Agenda of Regional Planning Committee

Meeting Date	Agenda Item / Action	Person Responsible	Due Date	Status Comment
13 February 2013	7. RPS Change 5 – Appointment of Commissioners Recommendation 3 lay on table	GI/HC	17 April	RPS Change 5 Hearings completed – Fees payable to Commissioners were negotiated directly with the individual Commissioners
13 February 2013	10 General Business – Taharua Update Report be prepared for next RPC Meeting	CR/HC	17 April	An agenda item is included in this meeting

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 05 June 2013

SUBJECT: Appeals on Change 4

Reason for Report

1. One appeal has been lodged against the Council’s decisions on Change 4 (‘Managing the Built Environment’) to the Hawke's Bay Regional Resource Management Plan. The appeal was lodged by Transpower New Zealand Limited.

2. This report provides an overview of that appeal, and outlines options available to Council for discussing resolution of Transpower’s appeal.

Comment

3. Change 4 was proposed in order to assist in the implementation of the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy and to provide guidance and direction to local authorities when making decisions on urban activities, infrastructure and associated effects.

4. Transpower’s appeal challenges six distinct decisions made by the Council in response to the 45 submissions and over 750 individual submission points made on Change 4. Transpower’s appeal will now proceed through the Environment Court's processes, which include mediation and formal court hearings if necessary.

5. In short, Transpower’s appeal relates to whether or not policies and methods in Change 4 give full effect to the National Policy Statement for Electricity Transmission 2008. The Council’s decisions certainly did make deliberate amendments to provisions for, inter alia, managing reverse sensitivity of urban activities on strategic infrastructure, as is expected by the NPS.

Options considered for appeal negotiations

Status Quo

6. In relation to appeals made on earlier plans or changes to plans, a paper has been brought to Council about each group of appeals on a plan/change by plan/change basis. Subsequent decisions regarding delegations and authorisations are made by Council on a case by case basis. The status quo already authorises staff and legal counsel to attend Court-assisted mediation.

7. Depending on the delegations decided upon, staff may have to bring papers back to Council seeking authority to sign draft consent orders that will settle an appeal. This adds both time and cost to the process. The Environment Court does not favour this arrangement. Instead, the Court prefers those persons attending mediation have the proper authority to settle there and then at mediation.

Staff have authority to negotiate and sign some mediated agreements

8. Authority to sign mediated agreements could be delegated to a staff level, but the use of that delegation be guided initial liaison with representative(s) of the decision-making body, such as Chair of the relevant hearings panel. Matters such as the following could be used to guide settlements: the scope of the appeal; the relief sought in the appeal; the number of parties to the appeal; and the Council’s first instance decision(s) on the matter. This approach would provide staff with the ability to settle relatively straight forward appeals. This would result in time and cost savings in resolving such appeals, but would mean that staff might have to come back to Council to seek authority to settle more significant appeals, such as those involving multiple appellants, or where a mediated agreement would significantly change the intent of Council’s first instance decision(s).

Staff have authority to sign all mediated agreements

9. This option is favoured by staff. It is also preferred by the Environment Court. This option is considered to be the most streamlined and cost effective because it would delegate to the Group Manager Strategic Development the authority to sign, on behalf of Council, draft consent orders (i.e. agreements between parties to be presented to the Court of ratification). Any mediated agreement would be consistent with the overall intent of Council’s first instance decision(s). Initial liaison between staff and the Chair of the hearings panel would occur as in the option above.

10. This option avoids the need for any specific papers to come back to Council to seek sign off of an in-principle agreement. This will significantly speed up the settlement of appeals.

11. It is clearly important to keep Council informed of the progress of appeals and this could be done through the regular appeal updates and through the “Looking Forward” report on monthly Council meeting agendas. These updates would remain as information only papers.

Staff role when attending Environment Court hearings

12. It is important that the role of staff required to attend Environment Court hearings is understood as well. If mediation or alternative dispute resolution processes are unsuccessful in facilitating an agreed settlement, then appeals will proceed to the Environment Court for hearing.

13. Council staff who appear before the Environment Court appear as experts in their field (i.e. engineering or planning or science) and their overriding duty is to assist the Court (Environment Court Practice Note, 2011). An expert witness cannot behave as an advocate for the party who engages the witness. Expert witnesses must abide by a code of conduct which requires them to adopt a position that is supported by evidence. This position may or may not be consistent with the Council’s first instance decision(s). In this situation it is not appropriate for Council to direct what they may say in their evidence. There is no need for Council to authorise attendance.

