Drinking Water Supplies

DDRRIINNKKIINNGG WWAATTEERR SSUUPPPPLLIIEESS

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 7

5.0 Introduction

Section 126(1)(a) of the Local Government Act 2002 provides that an assessment of water services must set out information about the means by which drinking water is obtained within the district and the extent to which it is potable (i.e. suitable for drinking by humans).

There is a particular focus on water services which are not provided by the Hauraki District. Council facilities are described in the asset management plans which can be referred to for any additional information required.

Facilities that are not owned by Hauraki District Council may include communities, such as groups of houses or residential properties forming part of an industrial facility, such as a processing or dairy factory, a defence base, hospital or educational institution.

The communities considered in the assessment of drinking water systems utilise a variety of water collection systems including roof catchments, springs, wells and small streams, rivers or lakes. In collecting this data the Hauraki District Council have identified for each system; the populations served and the types of treatment or point of use treatment system which are utilised by the communities. They may be connected to an industry supply or other community system operated by an agency other than the Hauraki District Council.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 8

Drinking Water Supplies

6.0 Communities

The word community has many meanings in the Local Government Act 2002 and other legislation. However, for this assessment, “community” is defined as a grouping of potable water users with supply arrangements, usage requirements or geographical situations sufficiently similar to allow water and sanitary services to be usefully assessed for the grouping.

6.1 Community Identification The communities identified for the water supply activity are as listed:

i) Council Water Supply Networks ii) Marae iii) Schools & Camp Facilities iv) Hospitality Industry v) Sports Facilities, Halls & Churches vi) Tramping Huts (DoC) vii) Travelling Public viii) Whiritoa Urban Non-Serviced ix) Plains Non-Serviced x) Rural Non-Serviced

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 9

Drinking Water Supplies

7.0 Assessment of Drinking Water Supply Services 7.1 Council Water Supply Networks

7.1.1 Description The Hauraki District Council owns and operates eight water supply networks, to which there are approximately 7,050 water connections.

7.1.2 How is Drinking Water Obtained The supplies service the communities of Paeroa, Karangahake, Ohinemuri, Kaimanawa, Mackaytown, Waihi, Waikino, Ngatea, Kerepehi and Turua, and the rural area of the Hauraki Plains. The supplies have varying degrees of treatment and water quality as indicated below.

7.1.3 Quality and Adequacy of Drinking Water

Community Water Supply Length of Number of Annual Production Average Grading Reticulation Connections Water per Daily Production Connection Demand Current Future M3 M3/year M3/day (Km) Grade Target (02~03) (02~03) (02~03) Kaimanawa u Db 16.9 88 212,033 2,409 500 Karangahake Dd Cb 4.1 66 29,533 447 55 Mackaytown De Cb 1.7 74 29,820 403 100 Ohinemuri Ed Cb 42.1 341 608,262 1,784 1,700 Paeroa Cb Cb 39.3 1,774 529,515 298 2,000 Plains - West Supply Db Db Plant/Source D D - East Supply Dc Dc 344.7 2,493 3,828,131 1,536 12,200 Plant/Source C C - Kerepehi Db Db Plant/Source C C Waihi Ba Ba 57.6 2,069 524,483 253 1,950 Waikino Dd Bb 7.3 145 47,129 325 170 932 2,334 TOTAL 513.7 7,050 5,808,906 (average) (average)

7.1.3.1 Water Supply Grading The Register of Community Drinking-Water Supplies in New Zealand provides health professionals, drinking-water professionals and the general public with an authoritative summary of the health-risk status of all community drinking-water supplies known to the Ministry of Health. Supplies for 500 or more people should have a Public Health Grading. This consists of a single grading for each treatment plant (eg B) and a combined grading for each distribution zone (eg Ba). A Distribution Zone is all or part of the town or community that receives water from the same source or sources under similar conditions, implying similar quality water throughout the zone so that a grading would consistently apply to

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 10

Drinking Water Supplies

the whole zone. A Treatment Plant supplies water into one or more zones and may receive water from one or more water sources (rivers, lakes, groundwater, etc.) If no physical treatment takes place, as for example with some groundwaters, a nominal treatment plant is still defined for record and grading purposes.

7.1.3.2 Distribution Zone Grading Zone grading (a to e) is based on the microbiological and chemical quality of the water and an assessment of the condition of the reticulation system and the quality of its care. The zone grading is considered in conjunction with the associated plant and source grading.

a - Completely satisfactory, negligible level of risk, demonstrably high quality b - Satisfactory, low level of risk c -Marginal, moderate level of risk, may be acceptable in some small communities d - Unsatisfactory, high level of risk e - Completely unsatisfactory, very high level of risk u - Not yet graded (Not yet required if less than 500 people)

7.1.3.3 Source and Plant Grading Plant and source grading is based on an assessment of likely health risks to the community from bacteria, protozoa and chemical substances in the source water combined with an assessment of how effectively the treatment plant can prevent such contaminants passing through to the reticulation. Gradings are A1 (best), followed by A to E. The grading of each plant carries through to each zone, which inherits the grading of the lowest graded plant providing it with water.

A1 Completely satisfactory, negligible level of risk, demonstrably high quality A Completely satisfactory, very low level of risk B Satisfactory, low level of risk C Marginal, moderate level of risk, may be acceptable in some small communities D Unsatisfactory, high level of risk E Completely unsatisfactory, very high level of risk U Ungraded

Current Level of Service Treatment Community Level of Treatment Treated Water Storage Replacement Depreciated Value Replacement Value Type of Quality Volume 3 Location ($000) ($000) Treatment Measured M Filtration, Bacteria, Kaimanawa Nil - 1,428 470 Chlorination Chlorine Bacteria, Chlorination, Dominion Karangahake Chlorine, 20 1 200 pH Adjusted Drive 518 pH Filtration, Bacteria, Mackaytown Nil - 776 298 Chlorination Chlorine Filtration, Bacteria, Ohinemuri Nil - 4,193 1,379 Chlorination Chlorine pH Adjusted, Bacteria, Paeroa Filtration, Chlorine, 9,000 Bennett St 12,762 4,753 Chlorination pH

1 HDC Budgets are setup with Karangahake and Mackaytown being included as one item, for the benefit of this table assume a 40:60 slip respectively. Budget total for Karangahake is $1,294K.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 11

Drinking Water Supplies

Community Level of Treatment Treated Water Storage Replacement Depreciated Value Replacement Value Type of Quality Volume 3 Location ($000) ($000) Treatment Measured M Plains West Clarification, Main Rd, Bacteria, Plains East Filtration, Kerepehi & Chlorine, 3,490 43,889 15,084 pH Adjusted, SH25, Plains pH Kerepehi Chlorination Waitakaruru pH Adjusted, Bacteria, Waihi Filtration, Chlorine, 6,000 Bulltown Rd 13,841 5,235 Chlorination pH Filtration, Bacteria, Waikino 90 Farrelly Rd 1,431 484 Chlorination Chlorine TOTAL 18,580 78,839 27,903

This table illustrates the issues: • The increased level of risk associated with the Ohinemuri, Karangahake, Mackaytown, Waikino and Plains water supplies, and • The ungraded supply of Kaimanawa.

The long term plan for the smaller supplies is to provide the water for their requirements from the larger plants that can produce a higher quality treated water with consequent lower risk to public health. Ohinemuri, Karangahake and Mackaytown will be supplied from the Paeroa plant. Waikino Township will be supplied from the Waihi supply.

Kaimanawa water supply is in the process of being graded, but the result is expected to be similar to that of Waikino. It is therefore the Councils plan to supply Kaimanawa from either Paeroa or the Plains supply (see table 7.1.6.1).

The levels of service for the water supply systems can be categorised into issues relating to public health, system performance, customer demand and service delivery. The drivers for determining the appropriate levels of service are legislative requirements, public health considerations, customer expectations, effects on the environment and affordability.

The drivers listed above can be categorised as quality and quantity. The quality issues are clear in most instances and relate to water supply standards set by the Department of Health for each supply. The quantity issues relate to a balance between customer expectation and affordability. Customer satisfaction with water supplies is measured on a regular basis through surveys and the HCP/Annual Plan process.

The Waihi, Waikino, Paeroa, Karangahake and Mackaytown supplies are on- demand supplies where it is expected that water will be continually supplied at a reasonable pressure. The Plains supply provides the 24 hour water requirement over 24 hours but not necessarily on-demand and all consumers are required to have 24-hour on-site storage. The level of service for Ohinemuri and Kaimanawa has not been determined. Council is not intending to provide on demand storage to Ohinemuri and Kaimanawa. These supplies are predominantly rural supplies and have historically been developed to support agricultural production. Within the urban areas there is a need to provide fire fighting capability for the protection of public safety. There are some isolated areas in Waihi, Paeroa and the other urban areas where the targets of the NZ Fire Service Code of Practice are not met. The Hauraki District Council has programmed these areas into the Capital Works Programme for water mains replacement to allow for these issues to be resolved.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 12

Drinking Water Supplies

To ensure the quality and safety of the drinking water is maintained, all the water supplies are monitored regularly for the detection of bacteria, chlorine levels and pH by Council staff and independent contractors. The four main water treatment plants, Paeroa, Waihi, Kerepehi and Waitakaruru are monitored continuously via radio telemetry.

District Water Production (m3)

7,000,000 6,500,000 6,000,000 5,500,000 5,000,000 4,500,000 4,000,000 99~00 00~01 01~02 02~03 03~04 04~05 05~06 06~07 07~08

Number of Connected Water Meters

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0 Kai manawa Kar angahake Mackaytown Ohi nemur i Paer oa Pl ai ns Wai hi Wai ki no

7.1.3.4 Risk Management The Hauraki District Council has a number of risk management practices to minimize the risks associated with the water supply activity. To comply with the likely changes to the Health Act, Hauraki District Council has developed Public Health Risk Management Plans (PHRMP) for all of the major water supplies. The PHRMP’s identify and rank the risks associated to the potability of the supply in terms of the health of the customers drinking the water. These plans are incorporated into the Asset Management Plans and Plant Manuals to assist with the daily security and operation of the districts water supplies.

