Watercare Services Limited

Home , Waikato River, Whangamarino River, Whangamarino Wetland

WATERCARE SERVICES LIMITED

PROPOSED WAIKATO RIVER TAKE

Resource Consent Applications and Assessment of Environmental Effects

11 December 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ______1. Introduction ______1

1.1 Structure of this Report 3 2. Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato ______5 3. The Watercare Proposal ______7

3.1 Overview 7 3.2 The Location of the Waikato Water Treatment Plant and Existing Waikato River Takes 9 3.3 The Watercare Applications 12 4. Planning Framework ______21

4.1 Resource Consents Required 21 4.2 Relevant Statutory Documents 25 5. Supply / Demand Assessment ______26

5.1 Water Supply Demand 26 5.2 Water Availability 29 5.3 The Supply / Demand Balance 35 6. Alternative Source Assessment ______38

6.1 Assessment Overview 38 6.2 Stage 2 Review 44 6.3 Stage 3 Review 45 6.4 Stage 4 Review 46 6.5 Stage 5 Review 47 6.6 Conclusion 62 7. Intake Location and Type ______64

7.1 Intake Location 64 7.2 Intake Type 69 8. Existing Environment ______70

8.1 General Setting 70 8.2 Cultural 70 8.3 The Waikato River 71 8.4 Existing Users 74 8.5 Existing Watercare Takes 75 8.6 Hydrology 76 8.7 Waikato River Ecology 78 9. Effects Assessment ______83

9.1 Introduction 83 9.2 Positive Effects 84 9.3 Cultural Effects 85

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry

9.4 Construction Effects 86 9.5 Hydrological Effects 90 9.6 Ecological Effects 92 9.7 Effects on Other Water Takes from the Waikato River 103 9.8 Recreation and Navigation 105 10. Monitoring ______107 11. Consultation ______108

11.1 Introduction 108 11.2 Iwi and Mana Whenua Consultation 108 11.3 Other Stakeholders 111 12. Statutory Assessment ______115

12.1 Information Requirements 115 12.2 Resource Consent Requirements and Activity Status 131 12.3 Section 104 Assessment 131 12.4 Section 105 Assessment 167 12.5 Section 107 Assessment 168 12.6 Part 2 of The Resource Management Act 1991 169 12.7 Overall Summary 171 13. Concluding Statement ______172

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Intake Layout 12

Figure 2: Waikato River Water Allocation. 13

Figure 3: Bulk Water Supply Network. 10

Figure 4: Waikato Water Treatment Plant Location Map. 11

Figure 5: Intake Layout 17

Figure 6: Indicative Enhancement Areas 18

Figure 7: Allocation Showing Watercare Application at 150,000 m3/day. 22

Figure 8: How Outage and Headroom are Included in the Supply-Demand Balance. 30

Figure 9: Distribution of Annual Average Headroom 2020 to 2055. 34

Figure 10: Distribution of Peak Headroom 2020 to 2055. 35

Figure 11: Baseline Annual Drought Supply / Demand Balance. 36

Figure 12: Baseline Peak Period Supply / Demand Balance. 37

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry

Figure 13: Overview of the Options Assessment Process. 38

Figure 14: Flowchart Overview of Options Screening Process. 42

Figure 15: 100 km radii around Schnapper Rock Road Reservoir and Redoubt Road Reservoir. 43

Figure 16: Stage 2 Screening – Outcomes by WSAA Option Type. 45

Figure 17: Conceptual Deep Sea Desalination Scheme Based at Rosedale WWTP. 49

Figure 18: Desalination Process Flow Diagram. 50

Figure 19: Schematic for Indirect Potable Reuse Rosedale AWTP to Campbell Road Reservoir (no surface abstraction). 53

Figure 20: Schematic for Rosedale Direct Potable Reuse. 53

Figure 21: Schematic for Māngere Direct Potable Reuse. 54

Figure 22: Long List Intake Options – Watercare Site. 65

Figure 23: Riverbank Pump Station Intake Option. 67

Figure 24: Waikato A WTP Pump Station Intake Option. 68

Figure 25: Waikato River Water Allocation. 104

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Summary of Intake Construction Effects. 16

Table 2: Magnitude and Level of Hydrological Effects of the Proposed Water Take. 17

Table 3: Summary of Operational Effects on Waikato River Water Quality and Ecology. 18

Table 4: Summary of Resource Consents Required. 19

Table 5: Peak Day Deployable Outputs and Constraints. 31

Table 6: Annual Drought Deployable Outputs. 32

Table 7: Summary of Outage Results for the Peak and Annual Periods. 32

Table 8: Recommended Headroom Allowances (MLD). 35

Table 9: AWTP Plant Capacity. 54

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry

Table 10: Cost estimate for 75 MLD and 150 MLD Reuse Options. 55

Table 11: Operation Cost Estimate ($/annum) for 75 MLD and 150 MLD Reuse Options. 55

Table 12: Summary of Relevant 7-day Low Flow Statistics for the Waikato River. 77

Table 13: Summary of Intake Construction Effects. 89

Table 14: Magnitude and Level of Hydrological Effects of the Proposed Water Take. 91

Table 15: Summary of Operational Effects on Waikato River Water Quality and Ecology. 100

Table 16: Waikato Regional Plan General Information Requirements for all Applications. 121

Table 17: Waikato Regional Plan Information Requirements for Water Take Applications. 123

Table 18: Waikato Regional Plan Information Requirements for Discharges to Water. 125

Table 19: Waikato Regional Plan Information Requirements for Damming Water. 126

Table 20: Waikato Regional Plan Information Requirements for Applications to Use, Erect, Place, Extend, Alter or Reconstruct a Structure In, On, Under or Over the Bed of a River or Lake. 127

Table 21: Waikato Regional Plan Information Requirements for the Demolition or Removal of a Structure. 129

Table 22: Waikato Regional Plan Policy 11 Assessment Criteria for Surface Water Takes. 150

Table 23: Waikato Regional Plan Rule 3.3.21 Matters of Discretion. 155

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Water Management Plan

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry

This document and its contents are the property of Mitchell Daysh Limited. Any unauthorised employment or reproduction, in full or in part, is forbidden.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

Watercare Services Limited (“Watercare”) is a lifeline utility providing water and wastewater services to a population of 1.7 million people in Auckland. Watercare is the council-controlled organisation of Auckland Council responsible for municipal water supply services within Auckland, and the provider of bulk water supply services to Pokeno and Tuakau in the Waikato District.1

Watercare supplies approximately 440,000 cubic metres of water per day (“m3/day”) on average across the year, derived from a range of sources and treated to the Ministry of Health Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (“DWSNZ”) (revised 2018).

Watercare’s three main water supply sources are:2

• Water storage lakes in the Hūnua and Waitākere ranges;

• A groundwater aquifer in Onehunga; and

• The Waikato River.

The exact proportion supplied from each source varies daily, depending on a range of factors including the levels in the storage lakes, forecast rainfall, treatment plant capacity, and maintenance requirements.

In December 2013, Watercare applied to the Waikato Regional Council (“WRC”) for resource consents to authorise the taking of an additional 200,000 m3/day (net) of water from the Waikato River, a new water intake structure and discharges from a new water treatment plant. Since that time, Watercare’s water take application (and the associated applications) have been on hold while the WRC processes and decides other applications to take water from the Waikato River Catchment that were lodged before Watercare’s application.

During the period from late 2019 through to mid-2020, the Auckland region faced one of the most extreme drought events in modern times with rainfall for the period between January and May 2020 being approximately 30% of what would normally be expected for that period. At Watercare’s recommendation, in May 2020 Auckland Council imposed water use restrictions in Auckland for the first time since the early 1990s. Watercare also took additional steps to improve security of supply during the drought by exercising emergency powers

1 Under a bulk supply agreement with Waikato District Council. 2 Watercare also operates individual water supplies for several other communities, such as Muriwai, Algies Bay, Snells Beach, Bombay, Waiuku, Warkworth, Helensville and Wellsford, based on various water sources including groundwater and surface water.

under Section 330 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”),3 and by re-establishing supply from previously decommissioned sources.4

While the above steps have been taken to ensure Auckland’s short term water supply requirements are met, the focus has now turned to the future. Watercare’s focus remains planning for water demand over the long term by securing sustainably sourced water to achieve:

• Certainty of supply in up to a 1:100-year drought with 15% residual dam storage; and

• Certainty of supply to meet peak demand.

On 30 June 2020, after considering advice provided by the Environmental Protection Authority, the Minister for the Environment issued a direction under Section 142(2) of the RMA to call in Watercare’s 2013 application and refer it to a Board of Inquiry for determination. The Minister’s direction recognised Watercare’s application as a proposal of national significance.

Watercare has now updated the application to address a range of matters, with the most significant revision resulting directly from Watercare’s ongoing engagement with Waikato- Tainui since the application was lodged with WRC, being a reduction in the volume of the proposed water take from 200,000 m3/day (net) to 150,000 m3/day (net).

Watercare currently holds three resource consents authorising the taking of water from the Waikato River adjacent to the Waikato Water Treatment Plant (“Waikato WTP”) near Tuakau as follows: a) Resource consent 960089.01.04, authorising:

i) A net take rate of up to 175,000 m3/day when the 7-day rolling average flow of the Waikato River at Rangiriri is equal to or greater than 328.3 m3/s; and

ii) A net take rate of up to 150,000 m3/day when the 7-day rolling average flow of the Waikato River at Rangiriri is less than 328.3 m3/s; b) Resource consent 141825.01.01 (referred to as the “Seasonal Water Take” consent), authorising a net take rate of up to:

i) 100,000 m3/day during the period 1 May to 30 September (inclusive); and

ii) 100,000 m3/day during the period 1 October to 30 April (inclusive) when the 7- day rolling average flow of the Waikato River at Rangiriri exceeds 330.03 m3/s; c) Resource consent 142090.01.01 (referred to as the “Hamilton City Council Water Allocation” consent), authorising a net take rate of up to 25,000 m3/day (or such lesser volume as determined by Hamilton City Council as being available for transfer on any

3 Reduced environmental flows from the Waitakere and Wairoa and Cosseys Storage Lakes, and a short term take from the Waikato River. 4 Being groundwater bores at Pukekohe, and the Hays Creek Storage Lake in Papakura.

given day) during the period 1 October to 30 April (inclusive) when the 7-day rolling average flow of the Waikato River at Rangiriri is less than 328.3 cubic metres per second. This consent was sought in response to the drought in 2020 and expires on 1 May 2023.

In the event that the consent sought through the Board of Inquiry process is granted for the volume sought, Watercare proposes that the Seasonal Water Take (141825.01.01) and Hamilton City Council Water Allocation (142090.01.01) resource consents would be surrendered. Watercare’s total combined take from the Waikato River under its existing resource consent 960089.01.04, and the new water take consent granted by the Board of Inquiry would not exceed a year round net take volume of 300,000 m3/day.

Waikato -Tainui and the Waikato River

In recognition of Waikato-Tainui’s relationship with the Waikato River, its respect for the river and its wellbeing, and the rights and responsibilities of Waikato-Tainui and Te Whakakitenga o Waikato Inc (“Te Whakakitenga”)5 to protect the mana and mauri of the river and to exercise mana whakahaere (control, access and management) in respect of the river and its resources in accordance with long established tikanga, Watercare has reached an agreement with Te Whakakitenga, the Kawenata Whakawhanaunga.