Summary

14. It is recommended that staff liaise with the Chair of Change 4’s hearings panel to initially determine the Council’s position in response to the appeal lodged by Transpower NZ Ltd. It is also recommended that the Council delegate authority to the Group Manger Strategic Development for signing any agreements on Council’s behalf if settlement is achievable without compromising the intent and purpose of Council’s original decisions on Change 4’s submissions.

Financial and Resource Implications

15. The Council incurs costs as a result of its involvement with Environment Court appeals. Staff’s proposal to streamline the process for appeals will result in cost and time savings, and therefore has a positive financial impact for Council.

Decision Making Process

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

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

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

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

16.4. The persons particularly affected are parties involved in Change 4 to the Hawke's Bay Regional Resource Management Plan. The people of the Hawke's Bay region may also be affected but there has already been an opportunity (in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991) for any person to make a submission or further submission on Change 4.

16.5. Options that have been considered include maintaining the status quo, staff are authorised to attend mediation but delegation for settlement of appeals remains with Council, staff are authorised to attend mediation and settle some appeals, staff are authorised to attend mediation and sign mediated agreements for all appeals on Change 4 and any other future plan changes.

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

16.7. 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 Regional Planning Committee recommends Council:

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

2. Delegates to the Group Manager Strategic Development (and any legal counsel acting as the Group Manager’s agent) the authority to sign, on behalf of Council, any mediated agreement in relation Transpower New Zealand Limited’s appeal on Change 4 to the Hawke's Bay Regional Resource Management Plan.

3. Notes that staff will liaise with the Chair of the Change 4 Hearings Panel to establish an initial position in response to the appeal by Transpower New Zealand Limited.

4. Notes that staff (and all necessary technical experts) who attend Environment Court hearings must adopt a position that is supported by the evidence that the Regional Council’s experts have prepared.

Gavin Ide

Team Leader Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 05 June 2013

SUBJECT: Update on Taharua/Mohaka Policy Development

Reason for Report

1. This report focuses on the primary challenge of developing a policy framework for the Taharua catchment as a key part of a Mohaka catchment plan change. It includes: outcomes from landowner discussions; a water quality update; a science stocktake and programmed work to do; and an outline proposal for a Taharua-Mohaka Choices consultation process to assist policy-making through to 2014.

Background

2. In September 2012, this Committee and the Taharua Stakeholder Group (TSG) gave in-principle support to an outline Taharua management package and actions developed by major Taharua landowners with DairyNZ and HBRC staff input. This Taharua catchment management proposal (Attachment 1) comprised:

2.1. a plan change - for a collaborative and adaptive approach to meet water quality objectives and targets within 15 years. This would be supported by “backstop” regulation (whole farm consenting) for landowners who are not part of the collaborative process and performance review; and

2.2. a catchment management plan – including initial agreed actions to be implemented by a collaborative landowner group (including DairyNZ and HBRC) and enhanced monitoring.

3. Staff were instructed to assist landowner discussions on the key sticking point of how to collectively meet the target catchment nitrogen load. Assessment of the impact of Poronui’s realistic development options on future nitrogen loads was needed to inform any agreed collaborative approach.

4. Landowner discussions were subsequently complicated by further developments (verbally outlined to Committee in January 2013):

4.1. MfE rejected a Clean-up Fund application of over $300,000. This would have assisted a riparian enhancement programme and landowners’ use of the nitrification inhibitor eco-n; and then

4.2. nitrification inhibitors were voluntarily and indefinitely withdrawn from market, due to dicyandiamide (DCD) traces in milk powder. This was to be a key, agreed nitrogen mitigation tool from 2013. Any return to market is unlikely within 5 years.

Outcomes of Landowner Discussions

5. In April, Taharua landowners (Poronui, Feather Holdings (Wairango), Landcorp/Pengxin (Taharua Farm) and Lochinver) met with DairyNZ and HBRC staff to discuss the way forward. Land ownership instability continues in this catchment, with Country Spirit currently for sale. This complicates ongoing discussions.