The PHRMP’s cover issues including backflow prevention, risk of non- compliance with DWSNZ, water supply security, power failures, land use planning, catchment activities, and natural hazards. They also contain contingency plans for dealing with specific events for which a risk of occurrence has been identified.

7.1.4 Current and Future Demands for Water Supply Competing demands from domestic, industrial, agricultural, power and other users mean that the Regional Council (Environment Waikato) is reaching the point where they are reviewing their policies on water allocation and management. The documents and regulations that will be developed from this

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 13

Drinking Water Supplies

process will bring about demands that will need to be accommodated for in the future growth of the Hauraki

District Council’s water supply networks. The following four points capture the main issues for water allocation in the Waikato Region. • There is an incomplete picture of how much water is currently taken, creating a risk of either over, or under-allocating the resource. • Competing demands exist for the resource, and there is little policy to guide prioritisation when allocating water or restricting water use at low flows. • Inefficient use of water reduces the amount available for competing uses, and may create other environmental effects. • A projected long-term increase in groundwater use indicates a risk of saltwater intrusion to coastal aquifers, long-term aquifer decline and impacts on the level of surface water features fed by groundwater.

The following tables illustrate the extent to which the council predicts the current levels of demand for water supplies is likely to change over the next three years.

Number of Water Breaks District Wide

500

400

300

200

100

0 99~00 00~01 01~02 02~03 03~04 04~05 05~06 06~07 07~08

District Water Supply Total Consumption (Water Use per cxn m3/cxn/yr) 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08

Water Repairs Completed within 12 hours of Notification District Wide

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 99~00 00~01 01~02 02~03 03~04 04~05 05~06 06~07 07~08

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 14

Drinking Water Supplies

7.1.5 Options Available to Meet the Demands and their Suitability

• Council has sufficient access to source water for current demand, but not necessarily convenient to the areas requiring it. Storage of treated water will be needed to ensure that demands can be met. • Extensions to water supplies will be considered where there is proven demand, and they are economically viable. • The long term strategy for smaller supplies is to provide the water for their requirements from water treatment plants that can produce a higher quality treated water. Ohinemuri, Karangahake and Mackaytown will be serviced by the Paeroa plant. Waikino Township will be supplied from the Waihi supply. • Kaimanawa water supply is in the process of being graded, but the result is expected to be similar to that of Waikino. It is therefore the Council’s plan to supply Kaimanawa from either the Paeroa or Kerepehi supply. • Plains water supply is programmed for an improved treatment process with the inclusion of upgraded treatment and raw water storage. • Improvements to water supply services to meet the improved standards will be undertaken. A renewal strategy has been developed. This strategy will involve the short term renewal of some resource consents and a commitment to the completion of the capital upgrading programme proposed.

7.1.6 Hauraki District Council’s Involvement in Meeting the Demands Under the community outcomes documented in the LTCCP for the water supply activity there are a number of objectives that Hauraki District Council is endeavouring to achieve:

Community Outcomes How Water Supply contributes Safe and healthy • Provide adequate public water supply environment systems that meet the Ministry of Health’s drinking water standards. • Provide adequate located and pressured connections for fire fighting purposes within the urban areas of the district.

Affordable services and • Ensure that adequate public water facilities supplies are provided and that they are efficiently maintained and affordable.

The following 10 year capital works program details works involved with trying to achieve these outcomes.

7.1.6.1 Major Capital Expenditure Planned for the Next 10 Years

Priority Project Year to be Estimated completed Cost $ Plains Bulk Treated Water Mains 2005/2013 5,000,000

Raw Water Off-stream storage at the 2007/08 1,600,000 Hikutaia Cut. Treated Water Storage at Kerepehi. 2005-2007 1,000,000

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 15

Drinking Water Supplies

Priority Project Year to be Estimated completed Cost $ Treated Water Storage at 2007-2009 650,000 Waitakaruru. Raw water Storage at Waitakaruru. 2007/08 2,150,000 Kerepehi Treatment Plant 2004-2006 700,000 Upgrade to meet NZ Drinking Water Standards. Waitakaruru Treatment Plant 2008/09 700,000 Upgrade to meet NZ Drinking Water Standards. Waihi Raw water Storage. 2005-2007 1,500,000 Treatment Plant Upgrade to meet 2006/07 650,000 NZ Drinking Water Standards. Paeroa Treatment Plant Upgrade to provide 2006-2008 1,200,000 for the extended reticulation and the new drinking water standards. Raw water main replacement to 2006-2008 750,000 replace the Asbestos Cement pipe that currently exists. Kaimanawa New Water Reservoir. 2009/10 400,000 Reticulation to connect to 400,000 Paeroa/Kerepehi. Karangahak New Water Storage. 2007/08 92,000 e/ Reticulation to connect to 2009/10 300,000 Mackaytown Paeroa/Kerepehi. Waikino Reticulation to connect to Waihi. 2006/07 360,000 Ohinemuri Decommissioning the Dams. 2004-2014 205,000

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 16

Drinking Water Supplies

7.2 Marae

7.2.1 Description

The following marae are located in the Hauraki District;

• Tirohia Te Kotahitanga Marae Tukaki Road Tirohia

• Te Pae o Hauraki Marae Papaturoa Avenue Paeroa

• Taharua Marae Rotokohu Road Paeroa

• Ngahutoitoi Marae Te Moananui Flats Road Paeroa

• Kerepehi Marae McGowan Avenue Kerepehi

• Waihi Community Marae Cnr. Victoria/Consol Streets Waihi

The marae communities have been grouped together due to the nature of how the facilities are used for their respective communities. The risks associated with these facilities are moderate to high due to the large number of people that can be present at any one event and the demand that this can have on the installed infrastructure.

7.2.2 How is Drinking Water Obtained All of the marae are supplied drinking water from Council Water Supply Networks.

Tirohia Te Kotahitanga, Te Pae o Hauraki, Taharua and Ngahutoitoi Marae are all supplied by the Ohinemuri Water Supply.

The Kerepehi Marae is supplied by the Plains Kerepehi Water Supply.

The Waihi Community Marae is supplied by the Waihi Water Supply.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 17

Drinking Water Supplies

7.2.3 Quality and Adequacy of Drinking Water Refer to section 7.1.3.3 for relevant supply information.

7.2.4 Current and Future Demands for Water Supply At this stage there is insufficient information until individual marae are consulted properly to assess all of the individual needs and future demands.

7.2.5 Options Available to Meet the Demands and their Suitability Refer to section 7.1.4 for relevant supply information. Future options for the individual marae will be more apparent once consultation has been completed.

7.2.6 Hauraki District Council’s Involvement in Meeting the Demands The Hauraki District Council will continue to involve the communities in strategic direction and future developments through the Water & Waste Consultative Committee2 and Iwi consultation.

2 The Water & Waste Consultative Committee is made up of representatives from local Iwi, Federated Farmers, Royal Forest & Bird Society, and elected members.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 18

Drinking Water Supplies

7.3 Schools & Camp Facilities

7.3.1 Description The Hauraki District has a total of 34 Schools, Kindergartens, Play Centres, Kohunga Reo and Childcare facilities within the district, 2 of which are not on a Council water supply. There are also two camp facilities in the district and only one has been identified as not being on a council water supply. These three facilities responded to a council survey and are all located in a rural environment (see 8.2.1).

7.3.2 How is Drinking Water Obtained Each facility sources its water differently. One facility’s water is sourced from a roof supply directly into a 10,000 litre tank. Another’s is sourced from a local bore directly into a tank. The last site collects its water from a surface water source into two tanks, where one of them is an old unused swimming pool.

7.3.3 Risks Attributable to the Absence of a Reticulated Water Supply Water sources need to provide enough water to meet requirements (normally 200 litres per person per day). The supply also needs to be of a suitable standard for consumption or good enough to simply treat it to a good quality standard. The table below shows water sources and compares their general quality3.

Small drinking water supplies can be at increased risk from contaminants. Contaminants, their sources and the potential problems they may cause are listed in the table below4.

3 Household Water Supplies, Department of Health, 1992. 4 Household Water Supplies, Department of Health, 1992.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 19

Drinking Water Supplies

Irrespective of the supply there is potential risk in taking and storing water. . Maintenance of these small supplies often falls upon the most practical person available, usually a caretaker or neighbouring farmer. From the survey results the tanks and equipment are usually cleaned and maintained on an as needed basis, creating the risk of allowing the tank to build up a population of microbiological organisms within the tank that are potentially harmful.

General layout and process of the water supply can also create increased level of risk exposure.

Roof water collection systems should have first flush systems installed which allow for the first portion of a rain event to wash the dust and leaves from the roof and gutters to waste before the rest of the rain water is diverted into the storage tank. This will reduce the amount of suspended solid material in the bottom of the tank which creates a food source for the microbiological organisms.

Risks associated with the Groundwater supply are dependent upon the bore depth and surrounding catchment. A bore that is in use is of an unknown depth and is situated in a neighbouring farm paddock. Attendant risks need to be evaluated.

Surface water supplies are also susceptible to the rain events washing stock effluent into the streams from where they enter the water supply. The site that uses this source type for its drinking water has fitted a water filter and UV system to treat its water prior to use. The filter is used to reduce the dirt and suspended

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 20

Drinking Water Supplies

solids before the UV light disinfects the supply protecting the users from microbiological organisms.

7.3.4 Quality and Adequacy of Drinking Water The two supplies using groundwater and the surface water sources have sufficient amounts of water all throughout the year but of an unknown quality. Both supplies have no complaints of taste or odour issues and there have been none recorded in council records regarding this.

