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

Report on submissions: Proposed National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking-water

1 Introduction

2 Overview of Submissions

3 General Submission Summary

4 Submissions on Parts 1–4

5 Responses to Questions

Appendix A: Public Notice

Appendix B: Index of Submitters

4 Submissions on Parts 1–4

This section of the report collates feedback from submitters who commented on specific parts of the proposed NES. These parts are referred to as Parts 1 to 4 for ease of reference. Some of these comments duplicate those in more general submissions.

In addition to the narrative description of submissions, each theme has a table that summarises the themes in the left–hand column and gives the corresponding submitter ID number in the right–hand column. The submitter ID can be cross–referenced to the index of submitters in Appendix B.

4.1 Part 1 – Resource consents

4.1.1 Resourcing implications

Thirteen submitters were concerned about the resourcing implications of Part 1. Ten of these considered that there would be an increased workload for water suppliers as a result of having to be involved with an increased number of resource applications and determining how they might be affected. Another submitter considered that Part 1 would result in an increased workload for councils.

One submitter considered that there would be a significant increase in costs to resource consent applicants as a result of determining the effects on water supply, restricting the ability of applicants to obtain consents. Another submitter felt that defining catchments may be costly because of the complex nature of this work.

4.1.2 Restrictions/uncertainties

Six submitters considered that if Part 1 was applied conservatively it may restrict development within communities and existing land uses that are currently consistent with plans.

One submitter was concerned that Part 1 would reduce the certainty associated with controlled activities in plans; ie, any controlled activity that was consistent with the plan would not be able to be granted if it was not also consistent with the standard. Another argued that because the effects of activities are often not clear–cut they will be open for interpretation. A conservative interpretation may have the effect of inappropriately restricting development.

4.1.3 Interaction with health agencies, legislation and tools

Five submitters made comments and suggestions on the interaction of Part 1 with public health agencies, health legislation and tools. Three of these submitters suggested that in addition to water suppliers, public health agencies would also need to be involved in this process. One submitter suggested that this should be the role of the drinking–water assessor.

One submitter suggested that the public health risk management plan (PHRMP) would be a useful reference that should be taken into account when assessing consent applications that have the potential to affect water supplies.

One submitter considered that for Part 1 to be effective, all water suppliers would have to comply with the DWSNZ. If supplies did not comply it is uncertain how they would be dealt with under the current treatment definition.

4.1.4 Suggestions for alternative wording

Seven submitters suggested alternative wording for Part 1, and another suggested that Part 1 needed to be written in less absolute terms. Suggested wording changes were:

• replace “should” with “shall” to make it clear that safe drinking–water is of paramount importance
• replace the words “drinking–water being non–potable or unwholesome following treatment” with the words “the quality of the treated drinking–water produced by the existing treatment processes not being degraded”
• change the wording to require the “consideration of effects”rather than requiring consents that don’t meet the criteria to be declined.

One submitter considered that Part 1 should only apply to new point–source discharges, and suggested wording changes to Part 1 to reflect this. Another suggested that Part 1 be amended so that consent authorities retain approval rights.

4.1.5 Priority

Four submitters were concerned that Part 1 gave an inappropriate priority to drinking–water supply over other uses of water. One submitter was concerned that Part 1 would inappropriately give water suppliers the final say in resource consent processes.

4.1.6 Guidance/assistance

Four submitters considered guidance or assistance will be needed to implement Part 1. Two of these submitters argued that there needs to be guidance on what constitutes an adequate assessment of environmental effects (AEE) on a water supply. One considered that guidance is required on how to assess cumulative and cross boundary effects. Another felt that small water suppliers will need some form of assistance to review AEEs that come to them for consideration.

4.1.7 Cumulative effects

Two submitters were unclear about how Part 1 relates to cumulative effects. One suggested Part 1 needs to clarify whether the assessment is of the activity on its own, or in combination with others. Another submitter was concerned that the cumulative effects of small land–use changes (residential subdivisions) will fall outside the scope of the proposed standard.

4.1.8 Diffuse discharges

One submitter considered that Part 1 does not address diffuse discharges, activities that pose potential risks, and small land–use changes. This submitter argued that diffuse discharges pose the greatest risk and are the most difficult to manage. They added that land–use activities (storage tanks, pipelines) that do not discharge but that pose a potential risk are not likely to be addressed.

Another submitter suggested amending the NES to make specific reference to high–impact low–probability activities.