6. Landowners set out their business “bottom lines” for a collaborative catchment solution:

6.1. Poronui requires reasonable use of its land as reflected in realistic development scenarios modelled by GSL Ltd. This involves continuing the replacement of around 2,000 ha of unviable eucalypt forest with extensive livestock grazing over 5 years. Although this will increase average property leaching loss of nitrogen, the loss will remain below any realistic target loss for dairy;

6.2. Dairy landowners want to keep dairying. Realistic reductions in nitrogen loss depend on individual farm systems and mitigation options in the toolbox. For example, is wintering livestock in the neighbouring catchments acceptable?

7. Landowners collectively agree:

7.1. The collaborative landowner process is not broken. There is a positive desire to work together; and

7.2. The Taharua proposal (para. 2 above) remains an effective framework for collective action towards water quality targets; but

7.3. It seems impossible to meet proposed targets and accommodate all landowner bottom lines immediately; with better tools and understanding in time this may be possible.

8. Landowners have agreed to meet more frequently, share knowledge (including Landcorp’s proposed modelling of Taharua Farm development options), establish an Overseer use protocol and provide open access to nutrient budgets.

Water Quality Update

9. Landowner improvements in nitrogen management in recent years now appear to be reflected in an apparent decrease in nitrate-nitrogen (NO₃-N) concentrations in Taharua River (Attachment 2, Fig. A). This indicates a relatively short nitrogen transfer lag time through shallow groundwater, as expected.

10. The concentration of the other key nutrient, phosphorus, continues its steady, long-term decrease in Taharua River as a result of improvements with soil and riparian management in the upper catchment (Attachment 2, Fig. B).

11. The degree and extent of Taharua land use impacts on the upper Mohaka River were indicated in a longitudinal survey carried out this summer. The survey extended from 2 km upstream of Taharua confluence to Pakaututu Bridge above Ripia confluence. It was carried out under extended low flow conditions, leading to long algae accrual times, when impacts are greatest. This snapshot will be confirmed with repeat runs under a range of flow conditions. In summary:

11.1. There is a step-change increase in dissolved inorganic nitrogen concentration (mainly NO₃-N) directly downstream of Taharua confluence. This remains elevated, but steadily declines over 40 km to Pakautuku Bridge (Attachment 2, Fig. C);

11.2. Dissolved reactive phosphorus concentrations remain relatively constant and well below existing regional plan guidelines throughout the upper Mohaka reach (Attachment 2, Fig. D);

11.3. Periphyton growth in the Mohaka River is significantly elevated downstream of the Taharua confluence to approximately 15 km downstream, with a greater incidence of Phormidium (black mats on rock). This naturally occurring, but potential toxic, blue-green algae raises management implications for contact recreation. Phormidium is sensitive to nitrogen concentrations; and

11.4. Water clarity decreases significantly directly downstream of Taharua confluence, with excellent clarity (comparable to Mohaka River upstream of Taharua) returning around 30 km downstream. Further work is programmed to determine if the reduced water clarity is due to suspended sediment or suspended algae (Attachment 2, Fig. E).

Science Programme

12. Science must be sufficiently robust to inform community decision-making and withstand potential Environment Court challenge. At the same time, it should be recognised that the Taharua-Upper Mohaka is a complex human-land-water system and total certainty for policy-making is unrealistic. Instead, an adaptive management approach can enable adjustment of an initial planning framework, through monitoring and review.

13. While the basic science “scaffolding” is now in place, critical components still need strengthening to support initial policy choices and effective landowner action. A work programme has been drawn up to strengthen these components over the next year. This programme is summarised in Appendix 3.

14. It should be recognised that science team workloads to deliver the Tukituki plan change have delayed progression of Taharua science work. However, managers are confident that the programme in Attachment 3 can be delivered in the timeframes identified, alongside other work programmes, to support policy development and notification of the Mohaka catchment plan change in December 2014 (revised timeframe in Draft Annual Plan 2013-2014).

Taharua-Upper Mohaka Challenge

15. The Taharua catchment management proposal (para.2) offers ongoing progress, through adaptive management, to improve the ecological health of the rivers. However, as the landowner catchment management group states in para. 7.3, it currently seems impossible to meet proposed water quality targets and accommodate all landowner bottom lines immediately, although this may be possible over time.