Watercare has amended its proposal to give effect to the agreements reached in the Kawenata Whakawhanaunga. Key aspects of the Kawenata Whakawhanaunga given effect to by Watercare in this application are the reduction in the proposed take volume from 200,000 m3/day (net) to 150,000 m3/day (net), acceptance of a maximum cumulative net take of 300,000 m3/day and consequent surrender of the Seasonal and Hamilton City Council Water Allocation take consents. Another key aspect is establishment of a Trust, on terms to be agreed between Watercare and Te Whakakitenga, whose purpose is to protect and promote the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River and through that, the interrelated health and wellbeing of Waikato-Tainui consistent with Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato and Tai Tumu, Tai Pari, Tai Ao.

Supply / Demand Forecast

An assessment of the present and predicted water supply demand balance demonstrates that an additional source of water is required by between 2025 and 2027 to ensure security of supply during a drought, while an additional source would be required by 2028 to meet peak day demands at Watercare’s Level of Service (“LoS”) requirements agreed with Auckland Council. Watercare has updated the assessment of water demand, water source options and options for the taking of water from the river. Those assessments are summarised in Sections 5 to 7 in the AEE.

After consideration of a wide range of potential water source options, Watercare has confirmed that a new take from the Waikato River is the only option that, if consented, would

5 Te Whakakitenga is the representative organisation for the iwi of Waikato-Tainui and is the trustee of the Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust and the Waikato Raupatu River Trust.

enable Watercare to ensure security of supply during a drought between 2025-2027 and meet peak demand by 2028. Given this, and a new Waikato take’s favourable assessment against 8 key principles, carbon and cost considerations that were used to assess the shortlisted options, it is therefore the preferred option for providing the next strategic water supply source for the Auckland metropolitan water supply network.

The Proposal

The updated application is for all necessary consents to enable the taking of up to 150,000 cubic metres (net6) of water per day from the Waikato River for municipal water supply purposes. The water take and associated infrastructure would be located at the same site as the existing Watercare WTP near Tuakau. The updated Watercare proposal comprises: a) A new take from the Waikato River of up to 150,000 m3/day (net) at a maximum instantaneous rate of up to 3.2 m3/s; b) A new intake structure alongside (but downstream) of the existing Watercare intake structure, with intake screen mesh and intake velocity across the screens the same as the existing screens but with flexibility to adopt alternative screen cleaning options; c) Discharges from a new Waikato A WTP, including process water, treated water that does not meet New Zealand Drinking Water Standards (typically referred to as “off- spec” water) and water, air, and river material from the backwashing of the intake screens; d) Establishing a trust whose purpose is to protect and promote the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River and through that, the interrelated health and wellbeing of Waikato-Tainui, consistent with Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato and Tai Tumu, Tai Pari, Tai Ao; e) The surrender of the Seasonal Water Take (141825.01.01) and Hamilton City Council Water Allocation Take (142090.01.01) consents and a change to the conditions of resource consent 960089.01.04 to limit this consent to a year-round take of 150,000 m3/day (net).7; and f) The combined rate of take under the consent sought and resource consent 960089.01.04 would not exceed 300,000 m3/day (net) at a maximum rate of take of 5.65 m3/s.

6 The “net” take of water is the volume of surface water that is taken for an activity less any subsequent return of water that is relied on to establish the net take. In this case, the discharge of process water and off-spec water authorised under the discharge consents sought as part of this application. Unless specified otherwise, references to the future water demand for Auckland and the quantity of water to be taken from the Waikato River to meet that demand are references to the net quantity of water required or to be taken. 7 The conditions of resource consent 960089.01.04 allow the taking of an additional up to 25,000 m3/day when the average Waikato River at Rangiriri exceeds 328.3 m3/s. However, this additional take cannot occur when the Seasonal Water Take consent is being exercised.

It is anticipated that the Waikato A WTP would be installed in two stages to enable growth in demand to be progressively met:

• Waikato A 75 million litre per day (“MLD”8) – a new treatment facility with a maximum sustainable daily average capacity of 75 MLD (average across 12 months); and

• Waikato A 150 MLD – an expansion of the Waikato A WTP and addition of a second watermain with an addition of another maximum sustainable daily average plant capacity of 75 MLD, totalling 150 MLD (average across 12 months).

Watercare acknowledges that the existing Waikato WTP and supporting infrastructure will not have the capacity available to take and process the full volume of water sought (an additional 150,000 m3/day [net]) immediately. Watercare is open to exploring opportunities for water sharing with parties who express an interest in the short-term use of the water not being used. Such a process is provided for under the Waikato Regional Plan provisions and Watercare has experienced the benefits of this approach in its current agreement with Hamilton City Council (“HCC”) to take water that is not presently required by HCC but is otherwise allocated to HCC under its municipal supply water take consent from the Waikato River. Any opportunities in this regard would be considered by Watercare and progressed on a case-by-case basis.

Water treated at the initial Waikato A 75 MLD WTP would use the existing Waikato No.1 Watermain, the recently installed 50 ML reservoir at Pukekohe East, a new 50 ML reservoir at Pukekohe East and the Boost Pump Station at 72 Hūnua Rd, Papakura currently being installed. The Waikato A 150 MLD WTP would require additional infrastructure (including a second watermain, pipelines and reservoirs). The estimated capital cost for the Waikato A 75MLD WTP and associated transmission of water is $200 - $290 million, while that for the Waikato A 150MLD WTP and associated transmission is up to $830 million (predominantly for a new pipeline and reservoirs). The new Waikato A WTP would be designed to meet the same discharge specifications as the existing Waikato WTP. It is important to note that consents for the Waikato A WTP, new pipeline and reservoirs are not being sought as part of the present application to the BOI.

It is estimated that the temporary works within / over the river using the construction approach would involve approximately 240 m2 for the coffer dam and approximately 300 m2 for the access / work platform. The estimated area for the permanent structure (intake manifold and pipeline) is approximately 200 m2. The indicative intake layout, including the temporary construction platform, coffer dam and permanent structures is shown on Figure 5 below.

It is estimated that the construction period for the works in the Waikato River is up to approximately 21 months. The construction programme and durations are likely to be refined

8 “MLD” is typically referred to in engineering-based reports and equals “million litres per day”; 75 MLD is therefore equivalent to 75,000 m3/day, 150 MLD is equivalent to 150,000 m3/day.

and more accurately forecasted once the design and construction methodology is sufficiently progressed.

Figure 1: Intake Layout

Overall Activity Status

While the proposed water take is a restricted discretionary activity under Rule 3.3.4.21 of the WRP because Watercare’s proposed take of 150,000 m3/day (net) can be granted within the primary allocable flow, the proposed water take activity overlaps with the intake construction, intake operation and the proposed discharge activities. As a consequence, it requires an integrated effects assessment and the activities should be “bundled” for the purposes of determining the activity status. For that reason, in combination with the intake structure and WTP discharges, the bundled activity status is discretionary. Notwithstanding this, the matters that the WRC has restricted its discretion to under Rule 3.3.4.21 remain particularly relevant to the application.

Allocation status

The existing Waikato River allocation, along with existing and other applications before WRC that were received before the Watercare application, are shown in Figure 25.

Figure 2: Waikato River Water Allocation.

The allocation is such that throughout the year including the summer months, the water currently allocated (shown in navy), volume to be allocated under applications (shown in green) lodged with WRC before Watercare’s application, and volume sought under this application (shown in light blue) is within the allocable flow. The granting of Watercare’s application at the volume sought, 150,000 m3/day (net), would not cause any of the prior applications to exceed the allocable flow.

Further, there is significant remaining allocation available between May and October (which could, for example, be used for a water harvesting proposal for supply during summer months). Figure 25 also shows that some of the applications currently before WRC that were lodged after Watercare’s application could be granted within the allocable flow. The reduction in Watercare’s proposed take to 150,000 m3/day has therefore significantly reduced the extent to which the granting of consent may affect other applicants for consent to take water from the Waikato River, as distinct from existing users.

It is noted that WRC is seeking reductions9 in the volumes sought in the existing water take applications. This and withdrawals of some applications, if confirmed, would mean the majority of applications after the Watercare application would fall under the allocation limit.

9 WRC letter to the Environmental Protection Agency dated 13 November 2020.

Alternatives Source Options Assessment

Watercare has undertaken a robust and exhaustive alternative options assessment looking at 156 potential water resource options that could be developed to meet the forecast demand requirements over the next 35 years. Through this process, the options were narrowed down through a staged and increasingly detailed assessment process to identify a preferred option for implementation by 2026 being the date by which a new water source is required, as demonstrated in the supply/demand balance assessment.

Watercare has a duty to supply sufficient water for its customers in Auckland and North Waikato, both now and in the future. Given the lead in times for the new strategic scheme approaches assessed (e.g., more than 15 years for a purified recycled water system), and after considering the 8 project principles, cost and carbon criteria, the assessment process identified the Waikato River water take as the preferred water source option for meeting the estimated daily peak and drought demand requirements. In addition to progressing with the preferred approach, it was concluded that Watercare should continue to investigate the potential direct and indirect purified recycled water ‘large scheme’ options for potential implementation in the late 2030s to meet ongoing growth in demand.

Overall, the assessment found that this approach provides a balance between prudent water resource management to meet foreseeable water demand requirements and the investigation of innovative water resource schemes to provide potential alternatives for future water demand requirements for Auckland.

Assessment of Effects

The proposal to take water from the Waikato River has a range of both positive and potentially negative environmental effects.

While there are clear “out-of-river” benefits of the proposal, the activity has the potential for “in-river” effects as well. Aquatic life in the Waikato River is adapted to the natural flow regime which includes periodic disturbances such as floods, droughts and tidal variations. Changes to the flow regime can have negative effects on in-stream ecology by changing currents, reducing available instream habitat, and altering aspects of water quality such as temperature and dissolved oxygen concentration.

The proposal will have significant positive effects. It will provide for a reliable, efficient and cost-effective supply of municipal water, which is fundamental to the continued growth and functioning of Auckland, as well as the overall public health and sanitation of the region. Additionally, the proposed abstraction of water from the Waikato River will assist with providing such certainty and resilience and is therefore an integral part of planning for future potential climate change effects.

Regarding cultural effects, Watercare’s proposal to take water from the Waikato River and to establish a river enhancement trust is generally consistent with the objectives of Te Ture Whaimana. The proposal will not compromise the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River,

nor interfere with the joint management agreements between Waikato-Tainui and the relevant local authorities to enhance the health of the river.

Watercare has proposed a number of measures in order to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of the proposal on the environment, including by way of intake design, management of construction activities, and conditions on the discharge of process water and water that does not meet the drinking water standards. In addition, Watercare is also proposing the establishment of a river enhancement trust which will contribute to the restoration and protection of the Waikato River.

Through these mechanisms, Watercare considers that the relationship of mana whenua and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga will be maintained. Similarly, the abstraction and discharge regimes contained in this proposal will maintain the mauri of the Waikato River.

Regarding effects of the take on recreational and navigational uses of the river and on existing users upstream and downstream of the proposed Watercare take is less than minor.

