC Plan Change 9

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is for the Committee to consider lodging a submission to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council on Plan Change 9 to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Resource Management Plan.

Officers’ Recommendation(s)

2. That the Hawke’s Bay Drinking Water Governance Committee approves the attached submission for lodging with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council on its Plan Change 9.

Executive Summary

3. On 2 May 2020 the HBRC publicly notified Plan Change 9 – the “TANK” plan change – covering the Tutaekuri, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro and Karamu catchments.

4. Since the establishment of the Joint Drinking Water Group (JDWG) one of its top priorities has been the development of objectives, polices and rules for managing source protection of drinking water, for inclusion in the TANK plan change.

5. Submissions on TANK provisions close on 16 August 2020.

Discussion

6. Plan Change 9 (”TANK”) is a change to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Resource Management Plan to manage water quality and water quantity in the TANK catchments. The second report of the Havelock North Drinking Water Inquiry (December 2017) raised the issue of drinking water safety in the context of water quality. The Inquiry Panel went on to observe that the TANK plan change would add to the understanding of drinking water source protection issues.

7. In February 2018 the TANK stakeholder group agreed that the Drinking Water Joint Working Group (JWG) should be regarded as a TANK working group to be tasked with developing draft policies and rules for consideration by the TANK collaborative group.

8. Good Earth Matters (GEM) was engaged by the JWG to provide recommendations on source protection provisions within the RMA regulatory framework and to develop draft policies and rules for the JDWG’s recommendation to TANK.

9. GEM presented the JDWG with three options:

Option A – Objectives and policies only

Option B – Objectives and Policies supported by non-regulatory SPZ Maps

Option C – Regulation of Activities based on Mapped Source Protection Zones

10. The JWG chose Option C for further development as it not only includes an objective and policy making the need for protecting drinking water explicit but also provides guidance to decision makers as to how resource consent decisions may be made.

11. In July 2018 the JWG presented the following recommendation to the TANK group:

11.1. A new objective be included to provide an explicit statement in the RRMP that recognises and provides for source protection zones

11.2. A new policy to support the above objective and provide guidance as to how the objective was to be implemented

11.3. Several changes to rules:

11.3.1. For activities that already require a resource consent, adding matters of control/discretion that enable the risk of drinking water sources to be considered, where those activities are in mapped source protection zones

11.3.2. Introducing consenting for activities located over source protection zones

11.3.3. Amendments to some existing permitted activity rules so that they meet the requirement of the National Environment Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water

11.3.4. Production land use in a source protection zone are to be a permitted activity as proposed by TANK, but Farm Environment Plans will need to include consultation with the water supply authority and identify measures to manage risks to drinking water sources.

12. The TANK Group supported the recommendations subject to some technical refinements.

13. The TANK plan change includes these provisions and it is now for the Drinking Water Joint Committee to consider whether it wishes to lodge a submission on the provisions.

Options Assessment

14. The Committee has three options:

14.1. Do nothing i.e not lodge a submission

14.2. Lodge a submission in support of the drinking water provisions

14.3. Lodge a submission opposing the drinking water provisions

15. The Working Group has considered these options and has chosen to prepare a submission supporting the provisions for several reasons:

15.1. If the do nothing option is selected the Joint Drinking Water Governance Committee has no standing to appear before the Hearing Panel considering the TANK plan change.=

15.2. Having been asked by the TANK collaborative group to prepare the provisions around the drinking water source protection zones the Committee should be prepared to speak in support of those provisions during the plan hearing process.=

15.3. While most, if not all, of the agencies represented on the Drinking Water Governance Committee will likely lodge their own submissions on TANK their submissions may not have a focus on the safety of drinking water which is the critical remit of the Drinking Water Committee.

16. The Joint Drinking Water Group has prepared a submission based on option 14.2, supporting the TANK provisions. The submission is attached for the Committee’s review and approval.

Significance and Engagement Policy Assessment

17. The preparation and lodging of a submission on the TANK plan change by the Drinking Water Governance Committee does not trigger the significance and engagement policy criteria. Any person is able to make their own submission on the TANK plan change.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

18. The maintenance and enhancement of the mauri of water is fundamental to tangata whenua. The provisions submitted by the JDWGC to TANK are seeking to ensure that this is recognised and preserved through the identification of source protection zones and the introduction of rules governing what happens on land above the receiving water bodies.