16. The initially agreed catchment outcomes sought by the TSG include healthy rivers and economically strong businesses and fair and equitable solutions through collective responsibility. However, it is increasingly evident that a Taharua solution is likely to require trade-offs. These could be: viability of farm businesses; river quality; inputs of public financial assistance; extended timeframes for improvements; accepted degrees of risk; or landowner “buy in” to ongoing action vs. delayed compliance with imposed solutions.

17. These trade-offs need to be transparently considered and the Hawke’s Bay public will want to “have their say” on selecting a preferred policy approach.

18. Although staff carried out a previous public consultation on a Taharua and Upper Mohaka Draft Strategy in 2011, this was at an earlier stage in framework development when it seemed a clearer Taharua solution could be found. It did not assess in detail realistic, alternative approaches and their implications Subsequent analysis and discussions have highlighted that finding a Taharua solution is complex. There is no easy, clear answer.

19. To enable a robust debate on Taharua-upper Mohaka policy options, staff recommend the development of a Taharua-Mohaka Choices document for a public consultation process similar to, but learning from, the Tukituki Choices process in 2012. This would be an additional, non-statutory consultation stage.

Proposed ‘Taharua-Mohaka Choices’ Consultation

20. Staff consider the benefits of a Choices consultation to be:

20.1. Providing a structured, transparent process for developing the plan change;

20.2. Enabling public input on the selection of a preferred policy approach from realistic options;

20.3. Testing support for the existing Taharua catchment management proposal (supported in principle by the TSG and Council) in the wider community;

20.4. Enabling an informed debate by setting out the consequences of different options, appropriately supported by technical investigations (environmental, social, cultural and economic);

20.5. Potentially increasing support for and reducing opposition to the notified plan change;

20.6. Providing rigour for statutory RMA section 32 reporting, which requires Council to go through a systematic process of evaluating options (objectives, policies, rules and other methods) in deriving the preferred planning approach.

21. Scenarios are increasingly used to assist public debate on policy options. A Choices document would present alternative, realistic futures and assess their likely implications. SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis of each scenario can be undertaken through a range of “lenses”: environmental; social; cultural; economic; legal; and political. Consideration needs to be given to both scenario outcomes and the process for getting there (e.g. risks and uncertainties; costs; “buy-in”; resilience and flexibility to switch to a “plan b” if necessary).

22. Staff envisage the Choices process would focus on options for the Taharua-upper Mohaka River catchments. This is the priority Mohaka issue identified by catchment stakeholders and the Hawke’s Bay public. However, a preferred management approach for the wider Mohaka catchment would be included for public consideration, supported by technical understanding of issues and preliminary stakeholder discussions.

23. As the “Taharua-Mohaka problem” is a water quality problem staff’s early thinking is that 4 or 5 different river states could form the basis of the scenarios. Although scenarios will need to be compatible with the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, the water conservation order and the Proposed Regional Policy Statement there are a spectrum of water quality states that could potentially satisfy these statutory requirements, depending on community support for them.

24. Developing the right set of scenarios is a critical first step. Design could benefit from both expert and stakeholder input. Staff consider that there will be an important ongoing role for the TSG through the Choices process. It is important that the TSG’s values, vision and desired outcomes inform discussions.

25. The existing Taharua catchment management proposal, needs to be a central part of the consultation to test whether the public consider it “fit-for-purpose” in existing or revised form. The ability of this proposal to deliver against different scenarios over time should be assessed against alongside other approaches.

26. A range of technical analyses need to inform the scenarios assessment. Sufficient time must be allowed to carry out this essential work. Science understanding is well advanced and the programme outlined in Attachment 3 will assist assessment. Analysis of farm systems and the financial implications of nitrogen management have also been carried out. However, we anticipate that the following knowledge gaps will need to be addressed:

26.1. Broader economic analysis - including the potential impacts of reduced dairy production or land use change and the potential benefits of a cleaner river to downstream landowners, river users and the wider community; and

26.2. Cultural assessment and analysis of potential impacts - in conjunction with mana whenua; and

26.3. More detailed understanding of river uses.

27. To assist effective joint-working with Mohaka iwi and the Upper Mohaka Kaitiaki Collective of Maori landowners staff will be holding early discussions with them on what’s needed, both in terms of additional investigations and channels for dialogue.

28. While budget is available for a Choices process, the financial implications will only be fully understood once detailed work requirements are known. If the Committee supports a Choices process staff will need to carry out more detailed project planning to develop and confirm necessary stages, milestones and budgets.

