Agenda of Hawke's Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee

Hawke's Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee

Monday 29 March 2021

Subject: Further Submission on TANK Plan Change 9 Drinking Water Provisions

Reason for Report

1. This item seeks a retrospective resolution of the Joint Committee on the further submission to TANK Plan Change 9 to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Resource Management Plan (TANK) which was lodged 8 December 2020. The Joint Committee of 4 December 2020 did not have a quorum to allow for a resolution to be passed.

Officers’ Recommendation

2. Council officers recommend that the Joint Committee resolves as proposed, in accordance with the submission already having been submitted after Joint Committee agreement reached via email to meet the “further submissions” deadline.

Executive Summary

3. 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.

4. The TANK Plan was publicly notified on 2 May 2020 and 240 submissions were received. The deadline for lodging further submissions in support or opposition to the original submissions closed on Wednesday 9 December 2020.

5. This paper provides a broad summary of the submissions received on drinking water source protection. A copy of the Committee’s further submission is attached.

Background

6. 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.

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 Hawke’s Bay Regional 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. Receives and considers the “Further Submission on TANK Plan Change 9 Drinking Water Provisions“ staff report.

2. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’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. Approves the further submission to TANK Plan Change 9 as lodged with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council on 8 December 2020.

Authored by: Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Consultant

Katrina Brunton

Group Manager Policy & Regulation

Attachment/s

1 ⇩

Further Submission on TANK Plan Change 9

Hawke's Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee

Monday 29 March 2021

Subject: Submission to Water Services Bill

Reason for Report

1. This agenda item seeks the Joint Committee’s endorsement of the submission prepared and lodged by the Hawke’s Bay Drinking Water Joint Working Group on the Water Services Bill (the Bill).

Officers’ Recommendation

2. Council officers recommend that the Hawke’s Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee endorses the submission of the Hawke’s Bay Drinking Water Joint Working Group to the Health Select Committee on the Water Services Bill, lodged on 2 March 2021.

3. A copy of the submission is attached.

Background/Discussion

4. One of the first matters of business for this Joint Committee, post its re-constitution following the 2019 local body elections, was the development of a submission on the Taumata Arowai – Water Services Regulator Bill introduced on 11 December 2019.

5. At the time the submission was prepared (March 2020) it was acknowledged that while that Bill focused on the establishment of Taumata Arowai it would be followed by the Water Services Bill containing the details of the new drinking water regulatory system, and provisions relating to source water protection and Taumata Arowai’s wastewater and stormwater functions.

6. The Water Services Bill was subsequently introduced into the House on 28 July 2020. It received its first reading on 8 December 2020 at which point it was referred to the Health Select Committee for public submissions.

7. During the workshop held by members of this Committee on 4 December 2020 (having failed to reach a quorum to hold a formal meeting) the need to prepare a submission on the Water Services Bill was discussed and general agreement occurred on the Joint Working Group being responsible for this.

8. The Joint Working Group drafted a submission in February that was finalised with the oversight of the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Joint Committee in time for lodging by the deadline of 2 March 2021. A copy of the submission is attached to this paper.

Summary of the Water Services Bill

9. The Bill repeals and pulls together many of the disparate parts of the regulatory system from the Health Act 1956 and Local Government and Resource Management Acts and is designed to strengthen them. Our submission identifies areas where we believe the design may not be right.

10. The Bill sets out the following duties and obligations of drinking water suppliers (and applies to all drinking water suppliers except domestic self suppliers):

10.1. Provide safe drinking water and meet drinking water standards

10.2. Ensure there is always sufficient quantity of drinking water to meet the ordinary needs of consumers

10.3. Register with Taumata Arowai and maintain records

10.4. Have and maintain a drinking water safety plan that contains a multi-barrier approach

10.5. Clear obligations to inform Taumata Arowai, and take action to address any breach of the above duties for any reason, including public health, breaches of drinking water standards or any other risk event

10.6. Duties also apply to offices, agents and employees.

11. New arrangements relate to source water risk management and apply to drinking water suppliers, Taumata Arowai and local authorities including regional councils. Suppliers must monitor source quality and have a Source Risk Management Plan (SRMP). Local authorities including regional councils must contribute to SRMPs by sharing information about risks and undertaking action to address them on behalf of a drinking water supplier.

12. The Bill’s approach to regulation is a proportionate approach based on scale, complexity and risk, reflecting the range of situations of suppliers and consumers. Penalties available under the legislation are relatively severe and extend to employees, agents and managers but exclude people acting in a governance role.