The rain water collection system has complaints of insufficient water quality and quantity. The tank is often topped up by tanker during the summer months to offset the lack of rainfall.

7.3.5 Current and Future Demands for Water Supply The current demands are for a cleaner and healthier supply at one of the schools. Owners of the other two facilities hold the view that there is no such requirement on their part and do not see any in the near future.

7.3.6 Options Available to Meet the Demands and their Suitability Currently there is interest in replacing the rain water catchment supply with one of the council supplies. At the present moment the supply is approximately 5km away from the school and could have some delivery issues with its current system. The cost of this could be considerable for just the one connection to pay for.

Alternately the school could install another tank to increase the storage capacity and fit a first flush system to reduce the leaf litter and dust entering the system. There would also be a requirement to upgrade the current treatment system to offer a great level of security to the users. Installation costs for treatment would be approximately $2,500 with an annual operating cost of $1,000. Cost for the extra 22,500 litre tank would be $3,000 including installation. A first flush system would be approximately $1,000.

7.3.7 Hauraki District Council’s Involvement in Meeting the Demands The Hauraki District Council will be investigating the practicalities and costs of extending the existing council water supplies and/or the development of new treatment plants into the non-serviced areas during the next reporting period.

With the information gathered from the surveys particular sites will be involved in an education programme raising the awareness of drinking water safety and efficient use of the water resource.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 21

Drinking Water Supplies

7.4 Hospitality Industry

7.4.1 Description The Hospitality Industry is identified as a community due to the likeness of the needs and requirements of like services such as cafés, restaurants, and general food outlets.

There was only one instance in the Hauraki District identified as not being connected to council water reticulation and it is located in a rural area (see 8.2.2). All other facilities are connected and supplied by a council water supply.

7.4.2 How is Drinking Water Obtained Water is obtained from a joint supply of rain water collection and a surface water catchment. The water is then collected in a tank of an unknown volume before it is treated by the use of a filter and then disinfected by a joint UV light and Ozone dose unit.

7.4.3 Risks Attributable to the Absence of a Reticulated Water Supply Water sources need to provide enough water to meet requirements (normally 200 litres per person per day). The supply also needs to be of a suitable standard for consumption or good enough to simply treat it to a good quality standard.

The table below shows water sources and compares their general quality5.

Small drinking water supplies can be at increased risk from contaminants. Contaminants, their sources and the potential problems they may cause are listed in the table below6.

5 Household Water Supplies, Department of Health, 1992. 6 Household Water Supplies, Department of Health, 1992.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 22

Drinking Water Supplies

Location on a busy road with large volumes of traffic, involves a high risk of dust and road debris contaminating the roof supply. There are also risks from the use of wood burners associated with the collection of roof water supplies.

This water system also utilises a small stream to supplement the roof catchment. The stream supply is sourced from a native bush catchment located on the property.

7.4.4 Quality and Adequacy of Drinking Water The quality of the water is not known but a sampling and testing programme is planned. The treatment system in place currently is sufficient to remove any major risks to the end users. Given the nature of the source waters and the associated risks it would be advisable to include the water tank in the maintenance schedule along with the UV and Ozone systems. This would reduce the reliance upon the treatment system and provide a lower level of risk.

7.4.5 Current and Future Demands for Water Supply Current demand is being met by both sources. Interest has been expressed in a council water supply connection dependent upon the cost.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 23

Drinking Water Supplies

7.4.6 Options Available to Meet the Demands and their Suitability Recommendation for this supply would be look also at the ongoing maintenance of the water tank and the installation of a first flush system.

7.4.7 Hauraki District Council’s Involvement in Meeting the Demands The Hauraki District Council will be investigating the practicalities and costs of extending the existing council water supplies and/or the development of new treatment plants into the non-serviced areas during the next reporting period.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 24

Drinking Water Supplies

7.5 Sports Facilities, Halls & Churches

7.5.1 Description These facilities were grouped due to the frequency and concentration of people using them, which is intermittent and often catering for a large number of people. The Hauraki District Council has 27 Sporting facilities and clubs, 8 Halls and 21 Churches. Eight of the sports clubs were identified as not being on council water reticulation, and 4 country halls. All of the Churches are on a council water supply. Surveys were sent out to all the facilities identified and in total five responses were received (see 8.2.3).

7.5.2 How is Drinking Water Obtained Two of the respondents have rain water collection systems which collect and store their drinking water. Neither of these supplies have a treatment system that they knew of.

The other three used groundwater sources with all of them set in a farmland catchment with all of them being fenced off from the grazing stock. Two of these supplies feed their source water into a tank, the third uses water directly from the source bore.

7.5.3 Risks Attributable to the Absence of a Reticulated Water Supply Water sources need to provide enough water to meet requirements (normally 200 litres per person per day). The supply also needs to be of a suitable standard for consumption or good enough to need only simple treatment to achieve a good quality standard.

The table below shows water sources and compares their general quality7.

7 Household Water Supplies, Department of Health, 1992.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 25

Drinking Water Supplies

Small drinking water supplies can be at increased risk from contaminants. Contaminants, their sources and the potential problems they may cause are listed in the table below8.

Generally there did not appear to be good understanding of what was involved in the water supply systems or good tank cleaning practice. Tanks will only be cleaned on a when required basis and for one site this appears never to have been done. The lack of treatment with some of these supplies increases the risk exposure of the end users. With the current inadequate cleaning regime for the tanks and the lack of water treatment together with scant knowledge of the systems there is a high level of risk associated with these supplies.

7.5.4 Quality and Adequacy of Drinking Water The quality of the water is yet unknown, however four of the respondents are willing to have their water supply sampled and tested. Given the nature of the source waters and the risks that they have it would be in their interest to install a water treatment system.

Also installing a first flush system on the roof water supplies allows for the first portion of a rain event to wash the dust and leaves from the roof and gutters to waste before the rest of the rain water is diverted into the storage tank. This will reduce the quantity of suspended solid material in the bottom of the tank which creates a food source for microbiological organisms.

8 Household Water Supplies, Department of Health, 1992.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 26

Drinking Water Supplies

Risks associated with the Groundwater supply is dependent upon the bore depth and the surrounding catchment. The bores that are use for these sites are of an unknown depth and are situated in farmland. The risk to this supply would be that the bore is shallow or has an unprotected well head and there could be rain water runoff from the farm land contaminating the supply with microbiological organisms from the stock effluent. All of these sites do have the bore area fenced off from the grazing stock to reduce this risk.

7.5.5 Current and Future Demands for Water Supply The three supplies using groundwater sources have sufficient amounts of water of an unknown quality all throughout the year. All supplies have no complaints of taste or odour issues and there have been none recorded in council records regarding this.

The rain water collection systems have complaints of insufficient water quality but have none regarding any taste and odour issues. The tanks are often topped up by tanker during the summer months to compensate meagre rainfall.

7.5.6 Options Available to Meet the Demands and their Suitability Recommendations for these supplies would be to look at the ongoing maintenance of the water tanks and the installation of both a water treatment system and a first flush system for the roof supplies.

7.5.7 Hauraki District Council’s Involvement in Meeting the Demands The Hauraki District Council will be investigating the practicalities and costs of extending the existing council water supplies and/or the development of new treatment plants into the non-serviced areas during the next reporting period.

With the information gathered from the surveys particular sites will be involved in an education programme raising the awareness of drinking water safety and efficient use the water resource.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 27

Drinking Water Supplies

7.6 Tramping Huts (DoC)

7.6.1 Description Huts are owned and maintained by the Department of Conservation. These huts are not accessible by the majority of residents but do serve groups of people at a time therefore have been grouped as a separate community. There have been two huts identified within the Hauraki District.

Locality9 Hut Sleeping Category Fee Bookings/ Notes capacity Kaimai– Daly’s 16 Basic/bivvy – Mamaku Clearing Hut Forest Waitawheta 26 Serviced $10 The new Waitawheta Hut Park Hut is at the Old Mill 30 mins past the old site (now a camping ground).

7.6.2 How is Drinking Water Obtained Both huts use roof water supplies which feed into storage tanks which are above ground installations. Waitawheta hut’s tank is 600-800L in size, staff at DoC were unsure of the size of Daly’s hut’s tank.

7.6.3 Risks Attributable to the Absence of a Reticulated Water Supply Neither of the huts has a first flush systems installed, nor do they have any water treatment system in place. Both tanks are securely covered to reduce the risks of vermin and birds contaminating the water supply.

7.6.4 Quality and Adequacy of Drinking Water Neither hut had reported any taste or odour problems with their drinking water, but had not had the quality of their drinking water tested. The limited number of people using these facilities reduces the risks associated with these supplies similar to other roof supplies.

7.6.5 Current and Future Demands for Water Supply Both Huts have enough water all year round to meet the frequency of occupation. The Waitawheta Hut is less than a year old and therefore the system has no history to fully answer this question. However the hut has been relocated from another site and the water system sized accordingly.

7.6.6 Options Available to Meet the Demands and their Suitability The options available are limited to the low tech solutions due to the location of the huts and the lack of electricity to run UV/Ozone treatment options. Also to

9 Table sourced from the Department of Conservation website, www.doc.govt.nz

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 28

Drinking Water Supplies

install a filter would create a risk to public health by creating a growth media for the microbiological organisms due to the length of time that a filter would hold stagnant water. The best option for these sites would be the status quo, with notification stating that the water is not treated and that all drinking water should be boiled.

7.6.7 Hauraki District Council’s Involvement in Meeting the Demands With the information gathered from the surveys particular sites will be involved in an education programme raising the awareness of drinking water safety and efficient use the water resource.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 29

Drinking Water Supplies

7.7 Travelling Public

7.7.1 Description The travelling public is described as non residential or residential public travelling through the Hauraki District utilising the district services.