Regarding the effects of climate change, the location of Watercare’s proposed intake structure is such that it will not be affected by sea level rise. Salinity effects of the proposed take are insignificant when compared to the changes in the extent of the salt wedge that are expected to result from the maximum predicted sea level rise.

Construction effects, hydrology, water quality and ecological effects have been summarised in the tables below.

Overall, detailed analysis of the actual and potential effects of the activities associated with the proposed take, including construction effects, effects of the abstraction of water, and effects of the ancillary discharges have been presented in Section 9 of this AEE. These assessments demonstrate that those effects are minor or less than minor.

Table 1: Summary of Intake Construction Effects.

Effect/activity Effect without mitigation Magnitude of effects Key mitigation measures Magnitude of effects Overall level of with no mitigation with mitigation effect with mitigation

Effects on river water Elevated suspended sediment and reduced Low Spoil disposed of offsite, Negligible Very Low quality clarity immediately downstream of the pile or operate within a coffer dam. coffer dam locations due to disturbance of the river bed

Effects on the river bed Permanent river bed disturbance would be Low Minimise permanent Low Low approximately 200 m2. Temporary structures on the river bed. disturbance would be approximately 540 m2. No specific mitigation provided / required.

Effects on instream Reduced water clarity for visual feeders Low No specific mitigation Low Low freshwater biota (trout), sedimentation to the bed of the river provided / required. and associated habitat quality effects, direct disturbance to benthic habitats, and disruption to fish passage and upstream migrating fish species.

Table 2: Magnitude and Level of Hydrological Effects of the Proposed Water Take.

Effect/activity Effect without mitigation Magnitude of effects with no mitigation Key mitigation Overall level of effect measures

Flow and water level in the Reduction in flows up to 1.5 % at the intake Negligible – flows within allocable limits and None required Very Low Waikato River site, and maximum incremental water level change in water level not significant compared change of up to 41 mm reducing downstream. to depth and daily fluctuations.

Sediment movement within Minimal localised change expected to Negligible – very slight localised change in None required Very Low sediment transport around intake. the river sediment transport with peak rate take during Not significant compared to catchment and q5 low flow. Minimal to no change expected to reach-scale sediment supply interruptions sediment transport and bedform processes in (hydro-lakes and sand extraction). downstream reaches with increased takes.

Salinity in the river estuary Minimal shift in extent of saline intrusion, of Negligible – not significant compared to None required Very Low and delta approximately 150 m during q5 and mean tide existing 10 km to 13 km extent and to regular conditions, and less during higher river flows. tidal fluctuations and likely sea level rise.

Other users Reduction in flows up to 1.5 % at the intake Negligible – flows within allocable limits and None required Very Low site, and maximum incremental water level change in water level not significant compared change of up to 41 mm reducing downstream. to depth and daily fluctuations.

Table 3: Summary of Operational Effects on Waikato River Water Quality and Ecology.

Effect/activity Effect without mitigation Magnitude of effects Key mitigation measures Magnitude of effects Overall level of with no mitigation with mitigation effect with mitigation

Effects on river temperature and DO due to Changes will not be within Negligible No specific mitigation Negligible Very Low reduced flow in the Waikato River. the resolution of most data provided / required. recorders, at less than 0.02 °C and less than 0.01 mg/L

Effects on river water quality through routine Mobilisation of organic Negligible No specific mitigation Negligible Very Low cleaning of the intake screens. (algal) material into the provided / required. water column of the lower Waikato River.

Soluble aluminium Toxicity to instream biota. Negligible Operate within discharge Negligible Very Low quality limits.

Free available chlorine Toxicity to instream biota. Moderate De-chlorination; operate Negligible Very Low within discharge quality Effect of the limits. discharge on water quality and the Glycerine Toxicity to instream biota. Moderate Removal of high dosage Negligible Very Low ecology of the lower glycerine off-site; operate Waikato River. within discharge quality limits.

Fluoride Toxicity to instream biota. Negligible Operate within discharge Negligible Very Low quality limits.

Effect/activity Effect without mitigation Magnitude of effects Key mitigation measures Magnitude of effects Overall level of with no mitigation with mitigation effect with mitigation

Total suspended solids Toxicity to instream biota. Negligible Operate within discharge Negligible Very Low quality limits.

River habitat Maximum incremental water Low No specific mitigation Low Low level change up to 46 mm provided / required. (cumulative 82 mm) and flow velocity reduction up to 0.003 m/s (cumulative 0.006 m/s) at the intake.

Inanga spawning Maximum incremental water Negligible No specific mitigation Negligible Low (based on lower habitat level change in the lower provided / required. wetland ecological Effects on river wetlands of up to 11 mm value of very high) freshwater biota (cumulative 19 mm) at spring through the high tide. operation of the Upstream and Have a negative effect on Low Locate the screens away Negligible Very Low intake screens downstream migration migration corridors, from the bank but not in the potentially resulting in a centre of the river. localised barrier to fish passage.

Fish, fish egg and Fish impinged onto the Moderate Locate the screens away Negligible Very Low larvae impingement screen. from the bank but not in the centre of the river, 1.5 mm slot widths on the wedge wire screen and “approach”

Effect/activity Effect without mitigation Magnitude of effects Key mitigation measures Magnitude of effects Overall level of with no mitigation with mitigation effect with mitigation

velocities of less than 0.15 metres per second.

Fish egg and larvae Fish eggs and larvae Moderate Locate the screens away Low Low entrainment entrained through the from the bank but not in the screen. centre of the river, 1.5 mm slot widths on the wedge wire screen and “approach” velocities of less than 0.15 metres per second.

Effects on riparian and Due to the width of the Negligible No specific mitigation Negligible Low (based on lower wetland values delta and influence of tidal provided / required. wetland ecological fluctuations water level, value of very high) change in the wetlands are predicted to be small (incremental water level change up to 14 mm, cumulative 25 mm based on spring low tide conditions).

Intake screen cleaning Fish being damaged by the Low Locate the screens away Negligible Very Low rotating brush screen. Fish from the bank but not in the disturbance through centre of the river, 1.5 mm sparging. slot widths on the wedge wire screen and “approach”

Consultation

Consultation has been undertaken with bordering local authorities, Waikato-Tainui, mana whenua, key users of the Waikato River such as power companies, agricultural and horticultural users, and other potentially affected and / or interested parties including environmental groups. Watercare is committed to maintaining open dialogue with key stakeholders throughout the consenting process. Watercare is appreciative of the time and effort taken by all parties participating in and contributing to the consultation process.

Summary of Statutory Matters

After considering all those matters relevant under Part 2 and sections 104, 105 and 107, granting the resource consents with appropriate conditions consistent with those applicable to the existing Watercare consents for taking water from the Waikato River would promote the purpose of the Act and would constitute sustainable management of natural and physical resources for the following reasons:

• It allows for the use of natural and physical resources in a way which will enable people and communities in Auckland and northern Waikato to provide for their social, cultural and economic wellbeing;

• It sustains the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations;

• It safeguards the life-supporting capacity of air, water and soil, and ensures that adverse effects are appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated; and

• It is demonstrably consistent with Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato and the other relevant planning documents under the RMA, including the water allocation provisions in the WRP.

The proposed take is also consistent with the Waikato RPS and WRP provisions. The proposed take, in combination with all existing takes, and all currently undecided take applications lodged before Watercare’s application, will not exceed the primary allocable flow for the lower Waikato River set out in the WRP. Taking into account the broader water allocation framework, including the explicit provision for reasonably justified and foreseeable future municipal supply needs and the effects of the proposal it is considered appropriate that water be allocated for Auckland’s reasonably justified and foreseeable future municipal supply needs.

Summary

Overall, it is considered that consenting the proposed water take (and associated activities) will be consistent with the purpose of the RMA and that there are no impediments to the grant of the resource consents sought by Watercare.

1. INTRODUCTION

Watercare Services Limited (“Watercare”) is a lifeline utility providing water and wastewater services to a population of 1.7 million people in Auckland. Its services are vital for life, keeps people safe and helps communities to flourish. More specifically, Watercare is the council-controlled organisation of Auckland Council responsible for municipal water supply services within Auckland, and the provider of bulk water supply services to Pokeno and Tuakau in the Waikato District.10

Watercare’s three main water supply sources are:11

• Water storage lakes in the Hūnua and Waitākere ranges;

• A groundwater aquifer in Onehunga; and

• The Waikato River.

10 Under a bulk supply agreement with Waikato District Council. 11 Watercare also operates individual water supplies for several other communities, such as Muriwai, Algies Bay, Snells Beach, Bombay, Waiuku, Warkworth, Helensville and Wellsford, based on various water sources including groundwater and surface water.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 1

emergency powers under Section 330 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”),12 and by re-establishing supply from previously decommissioned sources.13

• Certainty of supply in up to a 1:100-year drought with 15% residual dam storage; and

• Certainty of supply to meet peak demand.

On 30 June 2020, after considering advice provided by the Environmental Protection Authority, the Minister for Environment issued a direction under Section 142(2) of the RMA to call in Watercare’s 2013 application and refer the matter to a Board of Inquiry to determine the application. The Minister’s direction recognised Watercare’s application as a proposal of national significance.

Given the passage of time since the 2013 application was lodged, Watercare has updated the application to address a range of matters, including updates to population and demand assessments, changes to the policy framework within which the application is to be considered, consultation that has taken place, reassessment of potential water supply sources and intake options and updated assessments of environmental effects, including the effect that granting Watercare’s application would have on the allocation available to other users. The updated application will be heard by the Board of Inquiry.

The most significant revision to the application lodged in 2013, resulting directly from Watercare’s ongoing engagement with Waikato-Tainui since the application was lodged with WRC, is a reduction in the volume of the proposed water take from 200,000 m3/day (net) to 150,000 m3/day (net). This reduction reflects Waikato-Tainui’s special relationship with the Waikato River as outlined in the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010, and that Waikato-Tainui’s relationship with the Waikato River and its respect for the River lies at the heart of Waikato-Tainui’s spiritual and physical wellbeing and tribal identity and culture.

12 Reduced environmental flows from the Waitakere and Wairoa and Cosseys Storage Lakes, and a short term take from the Waikato River. 13 Being groundwater bores at Pukekohe, and the Hays Creek Storage Lake in Papakura.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 2

i) A net take rate of up to 175,000 m3/day when the 7-day rolling average flow of the Waikato River at Rangiriri is equal to or greater than 328.3 m3/s; and

ii) A net take rate of up to 150,000 m3/day when the 7-day rolling average flow of the Waikato River at Rangiriri is less than 328.3 m3/s;

b) Resource consent 141825.01.01 (referred to as the “Seasonal Water Take” consent), authorising a net take rate of up to:

i) 100,000 m3/day during the period 1 May to 30 September (inclusive); and

ii) 100,000 m3/day during the period 1 October to 30 April (inclusive) when the 7- day rolling average flow of the Waikato River at Rangiriri exceeds 330.03 m3/s;

c) Resource consent 142090.01.01 (referred to as the “Hamilton City Council Water Allocation” consent), authorising a net take rate of up to 25,000 m3/day (or such lesser volume as determined by Hamilton City Council as being available for transfer on any given day) during the period 1 October to 30 April (inclusive) when the 7-day rolling average flow of the Waikato River at Rangiriri is less than 328.3 cubic metres per second. This consent was sought in response to the drought in 2020 and expires on 1 May 2023.