13. The Bill enables Taumata Arowai to declare and manage drinking water emergencies such as infrastructure damage, contamination events or droughts, but these powers can only be applied after consulting the responsible Minister.

14. Te Mana o Te Wai – the Bill requires everyone with functions, powers and duties under the Bill to give effect to Te Mana o Te Wai and is intended to parallel the requirement faced by councils under the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. However as noted in our submission there does appear to be some potential conflicts in the relative priority between the environment first, then peoples’ needs and then other uses as laid out in the NPS-FM and the Water Services Bill, which is focussed on ensuring drinking water suppliers meet peoples’ needs foremost.

15. Reporting, Compliance and Enforcement – the Bill contains a broad tool kit of powers that allow for a graduated response to non-compliance. Taumata Arowai must develop and publish a compliance, monitoring and enforcement strategy to provide transparency on how it will apply its powers and allow time for suppliers to reach full compliance.

16. The Bill contains a consumer complaints framework that is designed to ensure complaints are taken seriously and action taken where necessary. Where a complainant is dissatisfied with a supplier’s response they are able to seek a review by Taumata Arowai.

17. Wastewater and Stormwater – the Bill contains national level reporting, monitoring and advisory functions for wastewater and stormwater, allowing Taumata Arowai to, inter alia, publish an annual report on the environmental performance of wastewater and stormwater networks and their compliance with applicable regulatory requirements (such as resource consents).

18. Relationship to the Local Government Act – the Bill alters the existing LGA regime by imposing a specific duty on territorial authorities to ensure that local communities always continue to have access to drinking water, including supporting this provision by understanding the risks to ongoing access and plans to ensure that services continue to be available. The Bill also places new responsibilities on territorial authorities when supplies (even if not owned or provided by the territorial authority) fail or are at risk of failing.

19. These provisions strengthen the existing role that territorial authorities play in ”providing for” drinking water services to their communities and will be contained in an amendment to the LGA 2002 that will :

19.1. Require territorial authorities to assess every three years the access that communities have to drinking water services, and consider its implications for local government planning (e.g long term plans and infrastructure strategy)

19.2. Require territorial authorities to work with suppliers, consumers and Taumata Arowai to find solutions where drinking water services fail, and ensure that consumers continue to have access to drinking water services, whether provided by the territorial authority or another supplier.

20. Transitional arrangements to allow for change between the existing regime and the new legislation include:

20.1. All suppliers on the existing drinking water register will be transferred to the new Taumata Arowai Register. Suppliers have 12 months to register if they are not currently registered.

20.2. Existing drinking water safety plans continue to apply. Large drinking water suppliers (>500 persons for at least 60 days per year) have 12 months to have a plan in place that meets the new requirements. All other suppliers have 5 years.

20.3. Taumata Arowai’s compliance, monitoring and enforcement strategy must be in place within 12 months.

Matters covered in the submission

21. In preparing its submission the Joint Drinking Water Group was mindful of the progression of changes which the government has initiated in respect of providing safe drinking water for all New Zealanders. Following the establishment of Taumata Arowai through the Water Services Regulator Taumata Arowai Act 2020 – the Water Services Bill provides details how the new regulatory system for drinking water will function.

22. We are mindful that further details will be made known through the review of the National Environment Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water (2008) currently under amendment by the Ministry for the Environment. And of course the current Three Waters Review which will lead to another suite of changes to the system.

23. So bearing in mind that the tranches of reform deal with the ‘who’ (Water Services Regulator), the ‘how’ (Water Services Bill) and the ‘what’ (NES – DW) this submission focuses on how the system will operate.

Continued Public Health focus and Public Health emergencies

24. The Bill transfers the powers that currently lie with the Director-General of Health under Part 2A of the Health Act 1956 to the Chief Executive of Taumata Arowai. Our submission seeks clarity on the requirement for the input of public health expertise into a drinking water emergency and into general powers afforded to Taumata Arowai. While the Working Group assume that Taumata Arowai will have a number of staff with public health expertise we are seeking that consultation by Taumata Arowai with health authorities is mandated in the legislation to ensure ongoing engagement, information sharing and situational awareness.

Role Clarification

25. The Bill amends the Local Government Act 2002 through the inclusion of new responsibilities for territorial authorities to ensure that their communities continue to have access to drinking water, understand the risks to ongoing access, and plan to ensure that services continue to be available.