Due to the nature of the travelling public, this community has not been assessed in this document and will be highlighted as something to address in the forthcoming assessments.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 30

Drinking Water Supplies

7.8 Whiritoa Urban Non-Serviced

7.8.1 Description The township of Whiritoa lies in a small bay on the western Bay of Plenty, between Waihi Beach and Whangamata (Figure 1). Provision of infrastructural services to Whiritoa is a responsibility of the Hauraki District Council, which is the administrative authority for the area. A system for wastewater collection, treatment and disposal has served the community since 1989/90, prior to when all households relied on septic tanks. Currently only a small number of properties remain unconnected to the wastewater system. Whiritoa does not have a public water supply system, the provision of water supply being the responsibility of individual owners. From a recent survey of residents, it was estimated that some 69% of households draw their water from wells (bores) and the remainder from roof catchments -except for a small number drawing directly from a stream.

Location of Whiritoa township, on the western shore of the Bay of Plenty.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 31

7.8.2 How is Drinking Water Obtained Individual households provide their own water supply, generally either from wells (bores; 69% of households sampled in a Hauraki District Council survey) or from rainwater tanks (17%) or both (12%). It is not known how representative the sample is of the population as a whole, as the sample was not randomly selected. Survey forms were deposited at the general store and customers invited to take a form, complete it and post it. In all, 62 householders did, of whom 42 were from the urban area. It is possible that households with wells were over-represented in the survey.

The households responding to the survey account for up to 34 wells (69% + 12% of 42 properties). A search of Environment Waikato files produced information on 113 wells in Whiritoa and one in Mataora Bay. While it is possible that some wells exist that are not recorded in the Environment Waikato database, the number of these is likely to be small. It is suggested, therefore, that only about 26% of households use groundwater (with or without rainwater) and that the majority of the remainder rely on rainwater. A small number -one of 42 in the survey -use stream water.

7.8.3 Risks Attributable to the Absence of a Reticulated Water Supply There may be a small risk of groundwater contamination, particularly as the majority of wells are relatively shallow For the protection of the individual households – and for the community at large if a contagious disease is contracted from one or more wells – householders should be enjoined to upgrade and maintain their in-house filter systems to full filtration and disinfection.

Groundwater tapped by most of the existing wells is from a non-secure source so existing supplies to at least 26% of households are at risk of biological contamination. Given such factors as:

1. the relatively coarse-grained nature of the sand and gravels that most of the wells appear to be founded in, 2. the aquifer is not confined or otherwise a secure source, 3. the relatively recent history of septic tank usage and discharge to the ground and

For a holiday population of 2,140 persons, some 560 persons face a risk of contamination of their drinking water.

At least one household (one of 42 respondents in Council’s survey) uses stream water. Although the actual catchment was not identified, parts of all the local catchments include grazing land and/or bush with the associated probability of faecal and protozoan contamination idue to livestock and feral animals. In addition, the head of a tributary catchment of the Whiritoa Lagoon is the location for the Whiritoa wastewater treatment plant (refer Figure 2) and its associated effluent disposal area (an irrigated eucalyptus plantation).

The remainder of households use rainwater collection from roof catchments. Potential contamination arises from birds, opossums, cats and other animals as well as airborne contaminants. Some households using roof catchments also have wood fires, adding carcinogens to the range of possible contaminants. While the probability of contamination is low, it is not zero.

Some households use water filters which, if of correct specification and properly maintained, could reduce risk of protozoan contamination. However, such filters do not address either bacterial or chemical contaminants. Many designs provide a substrate for the growth of bacteria and other organisms in biofilms.

Drinking Water Supplies

To render the existing supplies safe will require upgrading of individual household “filtration” systems. Those with correctly specified filter elements may require the addition of UV sterilisers; others will also require filters. Households with wood fires and roof collection should consider the addition of activated carbon filters. With plumbing and wiring, cost per household could be around $2,500 for a competent system. Depending on usage, annual costs for electricity, replacement of lamps and filter elements could amount to around $1,000.

7.8.4 Quality and Adequacy of Drinking Water Information on water use was obtained from the summary of wastewater flows in the Wastewater AMP. This reported average daily flows of 60 m³/day from a resident population of 243 (equivalent to 247 litres/cap.day) and a peak of 297 m³/day. Depending whether peak population is taken as 1,500 (Asset Management Plan) or 2,240 (Council survey) the peak demand is equivalent to 198 l/cap.day or 133 l/cap.day, respectively. There is no commercial, industrial or extraordinary use reported for Whiritoa urban area; all water use is domestic.

7.8.4.1 Source Water Quality

7.8.4.1.1 Chemical Parameters Information on groundwater, provided from EW files, included results of water quality tests on samples from a number of the wells at Whiritoa. Most of the sampling was done during 1992 to 1995, although a few were more recent. A selection of those results was assessed and characterised. It was observed that the samples for Well 60-3 showed higher contaminant concentrations than the other samples, which are from deeper wells. Information on four of the wells reported is tabulated below.

Well ID Depth Stratigraphy Geology (Station)

60-3 5.5

63-59 15

63-65 17.5 Sands Rhyolite 63-8 22.5 Sands

The water in well 60-3 was almost brackish but, considering the well is only 5.5 metres deep, is unlikely to be affected by seawater intrusion. Possible reasons for high sodium levels include ion exchange within the aquifer and influence of septic tank effluent contamination; assessment of the key ionic ratios does not indicate evidence of saline intrusion. Samples from the deeper wells show the deeper groundwater to be of excellent chemical quality and markedly superior to that from the shallow well. In particular, concentrations of iron, manganese, boron and arsenic are all acceptably low. Characterisation of existing wells by depth is set out in the following table.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 33

Drinking Water Supplies

Depth range Number Depth range Number

Less than 10 m 21 30 to 40 m 5

10 to 20 m 51 Greater than 40 m 4 20 to 30 m 10 Unknown 22

The deepest well for which information was provided was 90 m deep.

7.8.4.1.2 Biological Determinands Bacteriological testing showed groundwater to be of highly variable quality. The table below provides a summary of the bacteriological testing.

Total No. Wells Total No. Samples 8 22 tested tested No. Negative Range of positive samples: 3 samples: 1 to 500 Total coliform Total coliform [No. Per ml] No. Negative Range of positives: samples: 8 Faecal coliform 1 to >180 Faecal coliform [No. Per ml]

The results show that groundwater, especially from shallow wells, was not of potable quality. The samples were mostly taken during the early 1990s when residuals from septic tank discharges will still have been present in the groundwater. No recent bacteriological test results were available so it cannot be confirmed whether quality has improved in the interim. No results were available for protozoan contamination.

7.8.5 Current and Future Demands for Water Supply

Council’s Wastewater Asset Management Plan10 states the permanent resident population of Whiritoa as 243 persons (2001 census) and holiday peak as 1500 persons. Currently there are 439 properties within Whiritoa but it is estimated that this number could increase to 600 dwelling units connected in the future due to infill developments within the existing conurbation and with the proposed rezoning of rural residential land to residential. The Asset Management Plan considers the long term possibility of a peak season population of 8,000.

The Council undertook an occupancy survey of some 44 properties and found maximum holiday numbers of 214 persons accounted for in those 44 properties, equivalent to 4.86 persons per household. Extrapolating to the 439 existing properties, Council estimated present peak population to be 2,240 persons, within ±5%.

Excluding land in Maori title, there are some 6.8 ha of land in large lots (Rural Residential) which, if rezoned and subdivided to a similar density to the balance of the township, could increase the number of properties by some 15%, to 505. Allowing for infilling by cross-leases, multiple units or townhouses, a total of 600 dwellings is an appropriate figure for assessment of possible future demand. At the peak occupancy rate determined from the household survey, estimated peak population is therefore 2,920 persons. This compares with the wastewater system design peak population of 4,000.

10 Hauraki District Council: Wastewater Asset Management Plan -DRAFT -Version 6 -30/6/04

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 34

Drinking Water Supplies

A future peak population of 8,000, as proposed in the Wastewater AMP, could not be accommodated within the existing urban zone boundaries, except by extensive redevelopment to higher-density housing. Alternatively, the additional numbers might be accommodated if the urban boundary were to be extended at some time. In this report, for the purposes of assessment of impacts and feasibility, a design peak population of 4,000 is used. Options have been kept open for further extension to 8,000 at some more distant future time.

Wastewater peak flows are reported to be 297 m³/d, from a holiday population of 1,500, which is equivalent to 198 l/cap.day. Therefore, a design per capita consumption of 200 litres per day, is proposed, which is consistent with accepted design guidelines. Thus, design demand (system capacity required) is 800 m³/day for the peak of 4,000 population. Provision may be required for up to 1,600 m³/day in the more distant future.

7.8.6 Options Available to Meet the Demands and their Suitability Consideration was given to provision of a public water supply as far back as 1967, by the local authority of the day (the former Ohinemuri County Council). A number of options were considered but the project was shelved due to a perception of the cost being excessive for the small community. A residents’ petition in the summer of 1972/73 pleaded for a community water supply to be provided.

Historically, focus for a water source for a public system has been on the Whiritoa Stream and the Ramarama Stream. Both flow from upland catchments with a good vegetated cover (bush and/or forest). Dialogue between the Ohinemuri County and the New Zealand Forest Service indicated a preference for use of the headwaters of the Whiritoa Stream.

Groundwater was also suggested as an option, in 1984, by the Hauraki Catchment Board.

For this report estimates of low flows were obtained from Environment Waikato (EW) for the Whiritoa Stream, Ramarama Stream and Waiharakeke Stream. Information was also obtained from EW files on wells within Whiritoa and the surrounding area; data on 114 wells was provided including stratigraphy, location, depth, test flows and water quality.