4.1.9 Roles and responsibilities

Three submitters were unclear about the roles and responsibilities for Part 1. Submitters specifically suggested defining who decides whether an activity will result in water becoming non–potable and who is responsible for identifying drinking–water catchments.

4.1.10 Need for Part 1

Three submitters questioned the need for Part 1. Submitters considered that the requirement was already covered by the existing RMA legislation, and should already be happening under the existing requirements. One argued that there was no need to create a separate mediation process between the water supplier and the applicant.

4.1.11 Cross–boundary issues

Two submitters questioned how Part 1 would work in a cross–boundary situation; ie, where an activity and a potentially affected water supply are located in different regions or districts. It was suggested that Part 1 would need to address how these situations are to be handled.

4.1.12 Definition of “unwholesome”

Two submitters suggested removing “unwholesome” as a criterion. Submitters argued that because the wholesomeness of water only relates to aesthetics, it should not be considered equally alongside ‘unpotable’, which relates to the safety of water for human consumption.

4.1.13 Definition of “treatment”

Two submitters were concerned that the definition of “treatment” provides no certainty as to what is an appropriate standard of treatment. One submitter suggested that the definition needs to differentiate between “technically feasible” and “affordable and reasonable treatment”.

One submitter considered that it is probably ultra vires to refer to the Ministry of Health register in any amended definition of “treatment”.

4.1.14 Other

Assessment difficulties: One submitter considered that this part wrongly assumes that current levels of treatment are adequate. Another considered that when the existing treatment is not considered adequate the assessment of applications by consent authorities will be difficult.

Appendix 2: One submitter suggested that Appendix 2 is incomplete and omits some high–risk activities associated with the operation of dams (eg, anoxic water, works in a stream bed).

Limited information: One submitter considered that Part 1 would be difficult to comply with due to the limited amount of information on catchments.

Notification: One submitter advised that a consistent notification approach should not be expected.

Scope: One submitter questioned whether all downstream water supplies need to be considered in Part 1. They argued that in large catchments (e.g, Waikato catchment) the consideration of effects on all downstream water supplies would be onerous and inappropriate.

Effects of dams: One submitter suggested that the proposal should consider how effects associated with dams are to be assessed.

4.2 Part 2 – Assessments

4.2.1 Resourcing implications

Fifteen submitters were concerned about the resourcing implications of Part 2, most of whom argued that Part 2 would increase workload and costs. Submitters indicated that costs and workload would increase as a result of increases in monitoring, as well as any plan changes required as a result of discovering non–complying permitted activities.

One submitter suggested that Part 2 should not result in any additional costs to monitoring agencies, while six considered that any additional costs could impose an unrealistic burden on small communities.

4.2.2 Definition of “periodically assess”

Ten submitters considered that the term “periodically assess” does not provide certainty and needs to be defined. Submitters felt that the definition needs to specifically include the required frequency of assessment.

One submitter considered that it was also important to provide guidance on the timing of these assessments relative to related assessments that are required under other legislation (Local Government Act, Health Act). Another considered that the frequency of the assessments should be defined in regional or district plans.

4.2.3 Need for Part 2?

Eleven submitters questioned the need for Part 2 of the proposal. Submitters argued that Part 2 duplicates existing legislative requirements, and would not change the current approach. Legislative requirements considered duplicated included:

• section 35 of the RMA
• Local Government Act sanitary assessment requirements
• PHRMP catchment risk assessments.

One submitter argued that the standard was not an effective tool to change land–use practices or address diffuse sources.

4.2.4 Non–point source (diffuse) discharges

Six submitters highlighted that linking the effects of permitted activities and water quality is likely to be difficult due to the complexity of the systems involved. One submitter suggested that local government would need to be assisted to undertake this task.

4.2.5 Roles and responsibilities

Eight submitters considered that roles and responsibilities for undertaking periodic assessment and defining drinking–water catchments under Part 2 need to be defined. Two of the submitters suggested that regional councils should be responsible for periodic assessments, while another considered that water suppliers needed to be involved in the assessment.

4.2.6 Impact on land use

Seven submitters considered that if Part 2 was applied conservatively it may restrict development within communities and existing land uses that are currently consistent with plans. Another submitter was concerned that Part 2 would force the regulation of previously permitted activities.

One submitter was concerned that there was a real risk that the standard will not strike a fair and reasonable balance between land users and water suppliers.