In the event that the consent sought through the Board of Inquiry process is granted for the volume sought, Watercare proposes that the Seasonal Water Take (141825.01.01) and Hamilton City Council Water Allocation (142090.01.01) resource consents would be surrendered. Watercare’s combined take from the Waikato River under its existing resource consent 960089.01.04, and the new water take consent granted by the Board of Inquiry would not exceed a year round net take volume of 300,000 m3/day.

1.1 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT

This Assessment of Environmental Effects (“AEE”) has been prepared to accompany the resource consent application by Watercare. The AEE complies with the relevant requirements in Schedule 4 of the RMA and addresses the relevant information requirements identified in the Waikato Regional Plan (“WRP”).

This AEE comprises thirteen sections:

Section 1: This introduction providing a background to the application and the structure of this AEE.

Section 2: Provides a brief introduction to Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato identifying that this the primary direction-setting document for the Waikato River and for activities within the catchment affecting the Waikato River.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 3

Section 3: Describes the Watercare proposal, including key project components.

Section 4: Outlines the RMA and statutory framework in which the proposal is to be assessed and outlines the resource consent requirements for this application.

Section 5: Describes the existing and future Auckland water supply and demand situation.

Section 6: Sets out the alternatives and process followed for considering these alternatives before identifying the Waikato River as the preferred water source.

Section 7: Describes the proposed intake location and method and the assessment of alternative options.

Section 8: Describes the existing environment.

Section 9: Provides an assessment of the proposal’s effects on the environment.

Section 10: Briefly identifies relevant monitoring requirements associated with the proposed water take, discharge and intake structure.

Section 11: Sets out the statutory framework within which the resource consent application has been made and assesses the proposal against the provisions of the RMA and the provisions of the relevant statutory planning documents.

Section 12: Outlines the consultation undertaken in relation to the proposal.

Section 13: Provides a short concluding statement.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 4

2. TE TURE WHAIMANA O TE AWA O WAIKATO

In December 2007, the Crown and Waikato-Tainui reached agreement in principle for the settlement of the historical claims of Waikato-Tainui in relation to the Waikato River. Such claims had previously been excluded from the settlement of Raupatu Claims, reached in 1995. These claims include such matters as “the waters of the Waikato River (are) desecrated, polluted, and depleted” and that the “legislative framework for land use planning, water use planning and resource planning … fails to properly take into account Waikato-Tainui concerns for the Waikato River”. In the agreement in principle, the Crown acknowledged (amongst other acknowledgements) that it had “failed to respect, provide for and protect the special relationship of Waikato-Tainui with the Waikato River” and that “the deterioration of the health of the Waikato River … has been a source of distress for the Waikato-Tainui people”.

In order to address those claims, the settlement offered by the Crown set out in the agreement in principle included preparation of a “Vision and Strategy” for the Waikato River that must be “consistent with the overarching purpose of this settlement and the commitment by the Crown and Waikato-Tainui to enter a new era of co-management over the Waikato River to restore and protect the health and wellbeing of the River for future generations while incorporating: the Waikato-Tainui Objectives for the Waikato River”. The overarching purpose of the settlement was “to restore and protect the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River for future generations”. The Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River is Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato.

Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato is fundamental to the settlement of Waikato-Tainui claims in respect of the Waikato River and the restoration and protection of the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River for future generations is central to that settlement. It has been accorded statutory status via the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010. Section 5 of the Act states that (emphasis added):

The vision and strategy is intended by Parliament to be the primary direction setting document for the Waikato River and activities within its catchment affecting the Waikato River.

Section 11 of the Act specifies that the Vision and Strategy (Schedule 2 of the Act) is part of Waikato Regional Policy Statement in its entirety.14 Section 17 of the Act requires that the consent authority must have “particular regard to the vision and strategy in addition to any requirement specified in the enactment for the carrying out of the functions or the exercise of” its powers under the RMA.

14 Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato is included as Section 2 in Part A of the Waikato Regional Policy Statement.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 5

The Board of Inquiry is required to have particular regard to Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato in deciding this consent application. This is in addition to (and arguably stronger than) the requirement to “have regard” to the matters identified under s104(1) of the Resource Management Act (which include the actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity, and any relevant provisions of national policy statements, the regional policy statement and regional plans) when considering an application for a resource consent.

Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato is to be given primacy in decision making on resource consents affecting the Waikato River. Watercare confirms that in proceeding with its proposal to take water from the Waikato River, Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato has been at the forefront of its decision making process and that its application does not only seek to take water from the awa but also contribute back to the awa in a manner that will provide betterment that tangibly contributes to the restoration and protection of the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.

In recognition of Waikato-Tainui’s relationship with the Waikato River, its respect for the river and its wellbeing, and the rights and responsibilities of Waikato-Tainui and Te Whakakitenga o Waikato Inc (“Te Whakakitenga”)15 to protect the mana and mauri of the river and to exercise mana whakahaere (control, access and management) in respect of the river and its resources in accordance with long established tikanga, Watercare has reached an agreement with Te Whakakitenga, the Kawenata Whakawhanaunga.

15 Te Whakakitenga is the representative organisation for the iwi of Waikato-Tainui and is the trustee of the Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust and the Waikato Raupatu River Trust.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 6

3. THE WATERCARE PROPOSAL

3.1 OVERVIEW

Watercare has been supplying water to the Auckland Region since 1991 having taken over the bulk water functions from the Auckland Regional Council. Since Auckland’s local government reorganisation in 2010 it has been the sole public water and wastewater services provider for communities and businesses throughout Auckland (apart from the areas of the former Papakura District Council which is serviced by Veolia under a bulk supply from Watercare). Watercare also supplies bulk water and wastewater services to Waikato District Council to service Tuakau and Pokeno in the northern Waikato. The company is a council-controlled organisation and is wholly owned by the Auckland Council.

Watercare currently delivers approximately 164 million cubic metres of water per year to about 1.7 million people connected to the metropolitan water supply system. Auckland’s metropolitan water supply is collected from water storage lakes16, groundwater aquifers (Pukekohe and Onehunga) and the Waikato River. This water is treated at six water treatment plants and distributed through more than 9,400 km of water pipes, 85 reservoirs and 94 pump stations to some 440,000 metered connections. The layout of the bulk water supply system is shown in Figure 3. The network continues to increase as population grows and several previously unconnected nonmetropolitan towns and communities are added.

The individual water supply sources are operated conjunctively, meaning that they are operated as a single system in order to optimise the use of water, and ensure that the capacity of overall supply can be maintained. It means, for example, that when rainfall derived inflow to the water storage lakes decreases, the existing take from the Waikato River can increase (within resourced consent limits and any constraints imposed by treatment and reticulation capacity) to maintain total system storage. When the storage lakes are near capacity and inflows are high, water from the storage lakes is used preferentially ahead of Waikato River water due to higher pumping costs from the Waikato River.

The existing Waikato River take is a critical component of Watercare’s conjunctive use system, ensuring a drought resilient supply.

Watercare is seeking a new water supply source that will:

16 These include the Cosseys, Wairoa, Hays Creek (which is currently being recommissioned), Mangatangi and Upper Mangātawhiri (both located on tributaries of the Waikato River) storage lakes in the Hūnua Ranges and the Waitākere, Upper Nihotupu, Lower Nihotupu, Upper Huia, and Lower Huia storage lakes in the Waitākere Ranges.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 7

• Increase resilience, redundancy, and flexibility in combination with the other Auckland water supply sources;

• Provide for future Auckland and North Waikato (where appropriate) growth, including meeting both baseload and peak demand;

• Allow for continuity of supply during maintenance and other outages;

• Provide for supply such that demand restrictions within the Metropolitan supply area are not required more frequently than 1 in 20 years and that annual average demand can be met in a drought with a 1% probability of occurrence leaving 15% residual capacity in its existing reservoirs;17 and

• Provide certainty for a future secure supply to take account of any uncertainties associated with implementing demand reduction measures and / or alternative water use or storage options.

Given the passage of time since the 2013 application to take water from the Waikato River, Watercare has updated the assessment of water demand, water source options and options for the taking of water from the river. Those assessments are summarised in Sections 5 to 7 in this AEE.

After consideration of a wide range of potential water source options, Watercare has confirmed that a new take from the Waikato River is the preferred option for providing the next strategic water supply source for the Auckland metropolitan water supply network. It is the only option that, if consented, would enable Watercare to ensure security of supply during a drought between 2025-2027 and meet peak demand by 2028.

In the event that the consent is granted, Watercare acknowledges that the existing Waikato WTP and supporting infrastructure will not have the capacity available to take and process the full volume of water sought (an additional 150,000 m3/day [net]) immediately. Watercare is open to exploring opportunities for water sharing with parties who express an interest in the short-term use of the water not being used. Such a process is provided for under the Waikato Regional Plan provisions and Watercare has experienced the benefits of this approach in its current short-term (3 year) agreement with Hamilton City Council

17 These standards are set by the Auckland Council via the Mayor of Auckland’s Letter of Expectation to Watercare and the Watercare Statement of Intent.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 8

(“HCC”) to take water that is not presently required by HCC but is otherwise allocated to HCC under its municipal supply water take consent from the Waikato River. Any opportunities in this regard would be considered by Watercare and progressed on a case- by-case basis.

3.2 THE LOCATION OF THE WAIKATO WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND EXISTING WAIKATO RIVER TAKES

The location of the Waikato WTP and river take, as part of Watercare’s bulk water supply network, is shown in Figure 4.

The present Watercare Waikato River take consent authorises:

a) A net rate of up to 175,000 m3/day when the 7-day rolling average flow of the Waikato River at Rangiriri is equal to or greater than 328.3 m3/s; and

b) A net rate of up to 150,000 m3/day when the 7-day rolling average flow of the Waikato River at Rangiriri is less than 328.3 m3/s.

The Waikato WTP has a maximum treatment capacity of 175,000 m3/day and currently supplies approximately 33% of Auckland’s (including the northern Franklin area and Tuakau and Pokeno communities) average water demand. During extended periods of low rainfall in Auckland's water supply catchments, Watercare’s abstraction from the Waikato River increases to the consented maximum to preserve water storage in its storage lakes to enable peak summer demand to be met. From early August 2020, the Waikato WTP has been supplying more than 40% of the Auckland water supply requirements.

As part of the 2020 drought response, Watercare is installing a temporary WTP with a capacity of up to 50 MLD at the Haywards Road site, referred to as the “Waikato 50 Temporary WTP”. The Waikato 50 Temporary WTP is expected to be operational mid 2021 with a design life of nominally 3 years. The plant would be decommissioned as part of development of the Waikato A 75 MLD WTP, although some individual components from the Waikato 50 Temporary WTP are intended to be relocated and reused in the new facility where possible. The Waikato 50 Temporary WTP relies on takes under the Seasonal Water Take and Hamilton City Council Water Allocation resource consents. The capacity of the existing pipeline supplying water into the Watercare network will be boosted (via a booster pump station) to carry the increased treated water volume.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 9

Figure 3: Bulk Water Supply Network.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 10

Figure 4: Waikato Water Treatment Plant Location Map.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 11

3.3 THE WATERCARE APPLICATIONS

The updated application is for all necessary consents to enable the taking of up to 150,000 cubic metres (net18) of water per day from the Waikato River for municipal water supply purposes. The water take and associated infrastructure would be located at the same site as the existing Watercare WTP near Tuakau.

