• About this site|
• Site index|
• Contact us|
• Jobs

Proposed National Environmental Standard for Water Measuring Devices: Report on Submissions

1 Introduction

2 Overview of Submissions

3 General Submission Summary

4 Submissions on the content of the proposal

5 Implementation of the Proposed Standard

Appendix A: Public Notice

Appendix B: Index of Submitters

3 General Submission Summary

This section summarises submitters' general comments on the proposed NES. More detailed comments on the specific requirements of the proposed standard can be found in section 4.

3.1 Need for and support for the NES

This section takes into account comments relating to the need for and support for an NES for water measuring devices.

3.1.1 Support for the proposed NES

Fifty-six per cent of submitters either fully or conditionally supported the need for an NES.

The supportive submissions generally acknowledged the importance of obtaining comprehensive data on water takes to manage water resources more effectively. The main points that were raised in support can be placed into two main categories, followed by the category of those who opposed the NES.

Effective water management

Nine submitters saw the development of the NES for water measuring devices as an important step in managing water resources more effectively. Specific comments were that the NES:

• is an important step in understanding water resources
• would underpin a drive towards increasing efficiency of water use through the collection of data
• is important for water allocation and compliance purposes.

National consistency

The development of the NES was seen as an essential means of achieving national consistency in the measurement and recording of water takes. Six submitters said that the NES:

• is a best-practice outcome
• provides a positive method for ensuring consistent recording of water takes at a national level
• is a more effective and uniform method by which to create a more equitable system for water takes.

NES will not provide flexibility

In contrast to the majority of submissions in support of the proposed NES, nine stated that the NES would not be beneficial because it would not allow for local or regional flexibility.

The NES was seen as imposing a "one size fits all" approach, which was viewed as an unsuitable method for managing water resources due to regional variations.

3.1.2 Need for the proposed NES

Most submitters, regardless of their position on the content of the NES, supported the general aim of measuring water takes. Many acknowledged the importance of obtaining this data in order to improve the efficiency of water use. Water was recognised as a significant public resource and one that needs to be carefully managed.

One submitter said that the NES is a more effective and uniform method by which to create a more equitable system for water takes. Twenty-two submitters expressed strong support for the NES. Reasons stated included:

• measurements are essential for effective management
• consistency at a national level
• promotion of water conservation.

However, a number of submitters questioned the need for an NES, arguing that:

• existing legislative provisions (in the form of the RMA) are sufficient
• the standard will lead to a "one size fits all approach" and will not acknowledge local variations
• additional regulation and complexity will be created for no substantial reason.

Some submitters considered that the objectives of the NES would be better met by other methods. The main alternative suggestions were:

• greater application of water measuring provisions within the RMA through regional plans
• development of a voluntary standard or code of practice
• creation of a national toolkit to assist regional councils in measuring water use.

3.1.3 Consideration of alternatives

Alternative options were reviewed within the NES discussion document for water measuring devices. It was concluded that an NES is the only option that meets all the stated objectives, but a number of submitters felt that the alternatives were not adequately examined and should be given greater consideration. Another submitter suggested that the money invested in the development of an NES should instead be used to improve irrigation efficiency.

Eight submitters said that existing legislative provisions are sufficient to measure water takes and that the NES is therefore unnecessary. Several of these commented that regional councils are the best qualified to stipulate conditions on measuring water takes, so the NES is superfluous. Five submitters said that guidelines would provide a more appropriate way to meet the stated objectives. One suggested that the Ministry for the Environment engage with Standards New Zealand to prepare and publish a simple voluntary standard instead of the NES.

In summary, the main alternatives to an NES that submitters raised were:

• existing RMA provisions
• regional plan provisions
• consent conditions
• a voluntary standard
• voluntary guidelines.

3.2 Standard development and consultation process

3.2.1 Opportunities for stakeholder involvement

Many submitters expressed discontent that the NES development process had only one opportunity for stakeholders and the public to get involved. Two expressed concern that after the submission process there is no formal process for involvement by industry stakeholders. One submitter cautioned that a lack of public input may mean widespread non-compliance, while three considered that their sector had been excluded from the development process and asked to be involved in future. One submitter thought that the standard has been rushed through and should be stopped until there has been more meaningful dialogue with all stakeholders.

Twelve submitters - notably from regional councils - expressed a desire for further involvement in the future development or implementation of the standard. Three wanted to discuss their submission or issues in more detail. Further involvement was requested, particularly at the regulation drafting and implementation planning stages. Reasons for further involvement included:

• to ensure the NES is workable from an implementation perspective
• to share experience with applying rules and writing consent conditions
• input at drafting stage is needed to reduce the likelihood of technical problems occurring.