4.2.7 Suggestions for alternative wording

Nine submitters suggested alternative wording for Part 2. Suggested wording changes were:

• change “water supply catchment” to “water supply zone”
• amend so that councils must ensure that permitted activities avoid, remedy or mitigate effects on drinking–water sources
• add “Any planning decisions that stem from this assessment of risk must also consider the negative impacts arising from restrictions on land use within the catchment area”.

4.2.8 Scope

Six submitters considered that controlled activities need to be included in the requirements of Part 2. These submitters argued that because controlled activities are automatically granted they should be considered along with permitted activities. Another submitter considered that unregulated activities need to be included in the assessment because these also pose a risk to water supplies.

4.2.9 Support

Five submitters supported Part 2. One added that water supply catchments are not traditional targets for monitoring.

4.2.10 Alternatives to Part 2

Four submitters proposed alternatives for Part 2, including:

• public education to discourage everyday land–use practices that may affect public water supplies
• an NPS that protects future water supplies
• reliance on alternative water supply sources in the event of contamination.

Another submitter suggested that if controlling agriculture is the objective then there are more direct ways to do this.

4.2.11 Actions required

Three submitters were unclear about what action is required if a problem is found as a result of a periodic assessment. Two other submitters considered that Part 2 would not be effective if no action is required to be taken.

4.2.12 Cumulative effects

Two submitters considered that it was important for the assessment to recognise the cumulative impacts of permitted activities. Another considered that it will be difficult to assess the cumulative impacts of these activities.

4.2.13 Catchment information

One submitter was concerned about whether councils will have adequate information on their catchments, and noted that information on catchments may be held by a number of agencies. Another suggested that there is a need to benchmark source water quality so that subsequent effects on quality can be determined.

One submitter noted that Part 2 would mandate state of the environment (SoE) monitoring in drinking–water supply catchments.

4.2.14 Reverse sensitivity

Three submitters suggested that Part 2 may create reverse sensitivity issues for water suppliers. Landowners in drinking–water supply catchments may be more likely to oppose water takes or new water supply developments, or be adverse to agreeing to locate water supply plant on their land.

4.2.15 Other

Risk: Two submitters considered that Part 2 would not address activities that may result in an increased risk to water suppliers. Examples included pipelines and hazardous substance storage facilities. One of the submitters suggested amending the standard to require a risk–based assessment of drinking–water sources.

Interaction with health: One submitter suggested that the assessment required by Part 2 should be in conjunction with the public health agency. This submitter also suggested that the PHRMP would form a good basis for the assessment, and noted the importance of avoiding duplicating assessments.

Guidance: Two submitters suggested that there needs to be guidance to assist local government implement Part 2. One submitter suggested guidance on how to undertake an assessment of permitted activities. Another suggested technical guidelines for monitoring community drinking–water sources and defining catchments.

Implications for plans: Two submitters noted that Part 2 may lead to local authorities changing the status of activities in plans to protect water quality.

Fairness: Two submitters noted that there needs to be a consistent approach to consented and permitted activities, and argued that political and financial difficulties should not be justification for inequitable requirements for different sectors.

Iwi: One submitter suggested that the “assessment” identify effects on iwi and opportunities to remedy these effects.

Existing activities: One submitter was unclear about how the proposal relates to existing activities and to consent renewals, and suggested that this be clarified.

Existing activities: One submitter was unclear about how the proposal relates to existing activities and to consent renewals, and suggested that this be clarified.

4.3 Part 3 – Resource consent conditions

4.3.1 Legality

Fourteen submitters questioned the legality of Part 3, or considered that Part 3 requirements were ultra vires. Submitters argued that Part 3:

• forces consent holders to admit liability
• forces consent holders to provide information which may then be used to prosecute them
• requires notification of a third party.

4.3.2 Effectiveness and enforceability

Six submitters questioned the enforceability and effectiveness of Part 3. One argued that Part 3 would not be able to be effectively monitored or enforced, while another considered that councils cannot be aware of all “unauthorised discharges”.

Submitters also argued that Part 3 would not be effective: consent holders may not be aware of “unauthorised events” occurring. In addition if they were aware it is likely that many consent holders would not report these events to water suppliers.

To address the awareness concern, two submitters recommended limiting the requirement to notify unintended/accidental discharges from the time of discovery.

4.3.3 Need for Part 3?

Seven submitters questioned the need for Part 3 of the proposal. They argued that the requirements of Part 3 are being undertaken already, that there are better mechanisms for achieving Part 3, or that Part 3 duplicates existing Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act (CDEMA) requirements.