29. It is anticipated that the Choices release and opportunity for public feedback would occur in March/April 2014 (or Feb/March if knowledge gathering and analysis allows). This would allow sufficient time for technical investigations to be carried out and 8 months for subsequent analysis and development of a preferred option as a proposed plan change.

30. Indicative key stages are outlined in Fig.1 below.

Decision Making Process

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

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

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

31.3. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the region’s natural and physical resources and, in particular, persons with an economic, cultural, social and environmental interest in the future of the Mohaka catchment.

31.4. Options that have been considered include: (a) public input into policy-making through a ‘Taharua-Mohaka Choices’ consultation process involving either (i) focus on choices for Taharua-upper Mohaka or (ii) choices for both Taharua-upper Mohaka and rest of Mohaka catchment; and (b) continuing with only Taharua Stakeholder Group input into policy-making prior to plan change notification.

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

31.6. 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:

1. That the Regional Planning Committee recommends Council:

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

1.2. Notes the position statement of the main Taharua landowners, including their continued support for a collaborative process and the existing Taharua catchment management proposal that was agreed in principle by Council in 2012.

1.3. Notes the science programme being implemented to support Taharua-Mohaka policy-making and the need for this work to be given sufficient priority among Council’s programmes to avoid further delays.

1.4. Instructs staff to undertake a Taharua-Mohaka Choices consultation process and to draw up a more detailed project plan.

1.5. Supports continued staff collaboration with the Taharua Stakeholder Group and landowner catchment management group for ongoing improvements in management of the Taharua catchment and development of a Choices public consultation document

1.6. Instructs staff to provide the Committee with progress updates at key points in the policy-making process.

Chris Reed

Senior Planner

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

1 View	Taharua Proposal 2012
2 View	Water Quality Update - Taharua
3 View	Science Programme - Taharua

Science Programme - Taharua

Attachment 3

Science Area	Title	Detail	Status	Completion Date
Water Quality and Ecology	Toxicity of nitrate on Brown Trout (Salmo trutta)	To determine the tolerance of Brown Trout to nitrate during its most vulnerable life stages i.e. egg development and yolk sack absorption.	Underway	July 2013
	Longitudinal water quality assessments on the Mohaka River	Two longitudinal water quality assessments from 2 km above the Taharua confluence to Pakaututu Bridge above the Ripia confluence have recently been carried but more are programmed when flow conditions change. These assessments will determine how far down the Mohaka River the effects of nutrient enrichment from the Taharua River reach and what they are. These assessments will also determine the nature of the clarity issues found in the Taharua and Mohaka rivers i.e. organic/inorganic components?	Underway	Ongoing
	Taharua/Mohaka Fishery assessment	This assessment is still being scoped out and will need to be discussed with Poronui before any progress can be made. The assessment will detail the past and current fishery status and look at artificial and manmade fish barriers that may be hindering the spawning migration of the fish.	Underway	December 2013
	Ongoing water quality monitoring in the Taharua and Mohaka Rivers	This monitoring will look at changing trends in a host of water quality parameters including nitrate and phosphorus.	Ongoing	Ongoing
Groundwater	Complete water balance for the Taharua catchment	To determine water fluxes in and out of the Taharua catchment.	Underway	August 2013
	Installation of new groundwater monitoring wells	To monitor the impacts of land use on groundwater.	Underway	August 2013
	Groundwater dating	To determine the time lag between nutrient loss from land surface to nutrient enrichment in groundwater and river.	Underway	November 2013
	Groundwater level survey	To determine the flow direction of groundwater in the upper Mohaka catchment covering the Taharua catchment.	Planned	September 2013
	Draft report on groundwater investigations	Technical report describing groundwater investigations.	Planned	December 2013
Land Science/Land Management	Updating Overseer	The Overseer model that is used to estimate on-farm nitrogen leaching has been updated from version 5 to version 6. As we need the most up to date information for any modelling of the catchment we need to convert all historic, current and possible future land use scenarios to version 6.	Underway	July 2013
	Mohaka catchment model	This NIWA model links nutrient losses from land to in-stream concentrations. Current model to be reviewed/updated to accommodate the latest data. NIWA expert has recommended that HBRC and NIWA experts work together to review available data (part of the stocktake process), at which time decisions can be made for future modelling requirements and directions.	On hold until relevant data is collected, available data collated (August 2013)	December 2013

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 05 June 2013

SUBJECT: Update on Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri Policy Development

Reason for Report

1. This report provides an update on progress of the TANK Group stakeholder assisting Council on the Greater Heretaunga / Ahuriri Land and Water Plan Change (“the Plan Change”). The focus of this update is on the TANK Group discussions into balancing competing water demands.