The updated Watercare proposal comprises:

a) A new take from the Waikato River of up to 150,000 m3/day (net) at a maximum instantaneous rate of up to 3.2 m3/s;

b) A new intake structure alongside (but downstream) of the existing Watercare intake structure, with intake screen mesh and intake velocity across the screens the same as the existing screens but with flexibility to adopt alternative screen cleaning options;

c) Discharges from a new Waikato A WTP, including process water, treated water that does not meet New Zealand Drinking Water Standards (typically referred to as “off- spec” water) and water, air, and river material from the backwashing of the intake screens;

d) Establishing a trust whose purpose is to protect and promote the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River and through that, the interrelated health and wellbeing of Waikato-Tainui, consistent with Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato and Tai Tumu, Tai Pari, Tai Ao;

e) The surrender of the Seasonal Water Take (141825.01.01) and Hamilton City Council Water Allocation Take (142090.01.01) consents and a change to the conditions of resource consent 960089.01.04 to limit this consent to a year-round take of 150,000 m3/day (net);19 and

f) The combined rate of take under the consent sought and resource consent 960089.01.04 would not exceed 300,000 m3/day (net) at a maximum rate of take of 5.65 m3/s.

18 The “net” take of water is the volume of surface water that is taken for an activity less any subsequent return of water that is relied on to establish the net take. In this case, the discharge of process water and off-spec water authorised under the discharge consents sought as part of this application. Unless specified otherwise, references to the future water demand for Auckland and the quantity of water to be taken from the Waikato River to meet that demand are references to the net quantity of water required or to be taken. 19 The conditions of resource consent 960089.01.04 allow the taking of an additional up to 25,000 m3/day when the average Waikato River at Rangiriri exceeds 328.3 m3/s. However, this additional take cannot occur when the Seasonal Water Take consent is being exercised.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 12

3.3.1 Proposed Intake Design

The proposed intake screen take will be designed to enable the following abstraction:

• Maximum Daily Raw Water Take Volume = 175,000 m3/day; and

• Peak Instantaneous Raw Water Take Rate = 3,200 L/s.

The peak instantaneous flow allows for the fact that abstraction cannot be a continuous steady rate (for example, the screens will occasionally be offline for maintenance or there can be outages at the WTP or pump stations). Therefore, a higher instantaneous flow will at times be necessary to achieve the required daily abstraction. The maximum daily raw water take volume allows for process water to be returned to the Waikato River from the WTP to enable a maximum net take of 150,000 m3/day.

The WRP stipulates a maximum intake velocity of 0.30 metres per second (“m/s”) and that all water intake structures at locations less than 100 metres above mean sea level shall be screened with a mesh aperture size not exceeding 3 millimetres width. The intake velocity, also referred to as the approach velocity, is defined as the velocity of water through the screen openings (apertures). Notwithstanding the WRP requirements, the existing resource consent (960092) specifies tighter limits of 0.15 m/s (maximum intake velocity) and 1.5 mm (intake mesh aperture size).

The proposed intake screen design is based on the existing resource consent and replicates these limits i.e.:

• Maximum intake velocity: 0.15 m/s; and

• Mesh aperture: 1.5 mm.

3.3.2 Proposed Water Treatment Plant

The existing Waikato WTP has been operational since 2002 and uses proven technology for treatment of water from the Waikato River to meet the DWSNZ. The design basis for Waikato A WTP is predominantly as per the existing Waikato WTP. A high-level concept design of a new water treatment plant based at the Waikato WTP site, including capital and operating cost estimates, has been prepared to enable comparison of the Waikato A WTP option with other options. The concept design also identifies the likely discharge characteristics which have been used as the basis for the assessment of the effects of discharges from the Waikato A WTP and is described in the report “Water Source Options Assessment for the Metropolitan Supply: Waikato A WTP Concept Report”, December 2020, prepared for Watercare by Beca Limited.

It is anticipated that the Waikato A WTP would be installed in two stages to enable growth in demand to be progressively met:

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 13

• Waikato A 75 million litre per day (“MLD”20) – a new treatment facility with a maximum sustainable daily average capacity of 75 MLD (average across 12 months); and

The Waikato A 150 MLD WTP would require the addition of the Waikato No.2 Watermain, a 52 km x 1500 pipeline connecting into the Hūnua No.4 Watermain at Wiri and two new 50 ML reservoirs at Pukekohe West.

The estimated capital cost for the Waikato A 75MLD WTP and associated transmission of water is $200 - $290 million, while that for the Waikato A 150MLD WTP and associated transmission is up to $830 million (predominantly for a new pipeline and reservoirs).

The new Waikato A WTP would be designed to meet the same discharge specifications as the existing Waikato WTP:

• Combined process and off-spec water discharge of 20 MLD;

• Maximum instantaneous discharge rate of 2.45 m3/s;

• The discharges to comply with the following limits:

‒ pH 6 – 9;

‒ Total suspended solids less than 50.0 g/m3;

‒ Fluoride less than 2.0 g/m3;

‒ Free available chlorine less than 0.25 g/m3

‒ Soluble aluminium less than 4.0 g/m3 (or less than 0.1 g/m3 if discharged to the tributary adjacent to the WTP); and

‒ Glycerine less than 10 g/m3.

20 “MLD” is typically referred to in engineering-based reports and equals “million litres per day”; 75 MLD is therefore equivalent to 75,000 m3/day, 150 MLD is equivalent to 150,000 m3/day.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 14

As noted above, as part of the 2020 drought response, Watercare is installing a temporary WTP with a capacity of up to 50 MLD at the Haywards Road site. The plant would be decommissioned as part of development of the Waikato A 75 MLD WTP, although some individual components from the Waikato 50 Temporary WTP are intended to be relocated and reused in the new facility where possible.

3.3.3 Construction

The likely construction approach for the proposed intake structure is described in the report “Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal: Water Intake Feasibility Report”, December 2020 prepared for Watercare by GHD. The high- level construction methodology identifies key construction considerations and timeframes and is provided to inform the assessment of potential effects during construction. However, the actual construction methodology will be confirmed once detailed design and engagement of a contractor is sufficiently progressed.

The high-level construction methodology described is based on using trenchless methods for constructing the tunnel between the raw water pump station and the intake. Depending on the final alignment and detailed geotechnical investigations, the trenchless methodology could utilise a tunnel boring machine, drill and blast or a road header. The existing tunnel was constructed using a drill and blast method.

The construction approach would typically include:

• Construction of a temporary access track and platform, likely using temporary steel piles driven into the riverbank and bed;

• Installation of a piled coffer dam large enough to allow a tunnel boring machine to be removed after drilling from the pump station site towards the river or to provide a dry exit point for the tunnelling works. The coffer dam would be pumped out to provide a dry working area;

• Excavation of a tunnelling launch pit in the same location as the pump station wet well;

• Completion of the tunnelling and raw water pipeline installation and disposal of waste material to an approved landfill or as fill on site;

• Completing a trenchless conduit for airburst or control cable duct, depending on the screen cleaning option installed (these services may be installed in common tunnel that also houses the raw water pipeline);

• Driving support piles for the intake manifold and intake pipe supports;

• Construction of the intake support structure on the piles;

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 15

• Fabrication of the intake manifold and pipework and installation of the support structure; and

• On completion of the pipeline and intake structure works, flooding the coffer dam, removing the temporary piles, connecting the submerged inlet pipework to the supply pipeline, installation of the off-spec water discharge pipeline, removing the temporary access track and platform and reinstating the riverbank.

It is estimated that the temporary works within / over the river using this construction approach would involve approximately 240 m2 for the coffer dam and approximately 300 m2 for the access / work platform. The estimated area for the permanent structure (intake manifold and pipeline) is approximately 200 m2.

The indicative intake layout, including the temporary construction platform, coffer dam and permanent structures is shown on Figure 5 below. While Figure 5 shows intake option 2b, the layout is similar for the two intake options being considered (an intake linked to a pump station adjacent to the existing pump station [option 2b] or an intake linked to a pump station adjacent to the proposed Waikato A WTP [option 7]) in terms of in-river works. The proposed coffer dam would be located around the proposed intake pipe works, between the intake screen and the river bank as indicated by the wavy light blue line in Figure 5.

It is estimated that the construction period for the works in the Waikato River is up to approximately 21 months. The construction programme and durations are likely to be refined and more accurately forecasted once the design and construction methodology is sufficiently progressed.

The existing pump station will need to be operational throughout the construction of the new intake infrastructure, except possibly for short periods during the connection and installation of the electricity supply, and if applicable, during any cross connection installations.

3.3.4 River Enhancement Trust

As noted above, Watercare proposes to establish a river enhancement trust with the purpose of protecting and promoting the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River and through that, the interrelated health and wellbeing of Waikato-Tainui.

An initial area of focus for that trust is likely to be the protection and extension of existing Kahikatea and Nikau bush areas (approximately 12 ha at present) and the establishment of a wetland (approximately 6 ha) within the Watercare site, as generally identified in Figure 6. It is intended that those sites be transferred to the trust.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 16

Figure 5: Intake Layout

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 17

Figure 6: Indicative Enhancement Areas

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 18

3.3.5 Resource Consent Requirements

A summary of the resource consents sought in this application and their activity status under the WRP is provided in Table 4.

Table 4: Summary of Resource Consents Required.

Consent Type Activity Activity Status

Water Permit To take and use up to 150,000 m3/day (net) of water from the Restricted Waikato River at or about New Zealand Transverse Mercator Discretionary (2000) (“NZTM”) Map Reference 1776957E, 5872040N for WRP Rule municipal supply purposes. 3.3.4.21 This is the same as Application #AUTH131259.01.01 as lodged with WRC in 2013 except that the take volume is reduced from 200,000 m3/day (net).

Land Use To operate and maintain water intake and discharge Discretionary Consent structures and pipelines partly in and on the bed of the WRP Rule Waikato River and, partly in or over the Waikato River at or 4.2.4.4 about NZTM Map Reference 1776957E, 5872040N.

This is the same as Application #AUTH131259.02.01 as lodged with WRC in 2013.

Discharge To discharge: Discretionary Permit a) up to 20,000 m3/day of process water arising from various WRP Rule water treatment operations into the Waikato River in the 3.5.4.5 vicinity of the intake structure;

b) Treated water that does not meet New Zealand Drinking Water Standards into the Waikato River in the vicinity of the intake structure; and

c) Water, air, and river material from the backwashing of intake screens into the Waikato River;

all at a rate of up to 3.2 m3/second at or about NZTM Map Reference 1776957E, 5872040N.