Environment Waikato provided estimates of stream low flows for the Whiritoa Stream, Ramarama Stream and Waiharakeke Stream. Flows are expressed as Low Flow Assessments as a surrogate for the more usual five-year-low-flow (Q5) as there is currently insufficient information to determine Q5 with certainty. For the purposes of this report the low flow assessments have been taken as equivalent to Q5. The figures provided by EW are presented in columns (1), (2) and (3) in the following table.

(1) (2) Specific (3) Low flow (4) Available Site Catchment discharge assessment resource area km² l/s/km² l/s m³/day

Whiritoa Stream 6.1 4.9 30 780 at SH 25 Ramarama 7.7 5.2 40 1040 Stream at SH 25 Waiharakeke 26.1 7.1 185 4800 Stream at SH 25

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 35

Drinking Water Supplies

Available resource– column (4) in the above table– was calculated from the EW data and represents 30% of the low flow assessment on the basis that EW usually requires a minimum flow of 70% of the Q5 value to be maintained in the stream for in-stream values. That means that the available resource could be reduced whenever the stream flow is less than Q5, during a less frequent dry-weather flow. Comparing the available resource estimates with design demands for a communal system:

• all sources could meet demand (430 m³/d) from an existing holiday population (2,140) • the Whiritoa Stream is unsuitable and Ramarama Stream is marginal for a demand of 800 m³/d due to a design population of 4,000 • the Waiharakeke Stream can confidently meet both the immediate design of 800 m³/day and the ultimate design demand of 1,600 m³/day.

All of the stream sources will be subject to variable water quality -particularly high colour, dissolved organic matter and sediments -from time to time, requiring a sophisticated treatment system for a consistent supply of potable-quality water. Good control of process will be required to ensure protection from biological contaminants.

The locations of the respective catchments relative to Whiritoa are shown in Figure 2.

The risks associated with the pastoral land uses in the lower reaches of the Waiharakeke Stream could be mitigated by locating an intake upstream of the highway, near the limits of the bush cover. The low flow assessment would reduce, due to the reduced catchment area, but will still be more than sufficient for the ultimate design population.

Stream catchments with potential to supply water to Whiritoa and their geographical relationship to the township. Low flow assessments are shown at the respective reference sites.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 36

Drinking Water Supplies

Anecdotal evidence and EW records point to ample supplies of good quality groundwater being available in the area, although a site-specific investigation will be necessary to verify this. The geological map of the area11 identifies the regional geology as volcanic rocks of the Coromandel Group and the strata underlying and surrounding Whiritoa as andesitic rocks of the Waiwawa Subgroup. The type variously includes “… tuff breccia and volcaniclastic sediments … local, non- welded, dacitic, pumice-rich ignimbrite….” Such rocks are capable of producing good flows of water, particularly where the parent rock is well fractured. High- producing wells in this formation are reported in the hinterland at Whangamata and at Mataora Bay.

Subject to confirmation by exploratory drilling and testing, it is considered that a sufficient supply could be obtained by drilling into the andesite rocks in the vicinity of the State Highway. Depending on the character of the rocks two wells might be needed to produce the design flow of 800 m³/day but having two wells and associated pumping equipment will allow for good operational flexibility throughout the year.

Within Whiritoa township the andesite rocks are overlain by alluvium which, although producing good flows for domestic supplies, carries a high risk of contamination and should not be considered.

7.8.6.1 Treatment Requirements

7.8.6.1.1 Groundwater Subject to a suitable aquifer being located and developed, treatment requirements for groundwater from the andesite rocks will be minimal. Expected processes and options include:

• an automatic strainer (e.g. Arkal, Amiad, Tekleen) to protect downstream infrastructure from sand ingress • UV disinfection for protozoa if the supply cannot be confirmed as a secure supply • chlorination, if required for protection of the water in service.

7.8.6.1.2 Surface Water Treatment is required to deal with colour, dissolved organics, suspended solids and biological contaminants. Enhanced coagulation will be required to ensure taste and odour problems are avoided and disinfection by-products are kept within limits. Based on a conventional plant, the process train should include:

• enhanced coagulation -e.g. alum with pH control and polyelectrolyte • process control for coagulation -e.g. streaming current or UV absorbance/on- line colour with turbidity • controlled flocculation • clarification • filtration and either • UV disinfection for bacteria, or • chlorination, • monitoring of process variables including turbidity, pH, chlorine residual (if used).

On the basis of information gathered for this report the existing water supply – depending, as it does, on shallow groundwater, roof catchments and surface streams – carries potential risk to human health. New testing is needed to verify

11 Geology of the Auckland Area; 1:250000 Geological Map. S.W. Edbrooke (compiler); IGNIS, 2001

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 37

Drinking Water Supplies

that the level of risk associated with the existing arrangements is consistent with reliable safe potable water supply to the community.

Currently, a holiday population estimated at more than 2,200 persons may be exposed to these risks; indirect exposure occurs to the home communities of holiday makers on their return from Whiritoa.

In theory it would be possible to upgrade existing, on-site supplies by incorporation of additional filters (or initial installation where none now exist) and UV sterilisers. Allowing for wiring, plumbing and carpentry in some cases plus the supply of components at an average $2,500 per household, the impact on the community as a whole is something over $1 million. Annual costs for power, lamp replacements and filter elements are likely to be around $1,000 per annum for permanently occupied premises. However, monitoring the performance of these systems for compliance and to ensure ongoing maintenance is carried out will be impractical. There may be a strong case to be argued in favour of a community supply for Whiritoa.

Assuming the Director-General of Health does not intervene, the community may elect to ignore the risks. A consumer survey by Council indicated a majority (of 42 respondents) were opposed to having to pay for a community system but it is suggested that the respective supplies may be less wholesome than the owners are aware. Respondents in the survey also indicated a willingness to have their supplies sampled and tested by Council. It is recommended that sampling and testing be carried out and the results discussed with owners before commitment is made to a community system.

In the event that the case is confirmed for a community system, the preferred options are either:

a groundwater supply from a well or wellfield constructed on land adjacent to SH 25, or

a surface water supply drawn from the Waiharakeke Stream.

The suggestion of the Waiharakeke Stream is made without knowledge of any political or land tenure issues that may rule this out as an option. It has been assumed that land and/or easements for construction access and for siting of intakes, treatment, pipelines and other infrastructure can be obtained.

7.8.6.2 Suggested System Configurations The following configurations are based on identical reticulation systems, fed from a reservoir assumed to be located on elevated ground to west of SH25 (see Figure 3). The suggested location is close to the community and offers elevations in excess of 80 metres above sea level for placement of a reservoir, which will provide sufficient head for gravity reticulation. Availability of this land will be subject of negotiation and has not been determined in the study for this report.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 38

Drinking Water Supplies

Hills to the west of SH25 provide ample elevation for a gravity-driven reticulation.

Pipe sizes shown in the following sections are indicative only and must be subject to detail design.

7.8.6.2.1 Groundwater Supply The following elements will be the minimum required to provide a supply system from groundwater (assuming the developed aquifer is found to be a secure supply):

• a well drilled into land adjacent to SH 25 -say, 200 mm diameter, to 60 metres deep • a control building (say, 6m×3m plan) to house electrical cabinet, control equipment, automatic strainer and chlorination equipment • automatic strainer (Arkal or similar) and chlorination (sodium hypochlorite) • rising main (500 m×150ø) to elevated ground west of SH25 • treated water storage reservoir (1,000 m³) on elevated land to be obtained west of SH25 • gravity feed main (150ø) to the township via Whiritoa Beach Road • distribution pipes and rider mains around the township.

If the source is not found to be secure, a UV steriliser would be added to the process for protozoan inactivation; chlorination could be retained for in-service protection.

7.8.6.2.2 Surface Supply The following elements will be required to provide a safe, potable supply from surface water (Waiharakeke Stream):

• a screened raw water intake on the Waiharakeke Stream, near to the bush line, at an elevation around 40 m

a gravity feed main (2.8 km×300ø, subject to survey and design)

• a treatment plant control building, say 14×6m with electrical supply, controls, instrumentation, transfer pumping, filters, dosing pumps, chemical storage and batching • chemical dosing systems -e.g. alum, soda ash, polyelectrolyte -with process monitoring and control -streaming current or UV with raw water turbidity, flow monitoring, chlorine residual, filtrate turbidity • mixing and flocculation reactors, • (at least) one clarifier, 4m diameter

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 39

Drinking Water Supplies

• (at least) two filters -e.g. pressure filters 2.1m diameter • boost pumps for filtration (unless gravity filters are used) • chlorination system • transfer pumps for treated water to the treated water reservoir • rising main (3,800m×200ø) to storage • treated water storage reservoir (1,000 m³) on elevated land to be obtained west of SH25 • gravity feed main (150ø) to the township via Whiritoa Beach Road • distribution pipes and rider mains around the township.

Activated carbon dosing may be required to mitigate taste and odour problems if algae problems persist in the raw water source. UV sterilisation may be considered if achieving the target turbidity of 0.1 NTU for >95% of time (for protozoa compliance) proves elusive or to mitigate disinfection by-product generation.

7.8.6.3 Cost Impacts No allowance is made in the following estimates for costs associated with land acquisition. Neither is any allowance included for costs associated with obtaining resource consents.

7.8.6.3.1 Groundwater Source Capital: Estimated, rough-order costs for the works as described in S. 7.8.6.2.1, including a contingency sum (20%) and allowance for fees for design, management, supervision (15%) $ 850,000

Operating: Allowing for 10 hours pumping for 60 days per year and 2.5 hours for the balance; 20 kW borehole pump; 2 manhours per week for service and maintenance; amortising the capital cost at 8% interest over 20 years, the annual cost is equivalent to $207 per household. An additional, one-off cost is required for making a connection to each household.

