• 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

5 Responses to Questions

This chapter presents responses to questions on the NES posed in the discussion document. Note that not all submitters answered these questions, so the responses to each question should not be considered representative of all submitters’ opinions.

Submitters were divided on this question. Seventeen said that all consent applications should be notified to suppliers, although some included qualifications, including:

• notify all applications initially (could review types to notify at a later date)
• include discharges to land
• groundwater catchments may be difficult to identify.

Fourteen said that water suppliers should not be notified of all consent applications. Another three said that the council or water supplier should decide which applications should be notified to a supplier.

Eleven submitters said the standard should apply only to certain types of resource consent applications. Three said the standard should not be limited to certain types of consents, and one said that targeting of the NES was a possibility.

Five submitters said that Appendix 2 would help councils establish criteria for determining which activities may adversely affect water supplies. Fourteen gave more qualified support, saying that it was useful but should only be viewed as a guide; two of these suggested further development of Appendix 2. Another five said that it should be a guide only (2), it might be helpful but is too general (1), it is a good start but should sit outside the NES (1), and it would help but consultation is more useful (1).

Seven submitters saw less value in Appendix 2. Comments included:

• it may result in unfairly prejudging an activity
• councils are already aware of this information, so the appendix will not help
• Appendix 2 may not be complete
• many activities in Appendix 2 will not be covered by the NES because they do not require resource consent
• co–ordination is needed between activity lists for contaminated sites and drinking–water source national environmental standards.

Several submitters suggested additional activities for inclusion in Appendix 2.

Seven submitters said that the proposed NES would adequately ensure that water suppliers are notified of resource consent applications. Another five thought it would, but with some qualifications:

• providing all consents are notified to suppliers (2)
• it will not help with illegal activities (1)
• the most successful method may be consultation between water suppliers and the consent authority to establish notification criteria (1)
• the NES does not consider permitted activities that may affect drinking water quality– the water supplier should be advised of these activities as well as resource consent applications (1).

Existing RMA provisions

Seven submitters said existing RMA provisions were sufficient to ensure notification of suppliers. Another specified that assessment under section 94 of the RMA should already mean notification occurs where appropriate. Another said that the proposed NES would adequately ensure that water suppliers are notified of resource consent applications, but this would occur anyway.

Other

One submitter commented that information is also needed about hazards and risk management actions.

Yes: sufficient certainty

Ten submitters said that the NES provides sufficient certainty for the purposes of applying the standard in practice. One said the definition is reasonable, but added that certainty can only be obtained by establishing bottom lines for each catchment based on current water quality and treatment facilities, which is too resource intensive to be practical.

Links with Health Amendment Bill/DWSNZ

A number of submitters noted the importance of consistent definitions between the proposed NES, Drinking–water Standards NZ (DWSNZ), and the proposed Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. One submitter recommended changing the definition to refer to compliance with DWSNZ 2005. Another agreed that the NES should use the same definition as DWSNZ 2005, and apply it to all treatment plants.

One submitter pointed to a gap where current treatment does not comply with DWSNZ and said that the NES will need to make provision for these instances. One said the NES needed to provide for revisions to the DWSNZ.

Another submitter said they could not comment on this question because it is not known whether the definition of treatment in the drinking–water bill amendment will be approved.

No: insufficient certainty

Seven submitters said the NES did not provide sufficient certainty. One of these said that more detail is required; another said the reference to “proposed legislation” should be removed.

One submitter said the NES should refer to a level of treatment rather than a method. They linked this to the need for a balance between using land for a range of uses (accepting some level of contamination) and not contaminating water above an acceptable level.

Several submitters questioned how provisions of the NES would apply when existing treatment was inadequate.

Other comments

These included:

• the NES will need to be enforced retrospectively to protect catchments
• a default “bottom line” of water treatment should be avoided
• caution about the potential for a “pollute up to” approach
• catchments should be considered in their entirety
• the definition of “treatment” needs to include sources that do not require treatment (eg, Christchurch)
• there is a need to provide for “shifting goalposts”(especially revisions to the DWSNZ).

Opinions on community size were mixed. Ten submitters considered the proposed threshold (25 people at least 60 days of the year) to be appropriate. Five submitters considered that the threshold is too low but did not suggest alternatives. Six said an alternative threshold needed to be set depending on the results of a cost–benefit analysis. Another said the community threshold is too low, and needs to be set based on the level of risk. They also noted a lack of resources for small suppliers. Another said that the NES could be a burden to small communities.

Suggested alternative thresholds

Alternative increased community size thresholds suggested ranged from 50 to 4000.

• One submitter suggested increasing the threshold to 50 people. This submitter also suggested that the definition refer to households, not people, and that it needs to be clear that the definition applies only to single abstraction points.
• One submitter suggested increasing the threshold to 100 people.
• Three submitters suggested increasing the threshold to 500 people.
• One submitter suggested a threshold of 4000.

One submitter suggested phased implementation, beginning with large communities.

Other

Other comments on the question of community size included:

• the threshold seems arbitrary, and it will not protect all consumers
• a general statement on community size is not possible.
• a query on the basis for setting the threshold of 25 people/60 days. This submitter also suggested that the multi–barrier approach may only be necessary for larger towns and cities, as rural areas are accustomed to boil water notices They stated that there was no demand from their community for “higher drinking–water security”.

Need for consistency with DWSNZ

A number of submitters noted that the community threshold in the NES should be consistent with that in the DWSNZ 2005. One of these submitters said the needs of small supplies need to be considered in particular. The other queried the situation for individual households.