26. The onus is on the territorial authority to step in if a drinking water service (not supplied by them) fails to ensure that consumers continue to have access to drinking water services. Given the definition of “drinking water supplier” (i.e a person who provides drinking water through a drinking water supply, and only excludes a domestic self supply) our concerns are three-fold:

26.1. The future of drinking water services is likely to reside with multi-regional entities so to then require a council to actively work with and potentially manage small drinking water supplies when they are not a supplier themselves will be challenging.

26.2. Lack of incentive for small self suppliers to maintain the standards required, knowing that the territorial authority is required to be the “last man standing” in terms of supplying drinking water;

26.3. Alternatively a small drinking water supply scheme falls over and the scheme members revert back to individual self-supplies/rainwater tanks, potentially resulting in adverse health outcomes;

Responsiveness in Management of Source Drinking Water

27. We note that the multi-barrier approach to drinking water safety begins with the protection of source water in the catchment. In the submission we question the responsiveness of Resource Management Act processes to new information, the identification of source protection zones and the promulgation of rules to manage activities in those zones. While we expect that this may be better addressed through resource management reform we did consider that it may be a matter worth pursuing through the National Environment Standards review and therefore included it in our submission.

Source Water Risk Management Plans

28. Our submission fully supports the concept of source water risk management plans but we have requested that Taumata Arowai is very clear about what is need in these plans based on scale, complexity and risk. A two-property drinking water supplier will have very different needs than a municipal supplier.

29. Of more concern is the requirement for local authorities to contribute to the development and implementation of source water risk management plans prepared by drinking water suppliers in their district/region. This is an unfunded mandate for local authorities that has the potential to be significantly costly for them and we are seeking clarification from Taumata Arowai as to how this will work in practice.

30. We are aware of submissions to the Bill from other parties that are seeking to upgrade the input of local authorities from “contributing to” to “Partnering in the development of” source water risk management plans and until we have clarity from Taumata Arowai we will oppose any such changes.

Transition Timing and Planning

31. In this section we have asked for a re-consideration of the timings of some of the provisions; most notably

31.1. Requirement to review Drinking Water Safety Plans within first 12 months of the Act coming into effect;

31.2. Alignment of review by regional councils of effectiveness regulatory and non-regulatory interventions with RMA Plan Effectiveness Reports i.e. every five years;

31.3. Requirement for territorial authorities to assess all drinking water supplies, other than domestic self-supplies, within their district once every three years. Our view is that three years is unrealistic to carry this out, given there are possibly thousands in some districts.

Industry Capacity

32. This was a feature of our March 2020 submission on the Taumata Arowai Bill. We believe the skills gap will have been further exacerbated by the limitations placed by COVID-19 on overseas recruitment. We support other submissions from the local government sector which seek the development of a skills strategy for the water services sector as a priority.

Compliance, monitoring and enforcement

33. Taumata Arowai is required by the legislation to prepare a Compliance, Monitoring and Enforcement (CME) Strategy and review it at least once every three years. There is no requirement in the Bill for Taumata Arowai to consult with parties or to receive submissions in preparing the strategy.

34. Our submission requests that consultation takes place with the Ministry of Health, local government, Public Health services and representatives of non-council drinking water suppliers prior to its adoption. We also seek a public submission process to improve transparency.

Appointment of Compliance Officers

35. We have sought some amendments here requiring consistency of expectations of qualifications and expertise across appointments of compliance officers. This appears to be an unintentional oversight.

Criminal Proceedings

36. The final part of the submission supports the exemption from liability for volunteers and elected officials (including councillors and board of trustee members) for any act or omission against any section of the Water Services Bill/Act.

37. However we note that employees, agents and officers of a drinking water supplier are liable under specific provisions of the Bill. These persons do have a defence if they can prove that the commission of the offence was due to the act or omission of another person, or an accident, or some other cause outside the defendant’s control. Our submission focuses on this being turned around to be an automatic positive defence with the onus on the prosecuting party to prove that such an action/omission did not occur. The presumption is that the principle of natural justice should apply and a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Other Matters post the lodging of the submission

38. The submission went through a number of iterations prior to being finalised. Following circulation of the submission to the Governance Committee members on the day of lodgement feedback was received from Central Hawke’s Bay District Council providing further examples on our concerns around what the Bill will mean for rural communities, for growth and for affordability.