Financial and Resource Implications

19. The costs incurred in submitting to TANK have to date been staff time and some further costs may be incurred in the presentation of the submission. These are provided for in the Governance budget.

Decision Making Process

20. Council and its committees are 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:

20.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset, nor is it inconsistent with an existing policy or plan

20.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation

20.3. The decision is not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy

20.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources under the RMA

20.5. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

That the Hawke’s Bay Drinking Water Joint Governance Committee:

1. Receives and considers the “Proposed Submission to HBRC Plan Change 9”staff report.

2. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council can exercise its discretion and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community or persons likely to have an interest in the decision.

3. Approves the lodging of the attached submission, including any amendments agreed at the meeting, to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.

Authored and Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager Regulation

Attachment/s

⇩1

Submission on Plan Change 9

Hawke's Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee

Monday 03 August 2020

Subject: Work Plan Update

Reason for Report

1. To provide an update on the Joint Working Group’s (JWG) work plan.

Background

2. The Joint Committee monitors the progress of the JWG progress on its work through a Work Plan. The JWG has been systematically working this plan over the last three years. Most of the original actions arising from the Inquiry Panel’s directions have been completed, and what remains is being continually monitored and updated.

3. In 2018 the Committee directed the JWG to prioritise its actions. The work plan is now updated and priorities amended, if required, at every JWG meeting.

Discussion

4. The Joint Working Group has now been operating for three years. The focus of the first term was, firstly, the immediate steps to be taken to resolve Havelock North Drinking water issues and, secondly, completion of the work required to input into the TANK plan change

5. With the completion of these the priority actions for the JWG are now proposed as:

5.1. Greater focus on sharing of information/knowledge/skills across agencies to enhance consistency of approach and to fill knowledge gaps. This will include federated approach to data sharing and gaps analysis about what information is missing

5.2. The development of a Joint Emergency Response Plan to enhance preparation for potential scenarios where drinking water access is lost or interrupted.

6. In addition to these priorities as part of its kaupapa the JWG will be reviewing new and amended requirements from central government on the management of drinking water and preparing responses for consideration by the Joint Committee.

7. The workstream identified by the Board of Inquiry that specifically related to the Havelock North water supply has been “closed out” as this has been completed.

8. A copy of the updated Work Plan is attached for the Committee’s consideration and approval

Decision Making Process

9. Council and its committees are 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:

9.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset, nor is it inconsistent with an existing policy or plan

9.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation

9.3. The decision is not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy

9.4. The persons affected by this decision are all ratepayers in the region

9.5. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

That the Hawke’s Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee:

1. Receives and considers the “Work Plan Update” staff report.

3. Approves the changes to the work plan for implementation by the Joint Drinking Water Group.

Authored and Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager Regulation

Attachment/s

⇩1

Work Plan with priorities August 2020

Hawke's Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee

Monday 03 August 2020

Subject: Groundwater quality and communications

Reason for Report

1. In May 2020 the Hawkes Bay Regional Council circulated a Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) feasibility study, commissioned by HBRC. This led to media reports being circulated implying a significant increase in nitrates in groundwater in Central Hawke’s Bay had occurred over very recent years.

2. The purpose of this report is for a presentation to be made by HBRC Groundwater Science staff on what the MAR study actually tells us.

Discussion

3. The MAR study includes data on nitrate levels in groundwater.

4. Nitrates have been recognised as a legacy issue in CHB and Plan Change 6 (the Tukituki Plan Change) includes rules and limits that work to reduce the level of nitrogen in water and improve overall water quality.

5. The limits set by the plan, for the acceptable level of nutrients in both groundwater and surface water, are some of the strictest regulations in New Zealand including those proposed by the Government’s Essential Freshwater package.

6. All landowners in the Tukituki catchment have needed Farm Environment Management Plans (FEMPs) since 2018, to manage their nutrient losses, and resource consents to farm are required for over 300 farms during 2020. Consent conditions will control what farmers can do on their land and will severely restrict practices that result in high levels of nitrogen leaching into ground and surface water.

7. In accordance with its communication protocols the Joint Working Group has prepared an Appendix 2 to its Interagency Protocol for the Management of Contaminants in Groundwater to cover Nitrates. A copy of the protocol and its Appendices – Arsenic and Nitrates – is attached for reference to this paper.