This is the same as Applications #AUTH131259.03.01, AUTH131259.04.01 and AUTH131259.05.01 as lodged with WRC in 2013 except that the three applications are combined into one consent, as has been done with the existing WTP discharge consent and the discharge volume has been reduced from 30,000 m3/day to 20,000 m3/day.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 19

Consent Type Activity Activity Status

Land Use To undertake activities in, on, under, or over the bed of the Discretionary Consent Waikato River for the purposes of enabling the construction of WRP Rule water intake and discharge structures and pipelines, including 4.2.4.4 erecting intake structures and pipelines, erecting, using and removing a coffer dam structure and temporary access platform and all associated disturbance of the bed of the Waikato River, all located at or about NZTM Map Reference 1776957E, 5872040N.

This is the same as Application #AUTH131259.06.01 as lodged with WRC in 2013, although the potential river bed disturbance area will be less than that originally envisaged due to a smaller area to be retained by the proposed coffer dam.

Water Permit To dam, divert and take water associated with the Discretionary construction of a coffer dam around the construction area for WRP Rules the intake and discharge structures and pipelines and 3.6.4.13 and associated dewatering activities within the coffer dam area for 3.6.4.14 the purposes of enabling the construction of a new intake and discharge structures and pipelines at or about NZTM Map Reference 1776957E, 5872040N.

This is the same as Application #AUTH131259.07.01 as lodged with WRC in 2013, although the extent of the area enclosed by the coffer dam will be less than that originally envisaged.

Discharge To discharge water into the Waikato River from dewatering Discretionary Permit the work area behind a coffer dam installed for the purposes WRP Rule of enabling the construction of an intake and discharge 3.5.4.5 structures and pipelines adjacent to the existing Watercare intake, at or about NZTM Map Reference 1776957E, 5872040N.

This is the same as Application #AUTH131259.09.01 as lodged with WRC in 2013, although the extent of the area enclosed by the coffer dam will be less than that originally envisaged.

It is noted that the 2013 application #AUTH131259.08.01 for a Land Use Consent to construct, operate, maintain and remove a temporary water intake structure partly on the bed of the Waikato River and partly in or over the Waikato River at or about NZTM Map Reference 1776957E, 5872040N does not form part of the present proposal as the temporary intake structure is not required under the proposed construction methodology.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 20

4. PLANNING FRAMEWORK

4.1 RESOURCE CONSENTS REQUIRED

4.1.1 Water Take

Chapter 3 of the WRP sets out the objectives, policies and rules relating to the taking of water in the Waikato Region.

Watercare’s proposed take is for municipal supply purposes and is classified as a restricted discretionary activity, if the taking of water in combination with all other authorised takes exceeds 70% but does not exceed 100% of the primary allocable flow for the relevant catchment identified in Table 3-5 (Rule 3.3.4.21). However, the proposed take would be classified as a discretionary activity, if the take, when assessed in combination with all other authorised takes exceeds the primary allocable flow for the relevant catchment identified in Table 3-5 (Rule 3.3.4.23).21

Any water take other than for domestic or municipal supply is classified as a restricted discretionary activity, if the taking of water in combination with all other authorised takes exceeds 70% but does not exceed 100% of the primary allocable flow for the relevant catchment identified in Table 3-5 (Rule 3.3.4.21). Such takes would be classified as a non- complying activity, if the take when assessed in combination with all other surface water takes exceeds the primary allocable flow for the relevant catchment identified in Table 3-5 (Rule 3.3.4.26).

The primary allocable flow for the Waikato River mainstem downstream of Huntly Power

Station mixing zone to the mouth catchment, identified in Table 3-5, is 10% of Q5 (i.e., 18.793 m3/s at the Coastal Marine Area as most recently advised by WRC).22

Watercare’s application lodged with the WRC in December 2013, which was for a take of 200,000 m3/day (net), assumed that if it were granted along with all other applications then before the WRC (i.e. applications lodged prior to Watercare’s application and not yet determined), the allocable flow would be exceeded. With the reduction in Watercare’s application to 150,000 m3/day (net), that application and all others lodged with WRC before Watercare’s application now fall within the allocable flow.

21 The rule also refers to secondary allocable flows in Table 3-5: however, there are no secondary allocable flows for the relevant catchment (Waikato River mainstem downstream of Huntley Power Station mixing zone to the mouth) in Table 3-5. 22 The WRP defines the Q5 as the “one in five year 7-day low flow”, that being the “stream flow at any point that has a 20 per cent chance of occurring in any one year (or a likelihood of occurrence of once in

every five years, also termed a ‘5-year return period’). The Q5 is calculated from the lowest seven consecutive days of flow in each year”.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 21

Figure 7 shows the Watercare application (reduced to 150,000 m3/day (net)) along with existing and other applications before WRC that were received before the Watercare application. This figure demonstrates that throughout the year including the summer months, the water allocated or to be allocated for applications up to and including the Watercare application is now within the allocable flow of 18.793 m3/s.

On that basis, Watercare’s proposed water take is classified as a restricted discretionary activity because, if granted, the taking of water under that consent, in combination all other existing authorised takes, would exceed 70% but not exceed 100% of the primary allocable flow for the relevant catchment identified in Table 3-5 (Rule 3.3.4.21).

Figure 7: Allocation Showing Watercare Application at 150,000 m3/day.

4.1.2 Water Management Plan

Rule 3.3.4.21 (b)23 requires that where a take is for a domestic or municipal supply, a water management plan which meets the requirements of Method 8.1.2.2 is to be provided.

A Water Management Plan (“WMP”) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Section 8.1.2.2 of the Waikato Regional Plan and accompanies this application. Section 8.1.2.2 requires that the WMP establish a long term strategy for the

23 Rule 3.3.4.23 includes a similar requirement for a water management plan in accordance with Method 8.1.2.2.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 22

water requirements of the Auckland Metropolitan Water Supply System and its communities. It is required to demonstrate that the volume of water required, including any increase over that previously authorised, has been justified and that the water take will be used efficiently and effectively. Each of the 16 matters listed in Section 8.1.2.2 is addressed in the WMP provided in Appendix A to this AEE.

By way of summary, Watercare operates a universal water metering system and incorporates regular conservation messages in its customer billing and on its website. It also implements a comprehensive and well established maintenance regime to reduce leakage and maintain the effectiveness of the infrastructure it has installed. Where leaks have occurred, Watercare endeavours to ensure that repairs are undertaken in a timely and efficient manner. The WMP also includes external auditing and benchmarking assessments, which demonstrate that Auckland performs well when compared with both national and international measures in respect of its use of water. The Auckland Water Efficiency Plan (2020 - 2025) is included as Appendix One of the WMP and the February 2020 Watercare Drought Management Plan is included as Appendix Two of the WMP.

4.1.3 Intake Structure

The following consents are required for the proposed intake structure:

• Land Use Consent: To operate and maintain water intake and discharge structures and pipelines partly in and on the bed of the Waikato River and, partly in or over the Waikato River at or about NZTM Map Reference 1776957E, 5872040N. This is a discretionary activity under rule 4.2.4.4 of the WRP;

• Land Use Consent: To undertake activities in, on, under, or over the bed of the Waikato River for the purposes of enabling the construction of water intake and discharge structures and pipelines, including erecting intake structures and pipelines, erecting, using and removing a coffer dam structure and temporary access platform and all associated disturbance of the bed of the Waikato River, all located at or about NZTM Map Reference 1776957E, 5872040N. This is a discretionary activity under rule 4.2.4.4 of the WRP;

• Water Permit: To dam, divert and take water associated with the construction of a coffer dam around the construction area for the intake and discharge structures and pipelines and associated dewatering activities within the coffer dam area for the purposes of enabling the construction of a new intake and discharge structures and pipelines at or about NZTM Map Reference 1776957E, 5872040N. This is a discretionary activity under rules 3.6.4.13 and 3.6.4.14 of the WRP; and

• Discharge Permit: To discharge water into the Waikato River from dewatering the work area behind a coffer dam installed for the purposes of enabling the construction of an intake and discharge structures and pipelines adjacent to the

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 23

existing Watercare intake, at or about NZTM Map Reference 1776957E, 5872040N. This is a discretionary activity under rule 3.5.4.5 of the WRP.

4.1.4 Water Treatment Plant Discharges

The 2013 application sought resource consents for the discharge of:

• Process water;

• Treated water that does not meet DWSNZ (off-spec water); and

• Water, air, and river material from the backwashing of the intake screens.

These were identified as separate resource consents in the 2013 application, reflecting the way in which similar activities were authorised at the time for the existing Waikato WTP discharges.

The existing Waikato WTP discharge consents expired on 1 May 2017 and Watercare applied for replacement consents in October 2016 (the applications were accepted by WRC on 26 October 2017). Watercare has continued to operate under the existing (but now expired) consents while WRC has been considering the replacement consent applications, as provided for under s124(3) of the RMA.

As part of assessing the replacement consent applications, Watercare and WRC have determined that the activities authorised by the former consents could appropriately be controlled under one resource consent. Watercare anticipates that WRC will grant consent for the existing Waikato WTP discharges prior to commencement of the BOI hearing of the Watercare Waikato River take application.

Watercare now seeks a single resource consent for discharges from the new Waikato A WTP providing for the discharge of:

• Up to 20,000 m3/day of process water;

• A maximum discharge rate of 2.45 m3/s;

• Treated water that does not meet DWSNZ; and

• Water, air, and river material from the backwashing or cleaning of the new intake screens.

This discharge would require resource consent as a discretionary activity under rule 3.5.4.5 of the WRP.

4.1.5 Overall Activity Status

While the proposed water take is a restricted discretionary activity under Rule 3.3.4.21 of the WRP, the proposed water take activity overlaps with the intake construction, intake

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 24

operation and the proposed discharge activities. As a consequence, it requires an integrated effects assessment and the activities should be “bundled” for the purposes of determining the activity status. For that reason, in combination with the intake structure and WTP discharges, the bundled activity status is discretionary. Notwithstanding this, the matters that the WRC has restricted its discretion to under Rule 3.3.4.21 remain relevant to the application.

4.2 RELEVANT STATUTORY DOCUMENTS

The statutory documents relevant to these applications include:

• Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato;

• The Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Freshwater) Regulations 2020;

• The Resource Management (Measurement and Reporting of Water Takes) Regulations 2020;

• The Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water) Regulations 2007;

• The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020;

• The National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020;

• The Waikato Regional Policy Statement 2016;

• The Waikato Regional Plan;

• Proposed Waikato Regional Plan Change 1.

• The Operative Waikato District Plan – Franklin Section;

• The Proposed Waikato District Plan; and

• Tai Tumu, Tai Pari, Tai Ao – Waikato-Tainui Environmental Plan.

The provisions in these documents are discussed in Section 11 in this AEE.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 25

5. SUPPLY / DEMAND ASSESSMENT

In order to meet water supply demand across the Watercare network it is important to have a clear understanding of what the demand for water is likely to be in the future and how much water Watercare is likely to have available in order to meet that demand. This not only assists with scheduling maintenance and system improvements but is also vital in terms of planning for new sources of supply or methods to meet water supply demands while meeting Watercare’s required levels of service. As part of updating the 2013 application, Watercare has engaged Beca Limited to assess both the demand for water and the likely water available for use in Auckland. A summary of their findings is presented below.

5.1 WATER SUPPLY DEMAND

The water demand forecast for the metropolitan Auckland supply is set out in the report “Demand forecast for the Metropolitan Supply”, December 2020, prepared for Watercare by Beca Limited. The following summary is drawn from that report.

