Hawke's
Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee
Friday 04 December 2020
Subject: Information and Data
Sharing Project
Reason for Report
1. The purpose of
this report is to update the Committee on the information and data sharing work
stream and to seek the Committee’s support for the next steps.
Officers’ Recommendation(s)
2. That the
Hawke’s Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee agrees to write a
letter to the Department of Internal Affairs in support of consideration being
given to a pilot project for the development of an information and data system
to meet the needs of all agencies involved drinking water safety within the Hawke’s
Bay region.
Background
3. In August 2016, there was a major
outbreak of campylobacteriosis in Havelock North due to contaminated drinking
water. In September 2016, the Government established a Commission of
Inquiry to investigate and report on the outbreak. The Inquiry proceeded
in two stages.
4. The first stage focussed on identifying
what happened, the cause of the outbreak, and an assessment of the conduct of
those responsible for providing safe drinking water to Havelock North.
5. In Stage 2 the Inquiry focussed on the
improvement of the safety of drinking water in New Zealand, lessons to be
learned from the Havelock North outbreak and changes which could be made to
achieve those goals.
6. As part of Stage 1, the Inquiry Panel
made several interim recommendations concerning actions required to assure
drinking water safety for Havelock North, including the establishment of the
Water Safety Joint Working Group. Among these recommendations were:
6.1. A(c) The Water Safety A(c) The Water Safety
Joint Working Group members notify each other, and keep each other informed, of
any information that could affect drinking-water safety risks and the members
should record, and as appropriate, make available to other members, information
and data and records which are relevant to the safety of drinking water.
6.2. A(d) The Water Safety JWG
investigate aquifer - matters of potential relevance to drinking-water safety.
7. The Inquiry saw
merit in Joint Working Groups having (at least) the following functions and
purposes:
7.1. Liaison and relationship and
confidence building, a general vehicle for interchange between agencies;
7.2. Information sharing,
preferably in due course by way of databases and other more formalised systems;
7.3. Making recommendations in
relation to drinking water;
7.4. Negotiating or mediating
outcomes on issues involving drinking water;
7.5. Monitoring test results, and
aquifer investigations, and other indicators of drinking water safety;
7.6. Reviewing compliance levels and
taking steps to achieve full compliance; and
7.7. Overseeing and/or conducting
research or investigations.
8. This Committee
has raised the issues of data sharing and information sharing to a high
priority in its work plan for the Working Group. The JWG held workshop on this
project earlier in November.
Discussion
9. Every member
agency has a plethora of data in respect of its water management
responsibilities. Over the course of the past three years since the JWG was
formed there has been a significant improvement in the sharing of information
between agencies. The opportunity to meet as part of the Working Group has
facilitated a greater level of understanding on one another’s needs and a
willingness to share not just data but knowledge, processes, etc.
10. It has been important for
us collectively to identify the purposes for which data and information sharing
can be used as the first step in defining the problem, identifying
opportunities and then looking for solutions. Our assessment is that the key
reasons for sharing data and information are for:
10.1. Understanding risks
10.2. Managing emergencies
10.3. Determining regulatory compliance
10.4. Planning for:
10.4.1. Water Safety
10.4.2. Water Allocation
11. Expectations in terms of
sharing and receiving information relating to drinking water safety risks are
common to JWG members. The following are considered important:
11.1. Information is fit for purpose, robust and
reflects industry best practice
11.2. Timeliness of information
11.3. Relevant and in context
11.4. Reflects a “no surprises”
approach
11.5. Appropriate decision-making action can be
taken where information is provided
11.6. That information shared won’t be
“used against” the sharer
11.7. Privacy of individuals is maintained where
relevant.
12. Since the JWG initiated
discussions on information sharing developments have occurred around the Three
Waters Reform Programme and the requirements for territorial authorities to
provide an extensive range of information on their Three Waters services to
central government.
13. You will be aware that the
Crown has signed Memoranda of Understanding with all eligible local authorities
in Hawke’s Bay and provided stimulus funding to support economic recovery
and transform the delivery of three waters services. The MoU included a
commitment to share information to support the Three Waters Reform Programme.
14. The information being
requested by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) will enable analysis to
better understand the:
14.1. Current state of the three waters related
asset base
14.2. Conditions of the assets
14.3. The operating environment
14.4. Commercial and financial arrangements
14.5. Forecast investment plans
14.6. Potential impacts and advantages of reform
on the local government sector
15. The information requested
covers a wide range of issues:
15.1. Commercial and borrowing arrangements,
insurances, consents, Infrastructure Strategy, valuation reports
15.2. Properties, populations and volumes
15.3. Water availability, wastewater flooding,
customer service and other service indicators
15.4. Drinking water quality outputs, compliance
parameters, consents and wastewater standards
15.5. Operating costs and cost drivers
15.6. Financial information such as cashflow,
balance sheet and profit and loss
15.7. Capital investment
15.8. Asset values
16. The information request
from DIA was made in October 2020 and is required to be completed and submitted
by 1 February 2021. There is a significant amount of work to be carried out by
the local councils to meet this deadline. In addition they are preparing Long
Term Plans and 30-year Infrastructure Strategies.