Two submitters felt that there were insufficient consultation meetings and noted that the consultation occurred at a busy time of the year for their sector.

Table 3: Summary of submitters' comments about the NES development and consultation process

3.2.3 Change of title

Three submitters said that the title of the Proposed National Environmental Standard for Water Measuring Devices should be altered to reduce any ambiguities and improve clarity.

Their suggestions included:

• change to "Proposed National Environmental Standard for Water Measuring and Recording Devices"
• change to "National Environmental Standard for the Measurement of Water Abstractions"
• adjust the title to reflect water flow metering, because it is currently too general.

3.2.3 Lack of information

A number of submitters made comments and suggestions about the information contained within the proposed NES discussion document. Six made reference to more information being needed in the standard. More information was requested by one submitter about what current practice is, and another requested more information about what national reporting needs are.

One submitter said that penalties for non-compliance and the criteria for exemptions needed to be spelt out in the discussion document. It was argued that there was not enough information on takes that are to be measured as part of a resource consent, and more specific and technical details were requested to explain this further. One submitter believed that the cost-benefit analysis indicates that the standard is justified, but that more information is needed to prove this conclusively, while several considered that the interim scoping of the costs and benefits was inadequate.

One submitter considered that the intent of the standard to require the use of data loggers was unclear in the discussion document. Another argued that there needs to be clarity over how the NES will apply in situations where there is little water to meet demand. A request was made for further assessment of the methods for measuring open-channel flow to be undertaken and for a more accurate and standardised method to be included in the final NES.

3.2.4 Definitions and clarity of terms used

Eight submitters said that a number of words and phrases required further clarification or possible replacement. Below are some of the specific comments:

• much of the document refers to volumes of water abstracted. However, with the exception of some groundwater takes, consent conditions are generally written in terms of L/s, m3/s and/or m3/day. These are rates, not volumes.
• a number of terms need further definition, including:
  • over-allocation
  • accuracy
  • rating curves
  • data storage capability
  • net take
  • fit for purpose
  • continuous measurement
  • data logging
  • allocation
  • independent verification
• the terms "data recording", "flow rate" and "water measuring device" together do not imply continuous measurement, as the text in the discussion document does. It was suggested that drawing on existing approaches and acting in a consistent manner is the best approach when dealing with requirements on consent holders arising under the proposed NES (eg, use NIWA's definition of "continuous")
• a consistent definition should be applied to specifications for water measuring devices.
  It was suggested that the definition of recording in Appendix 1 of the discussion document be amended to provide for manual recording of accumulated total abstraction at nominated intervals.

3.3 Costs and benefits

This section examines comments made about the costs and benefits associated with the proposed NES and its implementation.

3.3.1 Adequacy of the interim cost-benefit assessment

Fifteen submitters considered that the interim cost-benefit assessment in the discussion document was inadequate, and that it tended to underestimate the extent and amount of costs. Several provided cost estimations, quotes and prices for measuring devices and installations with their submissions, and some felt the NES should not be able to proceed without a more rigorous assessment of costs and benefits.

Many submitters considered that the breadth of costs that will be incurred by the standard were not fully considered, and felt that the following elements should be considered in the full cost-benefit appraisal required in the standard's development process:

• costs of structure and head-works modification
• costs to small consent holders
• costs to the economy as a whole
• costs of the consent review process
• increased compliance costs
• costs of data management, storage, analysis and reporting
• ongoing operational costs to users, including phone and telemetry charges, transfer of data to councils, and verification of meters
• costs to holders with more than one take.

3.3.2 Burden of costs

A few submitters considered that the proposal would have a significant public good component. For this reason, many considered that the public, government or ratepayers should have to pay rather than placing the whole burden of cost on the consent holder. Four submitters expressed concern about increased compliance costs.

Twelve submitters questioned or considered that the costs of the proposal would outweigh the benefits, thus making the proposal difficult to justify. Three felt the costs could undermine the viability of their businesses.

3.3.3 Other

A variety of other points were raised by submitters about the costs and benefits of the proposed NES, including:

• there is a need to take into account the local government Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP) planning and budgeting cycles
• the costs of reviewing existing consents are unacceptable because councils cannot recover the costs. There needs to be a way the NES can apply to all consents without formal reviews having to take place.

Table 4: Summary of submitters' comments about the cost-benefit analysis