Presentation

8. Janine Barber, Principal Groundwater Quality Scientist, and Iain Maxwell, HBRC Group Manager Integrated Catchment Management, will make a presentation to the Committee on what the data from HBRC groundwater monitoring programme is telling us and it provides information on the state of nitrates in groundwater.

Decision Making Process

9. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendations

That the Hawke’s Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee receives and considers the “Groundwater Quality and Communications” staff report.

Authored and Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager Regulation

Attachment/s

⇩1

Drinking Water Contamination Communication Protocol - August 2020

Hawke's Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee

Monday 03 August 2020

Subject: Feedback on submission on Taumata Arowai Bill

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to provide feedback to the Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee (the Committee) on the Taumata Arowai Bill and the Committee’s submission to the Bill.

Executive Summary

2. At its meeting on 13 February 2020 the Committee approved the preparation of a submission to the Health Select Committee on the Taumata Arowai – Water Services Regulator Bill (“the Bill’)

3. The submission was lodged on 4 March 2020. A copy of the submission is attached to this report.

4. Representatives of the Committee presented a verbal submission to the Health Select Committee on 11 March.

5. The Bill received its Third Reading in Parliament on Friday 24 July 2020 and is now awaiting Royal Assent.

Discussion

6. The bill is the first of two pieces of legislation that are being prepared to overhaul the management of drinking water services in New Zealand. It is focused on the establishment of a new centralized drinking water regulator to support stronger centralized approach to drinking water compliance, monitoring and enforcement.

7. The Committee’s written submission to the Select Committee focused on:

7.1. Funding

7.2. Capability

7.3. Statutory independence

7.4. Governance

7.5. Māori Interests and Māori Advisory Group

7.6. Objectives and Functions of Taumata Arowai

7.7. Interpretations

8. Given the opportunity to present to the Select Committee in person for ten minutes our Chari’s verbal submission focused on sector capability and the loss of critical mass in public health responsibilities. Similarly the establishment of Taumata Arowai and its need to recruit for technical capability may negatively impact the capability of drinking water suppliers to deliver to the required standards.

9. A copy of the notes on which the verbal submission was based are attached to this paper.

Outcomes of Submission

10. Several of the matters raised in our submission were acknowledged to be likely to be addressed in the second Bill rather than this one. We used the submission as an opportunity to flag those issues and will be closely scrutinizing the second Bill for these matters. In particular the issues of funding and statutory independence of Taumata Arowai.

11. Of the remaining matters covered in our submission the final legislation has provided a little further clarification:

11.1. The definition of drinking water was not amended. However, a definition of domestic dwelling has been inserted. The definition of domestic self-supplier has been amended to include examples such as “a marae wharekai or community hall that has its own river water supply is not a domestic self-supplier”

11.2. The composition of the Board has not been amended – we had sought the inclusion of local government and/or strong technical experience, community stakeholder engagement and a delegated representative of the Director-General of Public Health as part of the skill set required for the Board. Minister Mahuta did advise in the third reading that a supplementary order paper has extended the time for the Bill’s commencement provision to provide time for Taumata Arowai’s board to be appointed before the Act comes into force

11.3. There have been no meaningful changes to the provisions around the role of the Māori Advisory Group and our changes were not incorporated. The Māori Advisory Group will provide support and guidance to the Board, chief executive and wider organization but the need for rohe specific advice has not been include

11.4. Our submission to include the word “related” in objective a) was successful and the objective now reads “Protect and promote drinking water safety and related public health outcomes”

11.5. Finally our two submission points on the functions of Taumata Arowai were not taken up. We had sought reference to the potential for Taumata Arowai to sue a delegated enforcement agency and also saw the need for them to participate in and support drinking water collaboration groups within each regional council region.

12. Further opportunity to submit on central government direction on drinking water management will occur when the Water Services Bill is released.

Decision Making Process

13. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendation

That the Hawke’s’ Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee receives and notes the “Feedback on Submission to Taumata Arowai Bill” staff report.

Authored and Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager Regulation

Attachment/s

⇩1	Submission Water Services Regulator Bill
⇩2	Verbal submission to Health Committee

Topic	Raised by