5.1.1 Population

The estimate of connected population now and in the future is the most significant driver of demand and also one of the most difficult to determine and forecast with precision. The Auckland population estimates used by Watercare to create this forecast align with Auckland Council’s “i11v6” forecast model, dated 24 August 2020.

There has been considerable change to the population forecasts since the 2013 application, as follows:

• A change in the base models from the “ARFM model” to the “ART i11 model” (this occurred in 2015);

• Ongoing Statistics New Zealand updates that are incorporated into the ART model;

• Changes to the geospatial analyses and methods used to estimate the current connected population;

• New communities connecting to the metropolitan supply or signalled as intending to connect to the supply;

• The Auckland Unitary Plan, which prioritises urban intensification over greenfields growth. This impacts the methodology for estimating the future connected population; and

• A change from the ART i11v3 population forecast to the ART i11v6 forecast in August 2020.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 26

The last New Zealand census was held in 2018. Statistics New Zealand has determined that response rates from some population sub-groups was particularly low, leading to uncertainties in the accuracy of the census results. At the time of completing these analyses Statistic New Zealand stated that the Census usually resident population count was accurate to within 0.6%.

The base year for the 2020 demand forecast is 2018. Using population changes since 2013, an estimate of the population connected to the Watercare network has been made.

The distribution of the future population is likely to change from 2018 given the scale and nature of the population increase. Some areas that are currently outside of the Metropolitan supply boundary will be supplied in the future. Using estimates of expected growth (or reduction) within or outside of existing water zone boundaries, the likely future connected population and whether population growth would be expected to be serviced by the Metropolitan supply in the future an estimate of the 2046 population was derived. This was cross-checked against the Auckland Unitary Plan to verify whether growth areas outside of the existing water supply zones may be connected in the future. The percentage connected for 2046 was then carried through to the 2055 population estimate of almost 2.3 million people, resulting in an estimated that 2.1 million people being connected to the Watercare metropolitan supply network by 2055.

5.1.2 Demand Forecast Approach

Two forecasts have been developed for the metropolitan supply:

• An annual demand forecast, showing the water required for Watercare to meet its drought LoS; and

• A peak day demand forecast, showing the water required for Watercare to meet its peak day LoS.

A component-based model was used for the metropolitan supply that forecasts demand from 2018 through to 2055 both without and with demand management initiatives.

Domestic demand is forecast from the ARTi11v6 population projections, adjusted for connected population estimates, and base year domestic per capita consumption of 162.8 Litres/per/day (“L/p/d”).

Because domestic water users in the former Papakura district are not supplied directly by Watercare (but instead by Veolia) the Papakura domestic demand is shown separately as the Papakura Bulk Supply. The Papakura bulk supply has been forecast with reference to the baseline gross per capita consumption for Papakura and population projections for the area.

Other communities that will connect to the metropolitan network in the future are included, with domestic demands independently forecast from a serviced population projection and

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 27

an assumed domestic PCC of 185 L/p/d, based on experience that these communities have higher domestic uses.

Non-domestic or commercial demand is forecast using a relationship between regional population and present use.

The Huia Village bulk supply and Watercare use (largely Māngere Wastewater Treatment Plant (“WWTP”)) are also accounted for separately as Minor Components of the demand forecast.

Watercare has an agreement with Waikato District Council to provide a bulk supply of water to service Tuakau and Pokeno. Prior forecast volumes for this supply have been used in the demand estimate.

Non-revenue water (losses or otherwise unaccounted for water) has been included in forecast demand. These may include aspects such as meter under-recording, unauthorised consumption and operational uses within the network amounting to approximately 0.5% of the total bulk supply volume.

Real retail losses are calculated on a per connection basis for this forecast. This requires a forecast of the number of connections. The rate of losses per connection has been based on analyses of 2018 data and Watercare’s reported total non-revenue water for 2018. Transmission losses are included at 2% of the water production volume.

A dry year factor of 2.5% is applied to uplift the baseline forecast for dry years. The peak factor is used to uplift the annual forecast to a peak forecast.

The savings from implementing planned investment in demand management are applied following derivation of the baseline demand forecast, including such components as smart metering of schools, smart metering of non-domestic accounts and mains renewals.

5.1.3 Demand Forecast

Using the demand forecast model, peak day demand is expected to be approximately 833 MLD by 2055. Dry year average annual demand is forecast to be approximately 639 MLD by 2055.

During the period that this demand forecast has been prepared, an Auckland Council Working Group has been developing a long term water strategy for Auckland. The Strategy will provide clear direction to the Council for the management of wai as a taonga.

The Strategy considers different “pathway” options for supply and demand over a thirty year time period, including smart metering in all homes, increased water efficiency education, requiring new homes to be water efficient, new homes to have stormwater tanks for internal and external non-potable use and to have a smart, efficient network.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 28

For the purposes of the demand forecast for this application, no specific provision for the recommended pathways has been incorporated because the Strategy has not yet been finalised and there is significant uncertainty as to the level of savings that will be achieved if the Strategy is adopted. Watercare will continue to work closely with Auckland Council to develop the water strategy and will then implement the agreed pathway.

5.2 WATER AVAILABILITY

A key component of determining whether the assessed water supply demand can be met is to consider how much water would be available from the Watercare water supply sources to meet that demand. Water availability can vary depending on such aspects as maintenance requirements, requirement to meet environmental limits, climatic conditions affecting supply, or availability of infrastructure. Outage and headroom are concepts that are often used in water resource planning to take account of factors such as these.

The assessment of outage and headroom and how they affect the water supply and demand balance is set out in the report “Waikato River Take Proposal: Outage, headroom and the supply / demand balance”, December 2020 prepared for Watercare by Beca Limited.

There are four main inputs to the supply / demand balance:

• Deployable Output, which is the current volume of water that can be supplied, based on infrastructure, resource consent or hydrological constraints;

• Outage, which is an allowance for a short term loss of Deployable Output;

• Headroom, which is an allowance for supply and demand side uncertainties; and

• The demand forecast (both annual drought and peak demand) developed and summarised in Section 5.1.

The outage, headroom and the supply / demand balance report provides a technical assessment of Watercare’s available water supply at its two levels of service, which are that:

• Demand restrictions within the Metropolitan supply area are not required more frequently than 1 in 20 years (“peak level of service”); and

• Annual average demand within the Metropolitan supply area can be met in a drought with a 1% probability of occurrence leaving 15% residual capacity in its reservoirs (“drought level of service”).

The “peak supply / demand balance” is designed to show the forecast peak demand without restrictions during a dry summer with a return period of 1 in 20 years. Under drier conditions (leading to higher demand), restrictions to reduce peak demand can be

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 29

expected. The ‘annual drought supply / demand balance’ is designed to show the forecast annual average demand during a drought with a return period of 1 in 100 years.

The way in which the values of outage and headroom are incorporated in the supply- demand balance is shown in Figure 8. The planning allowance for outage is subtracted from the Deployable Output to give a value of Water Available for Use (“WAFU”). This represents the anticipated water available for supply (in any month).

Headroom represents an allowance for uncertainty in the supply / demand balance. The calculated value of headroom is added to the forecast demand. The combined total is used to determine when interventions, such as the development of new water resources, are required. When the WAFU is greater than demand plus headroom there is a surplus, and when WAFU is less than the forecast demand there is a deficit, which indicates that the target LoS cannot be met and intervention (such as through additional supplies) is required.

Figure 8: How Outage and Headroom are Included in the Supply-Demand Balance.

5.2.1 Peak Deployable Output 2020 to 2028

The Deployable Output of Watercare’s sources identifies the total water available from Watercare’s water supply system. It includes provision for such aspects as hydrological (source) yield, consented quantities, abstraction assets, treatment and water quality constraints.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 30

The Peak Deployable Output available to Watercare for the period 2020 to 2028 varies considerably due to consent and WTP capacity changes and is shown in Table 5.

The scenario assessed includes:

• An upgrade to the Huia WTP in 2027;

• The benefit provided to Watercare by other consent allocations;

• The Waikato 50 plant operating from 2021 to 2026; and

• The impact of WRP water take restrictions on the Waikato River.

This assessment does not include the development of the Waikato A WTP.

Table 5: Peak Day Deployable Outputs and Constraints.

Peak deployable (MLD)

Sourceworks 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

Waitakere 15

Huia 117 140

Ardmore 350

Waikato 128 149 170 170 170 170 170 170 128

Onehunga 10.8

Pukekohe 0 4.6

Papakura 0 5.6 11.1

TOTAL 622 652 679 679 679 679 679 702 660

5.2.2 Annual Drought Deployable Output

A summary of the Deployable Output during a drought with a 1% return period and with 15% storage remaining in the dams is shown in Table 6. In this scenario, all of the storage sources are constrained by the yield of the respective catchments, while some sources (for example, Onehunga and Pukekohe) are infrastructure limited. A baseline conjunctive use benefit of 20 MLD through running individual sources in a manner that maximises yield has been included. The Waikato River source is constrained by low flow restrictions.24

24 Rule 3.3.4.27 in the WRP provides that municipal water takes directly from surface water bodies will be restricted by users reducing their net daily take rate (averaged over any two consecutive days) by 15

percent of the authorised amount when the river flow is less than 90% of the Q5 flow for ten or more consecutive days.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 31

Table 6: Annual Drought Deployable Outputs.

Sourceworks 2020 2021 2022-2025 2026/7 2028

Onehunga 15 19

Huia 80

Ardmore 216

Waitakere 8

Papakura 0 6

Pukekohe 0 5

Waikato 144 156 194 161 150

Subtotal 463 488 526 493 481

Conjunctive 20 use benefit

TOTAL 483 508 546 513 501

5.2.3 Outage

Outage is a short-term loss in Deployable Output. An outage is temporary, in that it is expected that it can be retrieved. Normally this would be within days or weeks; anything longer term may require the Deployable Outage to be reduced, rather than including the effect as part of outage. It is noted that the Beca study has assumed that the components of outage are independent and do not occur concurrently. This is a simplifying assumption and has the potential to underestimate outage, particularly when associated with weather events. For example, a cyclone event could cause turbidity in the Hūnua sources as well as the Western sources; or the conditions which create algal blooms in several reservoirs could be expected to be concurrent.

The mean, mode (peak period only, as the annual outage results are a compilation of the summer and non-summer periods) and percentile values for the outage distribution are shown in Table 7.

The recommended outage allowances, representing the mean outage value for each period are 33.4 MLD (Peak) and 22.2 MLD (1 in 100 year annual drought). The outage allowances are approximately 4.9% of peak day Deployable Output and approximately 4% of the annual drought Deployable Output. It is noted that an allowance of 33.4 MLD corresponds to the 77th percentile of total peak outage while an allowance of 22.2 MLD corresponds to just under the 60th percentile average annual drought outage. This means that the actual outage could be greater than that allowed for, confirming that the allowances are conservative.