Background

2. At the 05 September 2012 Regional Planning Committee meeting, the Committee was informed of the Plan Change and its alignment with other Council documents (Long Term Plan, Land and Water Management Strategy, Regional Policy Statement).

3. The Plan Change will be an integrated approach to managing the Tutaekuri, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro and Karamu catchments (colloquially termed the “TANK” catchments, see map in Appendix 1).

4. The Draft Annual Plan notes Plan Change public notification to be December 2016 (shift from July 2014).

5. At the 13 February 2013 Regional Planning Committee meeting, the Committee was updated on the progress of the TANK collaborative stakeholder group assisting Council with its Plan Change decision making.

Stakeholder Engagement Process

6. The TANK group consists of 30 members representing agricultural and horticultural sectors, government agencies, environmental and community interest groups and mana whenua / tangata whenua (see Appendix 2 for full list of participants and whom they represent).

7. The TANK group has held six meetings since October 2012. Meetings 5 and 6 have taken place since the last Committee meeting.

8. At Meeting 5, the key Management Variables (things we can alter such as water quality limits and minimum flows) for each catchment were discussed. It was recognised that many of the Management Variables are generic to the four catchments.

9. At Meeting 6 the generic (catchment-wide) Management Variables identified in Meeting 5 were explored in detail. These were based around:

9.1. Minimum flows

9.2. Groundwater / surface water connectivity & security of supply

9.3. Water allocation and storage

9.4. Water quality and good practice

10. Tentative agreement on some of the generic issues has been reached.

11. Small group workshops are planned over the next fortnight (29 May – 11 June) to work through the following topics in more detail:

11.1. Security of supply

11.2. Groundwater model

11.3. Stormwater runoff / septic tanks

11.4. Nutrient loss

11.5. Iwi allocations / other tangata whenua considerations

National and Regional Water Management Context

12. In the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 (NPSFM), regional councils are charged with ensuring regional plans establish freshwater objectives, set environmental flows and/or levels, and set freshwater quality limits for all bodies of fresh water.

13. The NPSFM requires Councils to manage water in an integrated and sustainable way, while providing for economic growth within set water quantity and quality limits. This includes improving and maximise the efficient allocation of water while still meeting environmental bottom lines.

14. Change 5 to the Regional Policy Statement proposes that primary values and uses for water are to be given more emphasis than secondary values and uses in the Heretaunga / Ahuriri zone. The Hearings Commissioners have recommended a number of amendments to those primary and secondary values (Table 1) At the time of writing this paper, the Council was due to consider the Commissioner’s Recommendations at its meeting on 29 May 2013.

Table 1:

Catchment Area

Primary Value(s) and Uses –
in no priority order

Secondary Value(s) and Uses –
in no priority order

Greater Heretaunga / Ahuriri Catchment Area

· Individual domestic needs and stock drinking needs

· Industrial & commercial water supply

· Native fish habitat in the Ngaruroro River and Tutaekuri River catchments

· The high natural character values of the Ngaruroro River and its margins upstream of Whanawhana cableway, including Taruarau River

· The high natural character values of the Tutaekuri River and its margins above the confluence of, and including, the Mangatutu Stream

· Urban water supply for cities and townships and water supply for key social infrastructure facilities

· Water use associated with maintaining or enhancing land-based primary production

· Aggregate supply and extraction in Ngaruroro River downstream of the confluence with the Mangatahi Stream

· Amenity for contact recreation (including swimming) in lower Ngaruroro River, Tutaekuri River and Ahuriri Estuary

· Native fish habitat, notwithstanding native fish habitat as a primary value and use in the Tutaekuri River and Ngaruroro River catchments

· Recreational trout angling

· Trout habitat

Balancing Competing Water Demands

15. The challenge of balancing water demands across competing values and uses is most prevalent during drought conditions like that experienced in 2013.

16. In the RRMP, ‘security of supply’ of water is specified for a given return drought period (e.g. of one in five or ten year drought). If a more severe drought occurs, like this year’s, the result is a shortfall in water available for irrigation.