7.8.6.3.2 Surface Source Capital: Estimated, rough-order costs for the works as described in S 7.8.6.2.2, including a contingency sum (20%) and allowance for fees for design, management, supervision (15%) $ 2,500,000

Operating: Allowing for 10 hours pumping for 60 days per year and 2.5 hours for the balance; 30 kW transfer pump; 2 manhours per day for service and maintenance; chemicals at 10c per m³; amortising the capital cost at 8% interest over 20 years, the annual cost is equivalent to $700 per household. An additional, one-off cost is required for making a connection to each household.

7.8.6.3.3 Status Quo Upgrading individual on-site treatment systems to ensure safe, potable water is estimated to require up to $2,500 per household; annual costs are expected to be up to $1,000 per year per household, depending on the design and configuration of the individual systems.

7.8.6.4 Incorporation with Existing Infrastructure Existing infrastructure consists, variously, of rainwater tanks, wells and associated pumping systems at each property. It is expected – subject to confirmation on a site-by-site basis – that the pumping system on each site has a single point of connection to the internal plumbing circuit of each house. To connect a community supply it will be necessary to isolate the existing pumped feed from the house

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 40

Drinking Water Supplies

plumbing and connect a new service pipe from the street main to the house plumbing.

The existing source and pumping systems could be retained for ex-house use, although this will likely require pipework for new hose taps and connection points. The cost should be minor in most cases.

If existing infrastructure is to be retained in this way, owners will need to be informed of the health risks associated with use of the water. Notices [“Not for Drinking”] may need to be installed at each tap.

7.8.6.5 Risks Associated with Options Risks to a communal system supplied from (deep) groundwater are considered very low, particularly if the source is found to be secure. The main risks will be those due to recontamination during storage and delivery; with good management and control, the risks due to such occurrences will be very low.

There is a possibility, in any coastal aquifer, of contamination by seawater intrusion. However, the likelihood of occurrence should be very low if the supply well(s) is (are) located inland. Subject to confirmation by investigation and testing, seawater intrusion is not expected to be a problem if the well or well field is located in the vicinity of SH 25.

If the communal system is sourced from surface streams the level of risk increases (over groundwater sources) due to the additional complexity of the system and due to the increased range of potential threats. A surface water treatment plant will require more frequent attention for recalibration and adjustment of processes and will be vulnerable to events such as slips in the catchment and to pollution from animals (faecal) and other sources (e.g. spills). Not all such events can be adequately dealt with by the process control infrastructure although the probability of occurrence should be low.

A supply based on surface flows is also at greater risk of loss or diminution of supply during drought events.

7.8.7 Hauraki District Council’s Involvement in Meeting the Demands The following steps are recommended to first confirm the need for a community supply on health risk grounds and then to proceed with investigation and implementation: • Carry out sampling and testing of a representative number of existing supplies, including rainwater, groundwater and surface water. In addition to bacterial testing (total and faecal coliforms and streptococci), chemical testing should include, as a minimum: all major anions and cations, nitrate, nitrite, iron, boron, manganese and arsenic. Groundwater samples should be collected from wells having different depths and geology, including both the shallow sands and the native, andesitic rocks. • If testing confirms that the existing supplies are not safe and potable, conduct consultation with the community to ascertain true attitudes to, and willingness to pay for, a community system. • Undertake test drilling near SH25 to locate a suitable vein of the andesite aquifer. Construct a well or wellfield with sufficient capacity to meet design demands – 450 m³/day short term. Make provision for pump upgrades or the incorporation of a second well or additional wells to provide up to 800 m³/day. • Obtain land and easements; build and commission appropriate treatment, storage and reticulation infrastructure.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 41

Drinking Water Supplies

7.9 Plains Non-Serviced

7.9.1 Description Plains Non-Serviced is best described as residents located to the west of the Waihou River not connected to the Hauraki District Council’s water supply network. This community includes two areas that were surveyed separately (see 8.2.4). These areas were described as Plains Western Ranges (Hill) and Plains Lowland (Flat). Both the subsets included areas such as Awaiti, Patetonga, Kaihere, Torehape, Mangatarata and Miranda.

7.9.2 How is Drinking Water Obtained Individual households provide their own water supply, generally either from wells (bores; 19% of households sampled in a Hauraki District Council survey) or from rainwater tanks (81%).

7.9.3 Risks Attributable to the Absence of a Reticulated Water Supply Water sources need to provide enough water to meet requirements (normally 200 litres per person per day.). The supply also needs to be of a suitable standard for consumption or good enough to simply treat it to a good quality standard. The table below shows water sources and compares their general quality12.

12 Household Water Supplies, Department of Health, 1992.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 42

Drinking Water Supplies

Small drinking water supplies can be at increased risk from contaminants. Contaminants, their sources and the potential problems they may cause are listed in the table below13.

13 Household Water Supplies, Department of Health, 1992.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 43

Drinking Water Supplies

Irrespective of the supply there is a great deal of risk to the water supply once it is caught and stored. Maintenance of these small supplies often falls upon the most practical person available, usually the farmer. Tanks and equipment are usually cleaned and maintained on an as needed basis. This creates a risk in itself by allowing the tank to build up a population of microbiological organisms within the tank that can cause serious harm.

General layout and process of the water supply can also increase the level of risk that these supplies are open to.

Installing a first flush system on the roof water supplies allows for the first portion of a rain event to wash the dust and leaves from the roof and gutters to waste before the rest of the rain water is diverted into the storage tank. This will reduce the quantity of suspended solid material in the bottom of the tank which creates food source for the microbiological organisms.

Risk associated with the Groundwater supply is dependent upon the depth and surrounding catchment. The bore that is in use at one of these sites is of an unknown depth and is situated in a neighbouring farm paddock. The risk to this supply would be that the bore is shallow or has an unprotected well head and there could be rain water runoff from the farm land contaminating the supply with microbiological organisms from the stock effluent.

7.9.4 Quality and Adequacy of Drinking Water Given that a large proportion of the Hauraki Plains area is reclaimed swamp that has been drained in the early 1900’s, there is little surface water available suitable even for stock purposes let alone for human consumption.

The water quality on the plains is described by Rufus E. Tye in his book “Hauraki Plains Story”.

“The early settlers were reliant on tanks for water for domestic use, and bores for watering stock with the exception of farmers living near the rivers and streams in the district. The bores yielded water of varying temperature, and in many cases, the water was brackish and mineralised. Water was also pumped from the Piako River. Owing to corrosion, piping used to reticulate the farms, had to be replaced yearly in some places, and farmers were dependent upon windmills to pump the water. The quality of water varied at each bore, and it was not unusual to see stock waiting at a gate, to return to their favourite drinking place.”

Given the historic issues that faced the early settlers, it is then understandable that the results in the survey favoured groundwater as their main water source. Through the survey it is evident that there is sufficient quantity of water for groundwater sources, but with varying quality as indicated by the 20-25% response rate stating that they experience taste and odour issues.

A high percentage of respondents that source their water from rain collection systems reported that they experienced water shortages during the drier months and need to top up their supply with tankered water.

The quality of the water is yet unknown, however four of the respondents are willing to have their water supply sampled and tested.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 44

Drinking Water Supplies

7.9.5 Current and Future Demands for Water Supply Generally there is sufficient water available for this community’s needs, given that 86% and 94% responded favourably in the Lowlands and the Western Ranges respectively.

Currently there is 19-31% demand to reticulate the Plains Non-Serviced areas with the Plains council supply, with 13% unsure and stating the cost of the project being their main concern. At the present moment the supply is approximately 5-10km away from the District Boundary giving a total land area of 28,500 hectares that is un-serviced in the Hauraki Plains area. Supplying water to this area will cause delivery issues with the current system and the cost of this will be considerable.

7.9.6 Options Available to Meet the Demands and their Suitability Council reticulation into the area could be a feasible option with the installation of a reservoir to allow for the daily demands. However, there maybe the need to investigate the development of another water treatment plant in this area to utilise the possible sources in this area and to help offset the current Plains Water Supply.

Alternately the rainwater supplies could install another tank to increase their storage capacity and fit a first flush system to reduce the leaf litter and dust entering the system. Also installing a point of use treatment system will offer a greater level of security to the users. Installation costs for treatment would be approximately $2,500 with an annual operating cost of $1,000. Cost for the extra 22,500 litre tank would be $3,000 including installation. A first flush system would be approximately $1,000.

7.9.7 Hauraki District Council’s Involvement in Meeting the Demands The Hauraki District Council will be investigating the practicalities and costs of extending the existing Plains water supply and/or the development of new treatment plant into the non-serviced areas during the next reporting period.

With the information gathered from the surveys particular sites will be involved in an education programme raising the awareness of drinking water safety and efficient use the water resource.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 45

Drinking Water Supplies

7.10 Rural Non-Serviced

7.10.1 Description Rural Non-Serviced can be described as all rural properties to the east of the Waihou River not connected to a Council Water Supply, excluding the Whiritoa Urban Community. This community has similar requirements as the Plains Non-Serviced with the exception to the availability and demand for water is different. Given the nature of the land formations that make up this community there is more water available to this community than the Plains Non-serviced.

7.10.2 How is Drinking Water Obtained The majority of the rural properties in the Hauraki District Council obtain their potable water supply mainly from groundwater (46%), surface water (31%), and roof rainwater collection systems 19%. These supplies are generally small and can only provide for individual households. 4% of the people surveyed sourced their water by other means such as bringing container drinking water from other locations. This was in the case of holiday homes or small businesses.

The majority of water is sourced from farmland (70%) catchments with the remaining 30% taken from native bush catchments.

7.10.3 Risks Attributable to the Absence of a Reticulated Water Supply Water sources need to provide enough water to meet requirements (normally 200 litres per person per day). The supply also needs to be of a suitable standard for consumption or good enough to simply treat it to a good quality standard.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 46

Drinking Water Supplies

The table below shows water sources and compares their general quality14.