PHRMPs were considered a better mechanism for achieving the objectives of Part 3.

4.3.4 Notification

Six submitters recommended that Part 3 should be amended to require the consent holder to notify the consent authority and public health agency as well as the water supplier. Another submitter added that water suppliers would prefer to be notified by the consent authority rather than by the consent holder.

Two submitters also recommended amending this part to require notification in the event routine water quality monitoring by the consent holder or the consent authority indicates a problem. Another was concerned about how the smaller private water suppliers would be notified.

4.3.5 Definition of “unauthorised discharge”

Three submitters considered it important that “unauthorised discharge” be defined to provide more certainty on what type of activities/events are envisaged. One submitter considered that leaving this undefined could lead to a large number of notifications.

Two submitters thought that the wording needs to be replaced altogether to improve the understanding of Part 3. One suggested replacing the wording “unauthorised discharge” with “incident that may adversely affect water quality” to include incidents where there was a heightened risk to water supplies.

Another suggested replacing the wording “unauthorised discharge” with “a breach of resource consent conditions”.

4.3.6 Existing consents

Seven submitters considered that Part 3 is unclear as to whether it applies to both new and existing consents. One submitter considered that it should not apply to existing activities. Another was concerned that Part 3 would not apply to existing consents.

4.3.7 Support

Six submitters supported Part 3 requirements for water suppliers to be informed of unauthorised discharges.

4.3.8 Communication

Three submitters considered that to support Part 3, communication links between the relevant agencies need to be established and/or strengthened.

4.3.9 Alternatives to Part 3

Three submitters suggested alternatives to Part 3, including:

• an NES requiring local authorities to prepare emergency response and contingency plans to protect water
• introducing an NPS that requires a risk–based assessment of drinking–water sources.

Another said that the focus should be on prevention of accidental/unauthorised discharges rather than measures for managing incidents when they occur.

4.3.10 Scope

One submitter who opposed Part 3 thought its scope was too broad. Another submitter considered that the scope was not broad enough because Part 3 does not address permitted, unregulated or illegal activities.

4.3.11 Fairness

One submitter argued that Part 3 unfairly targets consent holders over unconsented activities. This submitter also argued that it is unfair just to require the notification of water suppliers when there may be many other downstream uses and users that could be affected by the same event.

4.3.12 Information access

One submitter considered that as well as being informed of unauthorised discharges, water suppliers must also be able to access information on the type of consents in drinking–water catchments for input to PHRMPs.

4.3.13 Other

Three submitters suggested amendments to Part 3. One suggested that risk assessment should be undertaken prior to consent being given for activities that may affect water supply. Two submitters considered that an NES should require water suppliers to monitor abstracted water to detect contamination.

4.4 Part 4 – Water take conditions

4.4.1 Need for Part 4

Twenty–one submitters questioned the need for Part 4. Submitters argued that Part 4 duplicates existing legislative requirements, and is inappropriate under the RMA because it overlaps with Ministry of Health functions.

Legislative requirements considered duplicated included:

• the requirements of the Health Act and the proposed amendments to drinking–water sections of the Health Act
• the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act requirements
• the PHRMPs.

4.4.2 Definition of “appropriate action”

Eight submitters were concerned about the definition of “appropriate action’. Five of these submitters were specifically concerned about who would determine what an appropriate action is. Three had suggestions on who should determine what specific “appropriate actions” are, including:

• solely the water supplier
• the water supplier and public health agency
• consent authorities in consultation with water suppliers
• agreed between the water supplier, medical officer of health and regional council.

One submitter also considered that there needs to be wide discretion on what are “appropriate actions”.

4.4.3 “Turning off the water supply”

Ten submitters were concerned about the wording “turning off the water supply”. Submitters argued that this action would be an extreme response and in most cases inappropriate. Some noted that water supply, whether potable or not, will nearly always be required for sanitary and fire–fighting purposes.

Submitters considered that this wording should be removed or amended. The suggested amendment recommended replaced the wording with “including ceasing abstraction if necessary”.

4.4.4 Support

Three submitters supported this part. One submitter noted that it positively reflects PHRMP requirements.

4.4.5 Legality

Two submitters questioned whether the Part 4 requirements are legally defensible.

4.4.6 Scope

One submitter was concerned that Part 4 applies only to consented takes and excludes permitted water takes.