17. Severe droughts also impact on other water values including environmental (e.g. reduced aquatic habitat and nuisance algal growths).

18. The 2010 decisions on the Groundwater Takes from the Unconfined Aquifer in the Twyford/Raupare Consent Area highlight the issues associated with reduced security of supply. A number of groundwater takes were newly assessed as affecting nearby streams. Because these groundwater takes were deemed to be stream-depleting, they were linked to a minimum flow on the relevant surface water body (Raupare, Ngaruroro) which was the first time that this had occurred on the Heretaunga Plains.

19. The impact of the Twyford/Raupare decisions was felt for the first time this year when a low flow ban was imposed on those stream depleting takes. Water restrictions resulted in crop loss and reduced yield for a number of Hawke’s Bay growers.

20. In relation to its Draft Annual Plan 20213/14, the Council has received submissions from groups and individuals highlighting the impacts of water restrictions this year which affected growers in the TANK catchments (and the Tukituki catchment).

21. These submitters, some of whom are members of the TANK Group, seek greater flexibility within Council policies and plans for managing water takes.

22. As a result of this year’s drought, there is growing awareness and urgency within the horticultural sector around security of supply issues.

23. At a recent Hawke’s Bay Growers meeting, which Council staff attended, robust discussions took place about water bans. Regional Council staff responded that solutions are not solely the domain of the Council and there was some acceptance of this from growers.

24. There are approximately 1000 additional groundwater takes on the Heretaunga Plains which are currently not tied to minimum flows. These are to be reviewed as part of the Greater Heretaunga / Ahuriri Land and Water Plan Change. Growers are “very nervous” that these takes may be deemed stream depleters and hence be tied to minimum flows.

25. Primary and secondary industries are an important and influential sector in Hawke’s Bay and it is noticeable that they are ‘starting to rally’ around security of water supply issues.

Improving Security of Supply: Options Being Explored

26. TANK Group members are actively exploring alternative options for managing water takes on the Heretaunga Plains. They wish to avoid a ban “at all costs” and to move away from the ‘on or off’ policy (i.e. ban at minimum flow). These options are mentioned in the Annual Plan submissions and include:

26.1. Global or shared consents

26.2. Staged regression of water takes (e.g. all reduce 20% as approach minimum flow) depending on land use and catchment indicators

26.3. Soft stop minimum flows (e.g. water still able to be used below low flow in ‘extreme situations’)

26.4. Prioritisation of water allocation based on land use

26.5. Advantages to ‘best practice’ water users (e.g. more secure allocation, longer consents)

27. The results of the TANK Group’s discussions on these matters will inevitably form part of a set of recommendations the TANK Group will be making to the Regional Planning Committee and Council.

Fish and Game New Zealand’s Proposal for a Water Conservation Order

28. Fish and Game New Zealand are drafting a Water Conservation Order (WCO) application for the Ngaruroro catchment. The WCO would cover the full Ngaruroro catchment including tributaries (and potentially the lower section of the Karamu). Council staff have not seen any other the details of the WCO to date.

29. Fish and Game presented the WCO proposal to the TANK Group in Meeting 6 (14 May). It was met with some concern from the TANK group members who feel it may undermine the work undertaken in the TANK process.

30. It was reiterated to the TANK Group that Council has given a good faith undertaking to implement the recommendations of the TANK Group, where it is able to do so. The Council has not yet taken a position on the WCO proposal as there is currently little detail in the scope and intent of the application.

Summary

31. The current collaborative process for the Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri catchments, the Twyford consent decisions and this year’s drought has certainly raised the awareness of water management issues in the region, particularly around water security and imposition of minimum flows. This is likely to be one of the critical issues going forward for the Regional Planning Committee when it eventually receives the recommendations from the TANK Group.

TANK Group next steps

32. Meeting 7 scheduled for 11 June.

33. The initial timeframe for an output from the TANK Group was June 2014 which has enabled the group to progress through a lot of issues at a good speed. The proposed changes to the Plan Change notification have resulted in an adjustment to the TANK Group’s timeframe.

34. A further two meetings proposed (August, September) to complete a “TANK Report” – summary of findings, agreements to date.

35. Potential TANK process and Plan Change development to December 2016

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendation

1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives the report.

Tim Sharp

Strategic Policy Advisor

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.