39. These concerns are laid out as follows.

39.1. I agree with issues that you have raised. However I think there is probably one major thing missing which is the cost of the large number of rural and community water supplies that DIA and Taumata Arawai have drastically underestimated. I think that at the verbal submission it would be advantageous for our rural communities if the rebuttal of the role of TAs in supporting rural and community supplies also includes feedback that they need to include prioritisation methods which DELAY the introduction of compliance requirements for these small schemes for a number of years until the regulator is imbedded and appropriate support solutions are in place.(Mayor Alex Walker)

39.2. The proposals that see local government being the "last man standing" with respect to community supplies will mean that some councils will take a highly cautious approach when assessing developments that seek to set up their own water networks. Not all growth can be serviced through connections to a reticulated network and the Government needs to be clear on whether it wants to enable small schemes, and small communities, going forward - or if it seeks to limit growth to where council-owned networks exist. If schemes are to be consented by councils the standards will need to be much higher and the costs will be greater. What will concern territorial councils is very simply who will pay for the cost of the required upgrades – a concern exacerbated by the fact that many of these supplies will be in small rural communities with small rating bases.

39.3. The other thing is around timing on small supplies, and recognising the scale of that is far bigger than we anticipate so wanting to ensure clear transition plan and long leading timeframes as neither councils or regulator will cope.

39.4. Can we please also get something added in about the implication for Marae, and recognising the unique nature of their situations. (CEO – Monique Davidson)

40. We were unable to amend our submission as it was already in the Parliamentary system and on their website.

41. However, the Committee Chair, Garth Cowie, is presenting the submission in person to the Select Committee next Monday, 22 March, and is taking the opportunity to speak directly to the matters raised by Central Hawke’s Bay District’s Mayor and CEO. He will present their written commentary to the Committee as an addendum to the submission.

Options

42. The Joint Committee is being asked to endorse the submission and additional information as part of its advocacy to central government on matters that impact on the way its members manage their drinking water provisions roles.

43. As the submission has been lodged the only other option is to not endorse it.

Significance and Engagement Policy Assessment

44. A decision on whether or not to endorse a submission is not significant under the criteria contained in Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and therefore 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.

45. In addition, the Bill was open to the public for submissions and any person or organisation had the opportunity to make a submission.

Decision Making Process

46. Councils and their 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:

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

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

46.3. The decision is not significant under the criteria contained in Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy.

46.4. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

46.5. 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 “Submission to Water Services Bill” staff report.

3. Endorses the submission on the Water Services Bill as lodged with the Health Select Committee on 2 March 2021 and supports the additional information to be provided to the Select Committee in person.

Authored by:

Liz Lambert

Consultant

Approved by:

Katrina Brunton

Group Manager Policy & Regulation

Attachment/s

1 ⇩

Submission on the Water Services Bill

Hawke's Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee

Monday 29 March 2021

Subject: Review of HB Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee Terms of Reference

Reason for Report

1. This agenda item seeks the Joint Committee’s review of the current Terms of Reference in order to precipitate consideration of a review in light of the Three Waters Reform Progamme.

Officers’ Recommendation

2. Council officers recommend that the Joint Committee considers incorporating the broader Three Waters agenda within its Terms of Reference and undertakes a review of the Terms of Reference accordingly, with a final decision to be made at the July 2021 Joint Committee meeting for referral to member organisations for agreement.

Background

3. At the conclusion of the Government Inquiry into the Havelock North Drinking Water Contamination Event the Joint Committee was established to strengthen relationships, collaboration and information sharing pertaining to drinking water among the agencies responsible for safe drinking water within Hawke’s Bay. The Committee also oversees the Drinking Water Working Group and provides policy direction to the Group.

4. The Committee’s Terms of Reference are attached to this item. They were most recently reviewed at the time of adoption by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council on 6 November 2019 and upon confirmation by the Committee on 13 February 2020.

5. The focus of the Committee from the outset has very much been about providing safe drinking water and the work plan and other areas, such as advocacy and the preparation of submissions, have also reflected that focus.

6. At about the conclusion of the Havelock North Inquiry the government established the Three Waters Review to look into the challenges facing our three waters system and to develop recommendations for system-wide performance improvements. Given the progress that has been made over the past three years it is now appropriate to consider whether the current Terms of Reference for the Committee remain “fit-for-purpose” or whether they should be expanded to be fit-for-purpose for the new Three Waters focus.

Discussion

7. The term “three waters” refers to drinking water, wastewater and stormwater. The government’s review has two key components:

7.1. Reform of the regulatory requirements for the three waters. This is already well progressed with the establishment of Taumata Arowai from 1 March 2021, and the progression of both the Water Services Bill and the review of the National Environment Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water

7.2. An investigation into high-level options for service delivery of three waters systems.

8. Commencing in early 2019, Central Hawke’s Bay District Council, Hastings District Council, Napier City Council, Wairoa District Council and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council worked together to review the current and potential service delivery options for drinking, waste and stormwater (three waters) for all of Hawke’s Bay. The project aligns with the five councils’ strategic priority for the 2019-22 triennium; water safety, security and planning.