17. It is the initial
assessment of the Joint Working Group that while in the immediate future the
territorial authorities will have to give all their resources to meeting the
DIA information request, in the medium term there is a much greater opportunity
to align with neighbouring councils and central government agencies to develop
a prototype data and information system that could be replicated elsewhere.
18. The advantages of this
are:
18.1. There are far more extensive information
demands to be made on councils in the future, through upcoming reforms. Both
Taumata Arowai and the Three Waters Reform programme will necessitate the
gathering of additional data and the presentation of that data in a
public-friendly manner. We have an opportunity to work smarter.
18.2. Such a system could be designed to
incorporate the array of information already being shared by JWG agencies e.g
notification of outbreaks of illness; water supply issues and problems; real
time science updates; HBRC Consent database; and Compliance information as
examples.
18.3. There is potential funding already
available through the Department of Internal Affairs and its funding to HB councils
(c. $700k).
18.4. Taumata Arowai has suggested informally
that consideration needs to be given in any joint activities in considering
councils beyond the current Hawke’s Bay region.
19. The JWG has concluded that
such an approach has the potential to maximise our limited resources for the
best possible outcome. The support of the Drinking Water Joint Governance
Committee is sought to approach DIA to commence discussions on this.
Options Assessment
20. The issue of data sharing
and information sharing across agencies responsible for drinking water safety
was identified by the Board of Inquiry into the Havelock North contamination
event as a matter for addressing. The Joint Committee has subsequently now
raised this to a high priority in the work programme for the Committee and its
Working Group.
21. The ongoing reforms of
drinking water (and stormwater and wastewater) taking place at central
government have added to the demands and expectations on drinking water
agencies. This has presented as a potential opportunity to avoid unnecessary
duplication and costs in the data and information space.
22. There are three options
put forward for consideration:
22.1. Option 1 is to do nothing and retain
current date and information sharing systems. This option reflects business as
usual and does not meet the intent from the Board nor will it assist in
minimising drinking water safety risk.
22.2. Option 2 is to develop a project based on
existing member agencies of the Committee and on existing date and information
sharing platforms. This option will require ongoing input from agencies using
stretched human resources and will miss the opportunity to incorporate data and
information form central government agencies.
22.3. Option 3 is to approach DIA with a proposal
for the development of a data and information sharing system that meets the
needs of all agencies. We would seek their guidance on how the system could be
set up and how any inherent problems could be addressed. There is potential for
central government funding to be used in this option especially if it were to
be presented as a pilot project.
Significance and Engagement Policy
Assessment
23. Whilst the matters
discussed in this report are of interest to the community they do not directly
impact or affect the community. There are no levels of service implications
associated with deciding to adopt this report. Accordingly, this report is of
low significance.
Financial and Resource Implications
24. There are no financial and
funding implications directly associated with adopting the report and
recommendation. Further consequential decisions may have financial impacts and
will be brought back to the Committee for approval.
Next Steps
25. If the Committee
recommends Option 3 a letter of support for the option form the Committee
seeking investment by the DIA into a pilot project would be written, Members of
the Joint Working Group will prepare a proposal for a discussion with the DIA
to accompany the letter.
Decision Making
Process
26. 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:
26.1. The
decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a
strategic asset, nor is it inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
26.2. The use
of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.
26.3. The
decision is not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s
adopted Significance and Engagement Policy.
26.4. There are no persons
directly affected by this decision but are those persons interested in the
management of drinking water safety in the region may be interested in the
eventual outcome of the project.
26.5. 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 “Information and Data
Sharing Project” staff report.
2. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the
criteria contained in HBRC’s adopted Significance and Engagement
Policy, and that the Joint Committee 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. Agrees to write a letter to the Department of Internal Affairs in
support of consideration being given to a pilot project for the development
of an information and data system to meet the needs of all agencies involved
drinking water safety within the Hawke’s Bay region.
|
Authored and
approved by:
|
Liz Lambert
Group Manager Regulation
|
|
Attachment/s
There are no
attachments for this report.
Hawke's
Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee
Friday 04 December 2020
Subject: TANK submissions on
Drinking Water Provisions
Reason for Report
1. The purpose of
this report is to update the Committee on the submissions received to Plan
Change 9 to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Resource Management Plan
(“TANK”).
2. TANK covers the
Tutaekuri, Ahuriri, Ngarururo and Karamu catchments of the Heretaunga Plains
and includes the urban areas of Napier and Hastings. The plan change
deals with the management of water quality and water quantity in those
catchments.
Officers’ Recommendation(s)
3. The
recommendation is to receive the report for information only.