Small drinking water supplies can be at increased risk from contaminants. Contaminants, their sources and the potential problems they may cause are listed in the table below15.

14 Household Water Supplies, Department of Health, 1992. 15 Household Water Supplies, Department of Health, 1992.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 47

Drinking Water Supplies

Irrespective of the supply there is a great deal of risk to the water supply once it is caught and stored. Maintenance of these small supplies often falls upon the most practical person available, usually the farmer or manager. Tanks and equipment are usually cleaned and maintained on an as needed basis or never at all. This creates a risk in itself by allowing the tank to build up a population of microbiological organisms within the tank that can cause serious harm.

93% of respondents had a storage tank. Those without a storage tank took their water straight from their bore, spring, or stream.

100% of those with tanks had them securely covered so that birds or animals and their wastes could not get in.

28% of respondents never clean their storage tank, with approximately another third cleaning it when it seems necessary. 12% clean their tanks regularly.

General layout and process of the water supply can also increase the level of risk that these supplies are open to.

A large proportion of all groundwater sources (96%) in this community are fenced off and isolated from stock contamination.

The surface water supply is also susceptible to the rain events washing the effluent into the streams and into the water supply. This is common with surface water catchments and the site that uses this method for its drinking water has also fitted a water filter and UV system to treat its water prior to use. The filter is used to reduce the dirt and suspended solids before the UV light disinfects the supply protecting the water from microbiological organisms. Of those who use rain water collection systems, 27% clean their gutters when the gutters get blocked and 55% clean their gutters more often than once a year. The remaining 18% have never cleaned their roof and gutters.

64% of the supplies have some form of treatment or point of use system, leaving the rest with a high risk.

The majority of people with treatment systems maintained them more often than annually, or less than annually but regularly.

7.10.4 Quality and Adequacy of Drinking Water 15% had experienced taste or odour problems with their drinking water. These were usually experienced after heavy rainfall or when the water level in the tank decreased significantly. One person even had new paint from his roof end up in his water supply from a contractor or product error.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 48

Drinking Water Supplies

44% had not had the quality of their water tested which raises issues to whether or not their treatment system is the correct one for their source water. 76% of the respondents agreed to let the council sample and test the quality of their water.

83% suggested that their water supply provided sufficient good quality water all year round. Reasons water supply was not seen as sufficient or not of good enough quality included: that the water ran out in summer and that there were mineral deposits present, although these owners had installed a filter system to deal with this problem.

7.10.5 Current and Future Demands for Water Supply Generally there is sufficient water available for this community’s needs, given that 83% responded saying that they had enough water throughout the year to meet their needs. With the respondents that source their water from rain collection systems a high percentage of them reported that they experienced water shortages during the drier months with the need to top up their supply with tankered water.

80% of surveyed individuals said that they would not like the council to develop a water supply system in their area. Those unsure stated that it depended on the cost of the system. One in six said they were willing to pay higher rates for a council supply, while the others were unwilling or unsure of whether they wanted to pay for a council water supply.

7.10.6 Options Available to Meet the Demands and their Suitability Council reticulation into the area could be a feasible option with the installation of a reservoir to allow for the daily demands with areas close to current council supplies. However, there maybe the need to investigate the development of other water treatment plants in these areas to utilise the possible sources in these areas and to help offset the current Water Supplies.

7.10.7 Hauraki District Council’s Involvement in Meeting the Demands The Hauraki District Council will be investigating the practicalities and costs of extending the existing council water supplies and/or the development of new treatment plants into the non-serviced areas during the next reporting period.

With the information gathered from the surveys particular sites will be involved in an education programme raising the awareness of drinking water safety and efficient use the water resource.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 49

Drinking Water Supplies

8.0 Appendix

8.1 Water Tank Improvements

8.1.1 Simple Measures to Improve Tank Water Quality, John Ashworth

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 50

Drinking Water Supplies

8.2 Survey Results

8.2.1 Schools & Camp Facilities

8.2.1.1 Sample One Source = Roof water Cleaned roof and gutters = Annually First flush system in place = No Heating = Electric heating Enough good quality water all year round = No Treatment = water filter How often is treatment system maintained = annually Water tank underground = partially Pipe work underground = No Tank size = don’t know – possibly 10,000L How often clean tank/s = When necessary Taste and odour problems = Yes – “tastes horrible, leaves come through.” Wants council water supply scheme = Yes – and willing to pay.

8.2.1.2 Sample Two Source = Bore water How long has bore being in use = 5+ years Bore fenced of from stock = No Area surrounding water take = Farmland Enough good quality water all year round = Yes Treatment = None Water tank underground = No Pipe work underground = Yes Tank size = don’t know How often clean tank/s = When necessary Taste and odour problems = No Wants council water supply scheme = No

8.2.1.3 Sample Three Source = surface water Area surrounding water take = Farmland Enough good quality water all year round = Yes Treatment = Water filter and UV/Ozone How often is treatment system maintained = regularly Water tank underground = Yes Pipe work underground = Yes Tank size = don’t know – “use 2 tanks; old school swimming pool and tank” How often clean tank/s = don’t know Taste and odour problems = No Wants council water supply scheme = No and don’t know about paying rates.

8.2.2 Hospitality Industry

8.2.2.1 Sample One Source = Surface and Roof water Cleaned roof and gutters = More than annually First flush system in place = No Heating = Wood burner for the house and gas for the business premises

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 51

Drinking Water Supplies

Area surrounding water take = Bush land Enough good quality water all year round = Yes Treatment = Water filter and UV/Ozone How often is treatment system maintained = More often than annually Water tank underground = No

Pipe work underground = No Tank size = Don’t know How often clean tank/s = don’t know Taste and odour problems = No Willing to let council test drinking water quality = Yes Wants council water supply scheme = Don’t know – “depends on price

8.2.3 Sports Facilities, Halls & Churches

8.2.3.1 Sample One Source = Roof water Cleaned roof and gutters = Annually First flush system in place = No Heating = Other Enough good quality water all year round = Not always Treatment = don’t know How often is treatment system maintained = don’t know Water tank underground = No Pipe work underground = No Tank size = 4001-5000L How often clean tank/s = When necessary Taste and odour problems = No Willing to let council test drinking water quality = Yes Wants council water supply scheme = Yes – and willing to pay rates.

8.2.3.2 Sample Two Source = Ground water How long has bore being in use = don’t know Bore fenced of from stock = Yes Area surrounding water take = Farmland Enough good quality water all year round = Yes Treatment = don’t know How often is treatment system maintained = don’t know Water Tank = No Taste and odour problems = No Willing to let council test drinking water quality = Yes Wants council water supply scheme = No

8.2.3.3 Sample Three Source = Ground water How long has bore being in use = don’t know Bore fenced of from stock = Yes Area surrounding water take = Farmland Enough good quality water all year round = Yes Treatment = don’t know How often is treatment system maintained = when necessary Water tank underground = No Pipe work underground = No Tank size = 10000+L How often clean tank/s = when necessary

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 52

Drinking Water Supplies

Taste and odour problems = No Willing to let council test drinking water quality = Yes Wants council water supply scheme = Yes – but not willing to pay

8.2.3.4 Sample Four Source = Roof water Cleaned roof and gutters = Annually First flush system in place = No

Heating = none Enough good quality water all year round = Not always Treatment = none Water tank underground = No Pipe work underground = No Tank size = 1001-2000 How often clean tank/s = When necessary Willing to let council test drinking water quality = No Taste and odour problems = No Wants council water supply scheme = No

8.2.3.5 Sample Five Source = Ground water How long has bore being in use = don’t know Bore fenced of from stock = Yes Area surrounding water take = Farmland Enough good quality water all year round = Yes Treatment = none Water tank underground = No Pipe work underground = No Tank size = don’t know How often clean tank/s = never Taste and odour problems = No Willing to let council test drinking water quality = don’t know Wants council water supply scheme = don’t know

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 53

Drinking Water Supplies

8.2.4 Plains Non-Serviced

8.2.4.1 Plains Western Ranges Non-Serviced, Sanitary Services Water Assessment Survey Results From the population of 54 properties a sample set of 38 was randomly selected to allow for 90% confidence with a 50% response rate. 19 responded from the Plains Hill area.

Where does your drinking water come from?

19%

Groundwater Roofwater

81%

The majority of properties in the Plains Hill area sourced their dinking water from rainwater runoff from their roofs, 3 properties were on groundwater supplies, with one stating they were switching to roof water.

Does your water source provide enough good quality water all year round?

Yes No

94%

Only one respondent stated that their water source was not adequately meeting their needs all year round. The remaining 15 respondents were all very happy with their water supply.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 54

Drinking Water Supplies

Have you ever experienced taste or odour problems with your drinking water?

25%

Yes No

75%

The majority of those surveyed from the Plains Hill area had never experienced taste or odour problems with their drinking water. Only 4 respondents said they had experienced taste or odour problems, and of these 3 had remedied the problem by either cleaning their existing filter or installing a new one, the other respondent attributed his taste/odour problems to stemming from the rotting peaches on his roof (his drinking water was sourced from the roof).

How do you treat your drinking water?

25%

Water Filter UV none

13% 62%

The favoured method of treating drinking water was the use of a water filter, 2 property owners had also installed UV treatment systems as an added precaution. The remaining 4 believed they didn’t need any form of treatment as their water source was satisfactory.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 55

Drinking Water Supplies

Has the quality of your drinking water been tested?

44%

Yes No

56%

Approximately half of those properties surveyed had had their drinking water tested, and of those 7 properties that had tested their water 1 reported that the dairy company tests their water so as to maintain stock standards of health as well.

Would you like council to develop a water supply scheme in your area?