9. The Independent Review was completed in mid-2020 and gives Hawke’s Bay a really good understanding of the scale of change that is needed to ensure that three waters are affordable and sustainable for our communities. Its key recommendation is that delivery of three waters services should be by an asset owning council-controlled organisation.

10. There continue to be many workstreams underway simultaneously as part of the government’s service delivery review. At present there is no governance entity within Hawke’s Bay to formally provide a cross-agency forum for collaboration, information sharing, and relationship enhancement as part of the three waters kaupapa. Consultation on Three Waters service delivery reform is scheduled to begin in May 2021.

11. One option is that the Drinking Water Joint Governance Committee be considered as an appropriate vehicle to expand its remit from drinking water safety to three waters. If there is support by the Committee for this to be further investigated a process should be established to review the Terms of Reference of the Committee to reflect these changes and to ultimately obtain the approval of all participating agencies.

Options Assessment

12. Two options have been identified for the Committee’s decision:

12.1. Option One - To investigate amendments to the Drinking Water Committee’s Terms of Reference so as to incorporate the broader Three Waters agenda.

12.2. Option Two - To retain the current Terms of Reference of the Committee and its focus solely on safe drinking water.

13. Option one provides a greater opportunity for collaborative governance oversight of activities around Three Waters reform. It is not intended to replace the decision making responsibility of individual councils insofar as their roles or views in any reform of service delivery but will allow opportunity for general discussion and discussion about transitional arrangements, should the need arise.

14. Option two will retain the status quo.

Significance and Engagement Policy Assessment

15. A decision on whether or not to investigate amendments to a Committee’s Terms of Reference is not significant under the criteria contained in Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and therefore 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.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

16. Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Inc (NKII) was previously represented on the Committee, but chose to step away from the Committee and the Working Group in 2020.

17. Water is a taonga to Maori and it would be valuable to have NKII represented around the table once again. If a review of the Terms of Reference is to take place the broader kaupapa of the Committee may appeal to the wider concerns of iwi around the management of three waters. They may reconsider their representation on the Committee.

Financial and Resource Implications

18. There are no budget implications for a review of Terms of Reference to be carried out. Staff and consultancy time required for amending the Terms of Reference would be relatively minor.

Decision Making Process

19. Councils and their 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:

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

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

19.3. The decision is not significant under the criteria contained in Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy.

19.4. 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. Receives and considers the “Review of Drinking Water Committee Terms of Reference” staff report.

3. Agrees to give consideration to incorporating the broader Three Waters agenda within its Terms of Reference and undertakes a review of the Terms of Reference accordingly, with a final decision to be made at its July 2021 meeting.

Authored by:

Liz Lambert

Consultant

Approved by:

Katrina Brunton

Group Manager Policy & Regulation

Attachment/s

1 ⇩

HB Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee Terms of Reference - current

Hawke's Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee

Monday 29 March 2021

Subject: Drinking Water Joint Working Group Work Plan Update

Reason for Report

1. This agenda item provides an update on the Drinking Water Joint Working Group’s (JWG) work plan and seeks the Joint Committee’s approval of changes.

Officers’ Recommendation(s)

Council officers recommend that the Joint Committee approves the changes to the work plan for implementation by the Joint Drinking Water Group.

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 over 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:

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. 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.

7. No significant progress has been made on the federated data sharing project. This is due to the time commitments involved for territorial authorities’ asset management staff to provide a comprehensive quantum of information to the Department of Internal Affairs on their three waters infrastructure in late 2020, early 2021. As well as this they have been preparing their respective Long Term Plans.

8. A new high priority action has been included in the Work Plan for the Committee’s consideration. This incorporates actions to address the potential expansion of the Committee’s remit to include “three waters ‘. If this expansion is agreed to, the work plan proposes that work begins on planning for transitional arrangements, led by the Regional Three Waters Programme Director.

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

Decision Making Process

10. Councils and their 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:

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

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

10.3. The decision is not significant under the criteria contained in the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy

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

10.5. 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 the “Working Group Work Plan Update” staff report.

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

Authored by:

Liz Lambert

Consultant

Approved by:

Katrina Brunton

Group Manager Policy & Regulation

Attachment/s

1 ⇩

Work Plan with Priorities - March 2021

Topic	Raised by

Topic	Raised by