Executive Summary
4. The Drinking
Water Governance Committee, through the Joint Working Group, was recognised as
a TANK working group tasked with developing draft policies and rules for the
protection of drinking water sources for inclusion in the TANK plan change.
5. The TANK Plan
was publicly notified on 2 May 2020 and 240 submissions were received. These
submissions have been summarised and are now open for further submissions in
support or opposition, which close on Wednesday 9 December 2020.
6. This paper
provides a broad summary of the submissions received on drinking water source
protection.
Background
7. The Joint
Working Group (JWG) presented the following recommendations to the TANK group
meeting on 27 July 2018.
7.1. Include a new objective to
provide an explicit statement in the Regional Plan that recognises and provides
for drinking water source protection zones (SPZs).
7.2. Include a new policy to support
the above objective and provide guidance as to how the objective is to be
implemented.
7.3. Several changes to rules:
7.3.1. For activities that already
require a resource consent, add matters of control/ discretion that enable the
risk to drinking water sources to be considered, where those activities are
located in mapped Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
7.3.2. Introduce consenting
requirements for activities located over SPZs
7.3.3. A default 2km radius or
provisional protection zone (PPZ) applied for registered drinking water
supplies in the absence of more specific information
7.3.4. Amendments to some existing
Permitted Activity rules to meet National Environmental Standard for Sources of
Human Drinking Water requirements
7.3.5. Production Land use consents
in a SPZ area 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
8. Further work
was undertaken and clarity sought on the models to be used for the mapping of
the SPZs. Minor details included: the practical implications of the SPZs on
land use implications both current and future in those zones and the status of
the development of Napier City Council’s SPZs.
9. The result of
this further work was a conclusion that the ‘modelling approach adopted
by HBRC for delineating the SPZ’s for the four Hastings bore-fields is
considered appropriate and represents an advance on the initial work by Tonkin
and Taylor in that it accommodates more of the complexity of groundwater flow
system, and in particular the groundwater flow directions and
gradients’.
10. Ultimately it was
recommended to the Regional Planning Committee that the Heretaunga Plains
numerical model be used to determine SPZs in the longer term within the TANK
Plan while the AEM approach for Napier be used in the short term until further
modelling can be carried out.
11. The groundwater modellers
indicated that the Napier SPZs modelled using an AEM model may not be
significantly different using the Heretaunga Plains numerical model as the
bores in that location are within a more homogeneous part of the aquifer.
The item also noted that whilst the Heretaunga Plains numerical model
represents the best available knowledge it may change as more data is gathered
as part of improving the model. This related specifically to the SkyTEM
Airborne Aquifer Survey work programmed for completion in 2021.
12. Ahead of public
notification the provisions were also amended to insert definitions into the
glossary for ‘Registered drinking water supply’, ‘Source
Protection Zones’, ‘Source Protection Extent’ and
‘Hawkes Bay Regional Council Heretaunga Plains Groundwater Model’.
Discussion
13. Hawke’s Bay Regional
Council received 240 submissions on Plan Change 9 – TANK. Of these, 42
submissions submitted on one or more of the source protection provisions, a
total of 83 points. These can be found on pp 39-43 of the summary of submitters
by provision:https://www.hbrc.govt.nz/assets/Document-Library/TANK/Summary-of-submissions-by-provision.pdf
14. The submissions can be
broadly categorised as follows:
14.1. Seeking changes to boundaries of SPZs
14.2. General support but concern around
over-precautionary approach to protection of source drinking water and
suggested amendments to make this less regulatory.
14.3. Acknowledge that provisions may need to be
amended to be consistent with the Water Service Bill.
15. Overall, however, there
are no submissions seeking the removal of the drinking water source
provisions. The Joint Committee has status as a submitter and can (and
should) appear before the TANK hearings panel with the aim of assisting the
Panel to finalise these provisions.
16. The Joint Committee will
not be disadvantaged by not lodging a further submission. The period for
further submissions closes on Wednesday 9 December 2020. Member agencies may
well be preparing their own further submissions.
17. The hearings are scheduled
for May and June 2021 (2 weeks of each month) and the Officers Reports are
likely to be circulated by the end of March 2021. This will give an
opportunity for the Joint Working Group to undertake further work ahead of the
hearings on the zone boundaries and any other matters. By the time of the
hearings we will also have a better idea of the content of the Water Services
legislation.
Decision
Making Process
18. 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:
18.1. The decision does not
significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset, nor is
it inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
18.2. The use of the special
consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.
18.3. The decision is not
significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted
Significance and Engagement Policy.
18.4. The persons affected by this decision are
those who access drinking water in the TANK catchments.
18.5. 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
Hawke’s Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee:
1. 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.
2. Receives and considers the “TANK
submissions on Drinking Water Provisions“ staff report.
|
Authored and
approved by:
|
Liz Lambert
Group Manager Regulation
|
|
Attachment/s
There are no
attachments for this report.