13%

31%

Yes No Don’t Know

56%

Of those surveyed in the Plains Hill area a significant number of property owners said they would like to see a water supply scheme developed in their area, and of these 5, 2 were prepared to pay for that service.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 56

Drinking Water Supplies

8.2.4.2 Plains Lowland Non-Serviced, Sanitary Services Water Assessment Survey Results

From the population of 72 properties a sample set of 43 was gained from calculating a random sample with 90% confidence allowing for a 50% response rate, 18 responded from the Plains Flat area.

Where does your drinking water come from?

19%

Groundwater Roofwater

81%

Of these 18 respondents with property on the Plains 81% sourced their water from rain collected of their roofs. As seen above.

Does your water source provide enough good quality water all year round?

7% 7%

Yes No Not always

86%

The majority of those surveyed said their water source provided enough good quality water all year round, as seen above.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 57

Drinking Water Supplies

Hve you ever experienced taste or odour problems with your drinking water?

19%

Yes No

81%

Again a clear majority also stated that they had never experienced taste or odour problems with their drinking water, as seen above.

How do you treat your drinking water?

44%

Water filter None

56%

44% of respondents had no water treatment system in place. See above.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 58

Drinking Water Supplies

Would you like council to dvelop a water supply scheme in your area?

19%

Yes No

81%

As depicted above a clear majority of residents in the Plans Flat area did not want a council water supply scheme in their area, most stated price as the major contributor to this opinion. But of those who said they did want a council water supply scheme in their area, all were prepared to pay for this service.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 59

Drinking Water Supplies

8.2.5 Rural Non-Serviced

8.2.5.1 Rural Non-Serviced, Sanitary Services Water Assessment Survey Results From a total of 312 properties connected to council water supply, we took a random sample of 48. This gave us a 90% degree of confidence with an expected response rate of 50%. 28 respondents from this sample met these specifications to give a reliable result set.

Of these respondents, 46% took their drinking water from the ground (springs or bores) while 31% took their drinking water from surface sources (streams, creeks and rivers) and 19% used roof water. Other sources for drinking water included bringing drinking water to the property in containers. This was in the case of holiday homes or businesses.

Where does your drinking water come from?

19% 31%

Surface water Groundwater Roof Water other

46%

Of those who use rain water run off from the roof for their drinking water, 82% clean their gutters; 27% when the gutters get blocked, 55% more often than once a year. The remaining 18% never clean their roof and gutters. 27% of roof-water users have a first flush system installed.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 60

Drinking Water Supplies

How often do you clean your roofs and gutters?(roofwater users)

18%

more often than once a year when they get blocked never 55% 27%

7 roof-water users used wood-burners, while 2 used other types of heating systems (these included gas and booster system heating).

77% of those who used water taken from a spring or bore reported the age of the spring or bore to be mostly older than 5 years. All but one reported their spring/bore to be fenced off from stock.

Water supply has been mostly defined as being taken from farm land:

Where would you say your water supply is collected from?

30%

bushland farmland

70%

83% were of the option that their water supply provided sufficient good quality water all year round. Reasons water supply was not seen as sufficient or not of good enough quality included: that the water ran out in summer, and that there were mineral deposits present, although these owners had installed a filter system to deal with this problem.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 61

Drinking Water Supplies

Does your water source provide enough good quality water all year round?

17%

v Yes Not always

83%

12 respondents have a filter system installed for their water supply, 1 has installed a UV filter system, while 8 had no cleaning or filtering system whatsoever.

How do you treat your drinking water?

0 water filter UV none Don’t know

The majority of people with the cleaning systems maintained them more often than annually, or less than annually but regularly.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 62

Drinking Water Supplies

How often do you maintain or service your treatment plant/system?

more often than annually 7% annually

less often than annually, but regularly

58% when it seems necessary

21% don't know

93% of respondents had a storage tank. Those without a storage tank took their water straight from their bore, spring, or stream.

The storage tanks were mostly above ground, with 8% underground and 8% partially underground. 72% identified the pipework to their storage tank as being completely or partially underground.

Is your storage tank underground?

8% 8%

yes no partially

84%

39% of those surveyed reported their tanks to hold 5001-10,000 litres. 100% of those with tanks had them securely covered so that birds or animals and their wastes could not get in.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 63

Drinking Water Supplies

What size is the storage tank?(litres)

4% 4% 8% 0-200 33% 4% 601-800 4% 801-1000 1001-2000 4001-5000 5001-10000 10000+ 4% don't know 39%

28% of respondents never clean their storage tank, with approximately another third cleaning it when it seems necessary. 12% clean their tanks regularly.

How often do you clean your storage tank?

more often than annually

8% 4% 16% annually

28% less often than annually, but regularly when it seems necessary 12% never

32% don't know

15% had experienced taste or odour problems with their drinking water. These were usually experienced after heavy rainfall or when the water level in the tank decreased significantly. One person had new paint from his roof go into his water supply. (This was dealt with by cleaning the roof and tank and approaching ‘Fair Go’). 56% had had the quality of their water tested, and 76% agreed to let the council test the quality of their water should they decide to.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 64

Drinking Water Supplies

Have you ever had the quality of your water tested?

44%

yes no

56%

80% of surveyed individuals said that they would not like the council to develop a water supply system in their area. Those unsure stated that it depended on the cost of the system:

Would you like the council to develop a water supply scheme in your area?

4% 16%

yes no not sure

80%

One respondent from six said they were willing to pay higher rates for a council supply, while the others were unwilling or unsure of whether they wanted to pay for a council water supply.

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 65

Drinking Water Supplies

8.3 Rain Water Calculations for Individual Dwellings Example calculation has been sourced from the Gisborne District Council

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 66

Drinking Water Supplies

Please note these figures are for the Gisborne Region and are only provided as an example (see Appendix 8.4 for Hauraki Rainfall Data).

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 67

Drinking Water Supplies

8.4 Hauraki Rainfall Data

8.4.1 Ngatea Rainfall Data

Ngatea Monthly Rainfall Haywards Road (to 1999). HDC Depot (2000 on)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals 1993 36.0 28.5 95.0 50.0 123.0 181.5 8.0 111.0 58.0 37.0 100.0 28.5 857 1994 81.0 47.5 51.5 64.0 78.0 116.0 155.0 100.5 153.0 112.5 30.0 26.5 1016 1995 37.0 71.0 196.5 245.5 88.5 181.0 203.5 74.0 73.0 94.0 136.5 128.5 1529 1996 29.5 89.5 88.5 227.5 82.0 166.5 137.5 147.0 149.0 34.0 72.5 222.0 1446 1997 4.5 51.0 195.0 58.0 97.5 138.5 64.5 65.5 221.5 61.0 39.0 49.0 1045 1998 12.0 97.0 67.0 48.0 56.5 97.0 299.0 104.0 48.0 100.0 85.0 89.0 1103 1999 81.0 28.0 81.0 91.0 45.0 94.5 142.0 132.0 88.0 53.0 206.5 109.5 1152 2000 60.0 11.5 52.5 171.0 85.0 75.5 154.5 114.0 97.5 48.0 96.5 79.0 1045 2001 16.5 156.5 49.0 169.0 165.5 50.0 74.5 121.0 47.5 134.0 114.0 177.0 1275 2002 117.0 39.5 50.5 62.0 61.0 168.5 135.0 79.0 75.5 73.0 34.5 54.0 950 2003 110.0 105.0 102.0 134.0 73.0 124.5 101.5 58.5 155.0 107.0 36.5 111.5 1219 2004 98.5 230.0 11.5 21.0 175.5 106.5 120.5 112.0 119.0 80.0 56.0 130.5 1261 2005 10.0 10 Ave. 47 80 87 112 94 125 133 102 107 78 84 100 1141 Max 117 230 197 246 176 182 299 147 222 134 207 222 1529 Min. 5 12 12 21 45 50 8 59 48 34 30 27 857

Draft Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 68

Drinking Water Supplies

8.4.2 Te Aroha Rainfall Data

TE AROHA, probably slightly higher than Paeroa

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total 1985 106 183 189 63 84 194 75 88 109 57 157 115 1420 1986 153 64 45 44 75 62 188 123 75 130 48 30 1037 1987 76 42 297 105 92 77 150 83 110 115 99 124 1370 1988 5 170 281 38 134 107 171 173 82 134 91 172 1558 1989 139 70 57 54 123 156 135 209 336 167 161 72 1679 1990 64 20 52 143 108 83 156 208 99 82 112 28 1155 1991 97 97 45 127 33 66 157 201 133 104 78 69 1207 1992 125 105 37 74 92 89 163 196 102 214 93 128 1418 1993 23 36 77 89 107 173 15 74 20 23 96 42 775 1994 79 63 43 108 64 102 211 111 168 134 70 48 1201 1995 21 68 120 229 97 137 202 67 71 96 124 102 1334 1996 36 110 102 172 82 253 141 150 119 54 73 202 1494 1997 30 51 84 43 86 155 47 86 162 92 66 104 1006 1998 13 98 78 45 112 103 282 143 62 106 137 102 1281 1999 105 13 41 105 42 111 141 80 154 34 169 67 1062 2000 58 7 48 134 58 149 236 134 138 54 80 84 1180 2001 20.5 126 60 104 177 41 74 91.5 106.5 148 142 287 1377.5 2002 198 31 55.5 63 103.5 240.5 208 88.5 75 77.5 90.5 79.5 1310.5 2003 155.5 198 89 110.5 53 106 89.5 59.5 162 102 62.5 251.5 1439 2004 41.5 199 13 34 112.5 87 85 104.5 118 111 58 136 1099.5 2005 45.5 35.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 Mean 76 86 87 88 86 114 132 116 109 97 90 107 1234 Hi 198 199 297229 177 253 282 228336 214 169 287 1679 Lo 5 7 1332 33 41 15 2920 23 25 28 775

Assessment of Water & Sanitary Services Report 69