Table 7: Summary of Outage Results for the Peak and Annual Periods.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 32

Peak Annual Average

DO (MLD) 679 546

MLD % of production MLD % of production

Mean 33.4 4.9% 22.2 4.1%

Mode 26.4 3.8% 19.9 3.6%

Percentiles

1% 21.8 3.2% 16.5 3.0%

10% 24.0 3.5% 18.1 3.3%

20% 25.2 3.7% 19.0 3.5%

30% 26.2 3.9% 19.8 3.6%

40% 27.2 4.0% 20.5 3.8%

50% 28.3 4.2% 21.3 3.9%

60% 29.6 4.4% 22.2 4.1%

70% 31.4 4.6% 23.2 4.3%

80% 34.5 5.1% 24.7 4.5%

90% 44.7 6.6% 27.2 5.0%

99% 111.8 16.5% 39.1 7.2

5.2.4 Headroom

Headroom is an allowance that a prudent water company should take into account when developing plans to balance supplies and demands in order to deliver its desired LoS. The allowance is called “target headroom” and is designed to cater for specified demand and supply side uncertainties.

The annual drought headroom results over the period 2020 to 2055 are shown in Figure 9 below. Over the period modelled both the centre (mean value) and spread (difference between upper and lower percentiles) of the headroom distribution increase with time. This indicates that, in the short term, uncertainties are more likely to increase the buffer between available supply and demand but over time, uncertainties are likely to have an increasing impact on the supply / demand balance. The increase in spread indicates that the overall uncertainty increases with time; as expected, both supply and demand are harder to accurately predict further into the future.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 33

Figure 9: Distribution of Annual Average Headroom 2020 to 2055.

Peak period results presented in Figure 10 show similar trends to those from the annual drought period. In the short term, uncertainties are found to be more likely to improve the supply demand balance. However, this changes over time with uncertainties representing increasing levels of risk to 2055.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 34

Figure 10: Distribution of Peak Headroom 2020 to 2055.

The recommended allowances are shown in Table 8.

Table 8: Recommended Headroom Allowances (MLD).

2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

Peak 7.5 14.5 15.4 18.4 23.1 26.7 28.9 31.9

Annual 2.3 9.1 10.6 14.2 18.8 22.9 25.8 29.3 drought

The recommended allowance adopts the 75th percentile value for headroom to reflect the level of uncertainty that Watercare could reasonably expect to occur and plan for, i.e., a combination of 75% of potential uncertainties should be included as part of the supply / demand balance. The selection of the 75th percentile results in an annual average drought headroom of 2.3 MLD in 2020, increasing to 29.3 MLD in 2055. Peak headroom increases from 7.5 to 31.9 MLD over the same period. An increase in headroom over the planning horizon is to be expected, as uncertainties are larger further into the future.

5.3 THE SUPPLY / DEMAND BALANCE

The supply / demand balance brings together the results of the demand forecast with the assessments of deployable output, outage and headroom. The supply / demand balance

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 35

shows when investment in a new source is likely to be required, and how much additional water is required to meet the forecast demand.

The baseline supply / demand balance compares the demand forecast with the WAFU, to show when an intervention may be required, without considering uncertainty. The headroom uncertainty is then included to describe how this may change the required timing of investment.

The annual drought supply / demand balance is shown in Figure 11. Lines are shown for the demand forecast and headroom allowance.

Figure 11: Baseline Annual Drought Supply / Demand Balance.

The supply demand balance demonstrates that, to ensure continuity of water availability during a 1 in 100 year drought at Watercare’s LoS, a new source is required between 2025 and 2027.

The peak supply / demand balance is shown in Figure 12. Similar demand forecast lines are shown as for the annual drought supply / demand balance above. The supply demand balance for the peak day demonstrates the impact of changes in water available to Watercare. This demonstrates that after 2027, an alternative supply is required at peak.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 36

Figure 12: Baseline Peak Period Supply / Demand Balance.

The supply / demand balance assessment demonstrates that additional water (i.e., an additional water source) is required between 2025 and 2027 to ensure security of supply during a drought and by 2028 to meet peak day demands at Watercare’s LoS.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 37

6. ALTERNATIVE SOURCE ASSESSMENT

6.1 ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW

The options reviewed for additional water supply sources for the metropolitan Auckland supply are set out in the report “Water Source Options Assessment for the Metropolitan Supply”, December 2020, prepared for Watercare by Beca Limited. The following summary is drawn from that report. The report provides an assessment of the potential water resource options for Auckland and identifies the options that would be required to enable Watercare to meet demand.

The alternatives assessment draws on other reports including those setting out details for specific options as well as the demand forecast and outage, headroom and the supply / demand balance assessments. The process followed for assessing the options is generally identified in Figure 13.

Figure 13: Overview of the Options Assessment Process.

For the purpose of this assessment, the objective was to identify options that would secure sustainably sourced water for Watercare's customers to achieve:

• Certainty of supply in up to a 1:100 year drought with 15% residual dam storage; and

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 38

• Certainty of supply to meet peak demand.

Watercare's LoS commitments are identified in the Asset Management Plan 2018-2038 (Watercare Services Limited, 2018).

In undertaking the assessment, the following principles were developed to guide the approach taken, which together with the objective above formed the rationale for the options screening methodology used:

1. Secure future water sources with sufficient lead- in time to enable the delivery of water which meets the Drinking Water Standards New Zealand 2005 (Revised 2018) (Ministry of Health, 2018), before the average and/or peak demand exceeds the available supply;

2. Follow international guidance protocols to develop a water resources strategy which identifies water supply solutions and delivery systems which have sufficient resilience to service the water requirements of the Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland;

3. Provide water supply solutions which minimise the, environmental, carbon and social impacts at both local and regional levels and takes account of the potential effects of climate change;

4. Recognise the significance of wai (water), including the environment from which it is taken, to mana whenua and, to the greatest extent practicable, appropriately provide for cultural and spiritual aspirations of mana whenua with respect to wai;

5. In accordance with s57(1)(a) of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, provide a solution that achieves the long-term project objective while keeping overall costs of water supply to our customers (collectively) to a minimum;

6. Provide a solution that is consistent with relevant regulatory frameworks, that will meet the needs of the different types of land use activities identified within the zoning and scheme plans under the relevant statutory plans;

7. Contribute positively to the Auckland Plan 2050 (Auckland Council, 2018) and Watercare’s Vision and Mission (Watercare Services Limited, 2018); and

8. Engage meaningfully with mana whenua and other key stakeholders to build strong relationships with the parties that are have the potential to be affected by Watercare’s water take activities.

The focus of the process identified in the report was to identify one or more strategic sources to provide water to the Auckland metropolitan supply. A strategic source is identified as a source which:

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 39

• Can make a material, rather than incremental, difference to the supply / demand balance;

• Is able to provide this yield at Watercare’s LoS; and

• Can be implemented within a timeframe that can support the supply / demand balance (i.e., sources with abnormally long or complex timeframes can only be implemented later).

It is noted that identification of a strategic source would not preclude developing other new sources in parallel that may not meet the strategic source criteria above but have other local or efficiency benefits.

The assessment process was based on guidelines provided by the Water Services Association of Australia (“WSAA”) for planning for water supply (both demand and supply sides). In general terms, the sources considered in the process can be categorised as follows:

Groundwater Abstraction and treatment of water from aquifers. Watercare’s groundwater source at Onehunga is an example of this type of source.

Rainwater tanks A local source to either individual or groups of properties. The water can be used for certain non-potable demands without treatment or can meet all demand with adequate treatment.

Purified recycled water A beneficial use of wastewater, highly treated and disinfected for drinking to meet the Drinking Water Standards of New Zealand (Ministry of Health, 2018). Can be either direct or via an environmental receptor such as a reservoir or pumped into an aquifer.

Recycled water for Another beneficial use of wastewater, but the water is only non-drinking used for industrial and / or non-potable domestic uses. These schemes require a separate distribution network.

Seawater desalination Treatment of seawater to enable it to be used for drinking. The source is independent of rainfall but usually has a high energy requirement for the desalination process.

Stormwater harvesting Capturing, storing and treating stormwater from urban runoff and reuse for non-potable uses. Can be integrated with urban development and landscaping.

Surface water Surface water is abstracted from rivers or dams and treated for supply. Dams enable water to be stored across multiple

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 40

seasons. Watercare’s Metropolitan area is supplied by surface water abstractions from the Waikato River and ten dams.

Water tankers Water tankers can be used to transport water from areas where there is a surplus to one with a deficit. Usually, a last resort as it is very expensive and is not a source of water in itself.

Transfers Transfers of water from a region of surplus water to an area with a deficit. For example, Watercare provides a supply of water to part of the Waikato District from the existing Waikato WTP at Tuakau.

Water efficiency Projects to reduce water use either within the network or by customers through more efficient water use.

Source enhancements Improvements to existing sources to increase the yield or remove constraints.

The evaluation of potential water resource options for metropolitan water supply was updated to take account of additional information that has become available since 2013 and the assessment process was updated to make it more rigorous, robust and replicable.

The screening process was designed to identify flaws in the options against key criteria as early in the process as possible. An overview of the options screening process used is shown in Figure 14.

The Stage 1 initial screening process considered 77 surface water options, 32 groundwater options, 22 source enhancement options, 9 recycling for drinking water options, 5 recycling for non-drinking water options, 4 water carting options, 3 desalination options, 2 stormwater harvesting and reuse options, as well as rainwater tank, water efficiency, water sharing and mobile treatment plant options, giving a total of 152 individual options considered. The options identified were within 100 km of either the Watercare Schnapper Rock or Redoubt Road reservoirs, as indicated in Figure 15.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 41

Figure 14: Flowchart Overview of Options Screening Process.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 42

Figure 15: 100 km radii around Schnapper Rock Road Reservoir and Redoubt Road Reservoir.

Note: The Schnapper Rock Road reservoir is at the centre of the 100 km radius shown as a blue circle and the Redoubt Road reservoir is at the centre of the 100 km radius shown as an orange circle.

The Stage 1 assessment resulted in identification of:

• 110 options progressing for assessment in Stage 2;

• 36 options being rejected or replaced; and

• 6 options already being implemented that already included in the baseline supply / demand balance.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 43

6.2 STAGE 2 REVIEW

Stage 2 consisted of reviewing the long listed options on the basis of yield and technical feasibility with the aim of removing options that would not yield sufficient water to be considered as a strategic source and those which are not technically feasible.

Given the typical underlying growth rate in metropolitan demand and the estimated baseline supply / demand deficit, the minimum yield for a strategic source was determined as 20,000 m3/day. This provides for growth for approximately 3 years. For comparison, a typical consenting, design, financial approval and construction timescale would be approximately 4 to 5 years.

It is noted that if a series of much smaller sources were identified, there would be significant complexities, uncertainties and risks to obtaining resource consents and implementing several separate small schemes meaning that such an option is not likely to be feasible.

The assessment of technical feasibility is to give a broad indication of whether there are aspects of the proposal which would make it impractical for Watercare to invest in the option in question.

Each option was then evaluated against yield and feasibility criteria, with the exception of source enhancement options which were assessed only on technical feasibility, to produce a longlist of options.

The Stage 2 process started with a total of 110 options under consideration and resulted in 36 options progressing for assessment in Stage 3 and 74 options being rejected. The outcome of the Stage 2 assessment is summarised in Figure 16.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 44

Figure 16: Stage 2 Screening – Outcomes by WSAA Option Type.

6.3 STAGE 3 REVIEW

The Stage 3 assessment reviewed:

• 16 surface water options ranging from Waipu River tributaries to the north, the Kakamatua Stream to the west, the Tairua River to the east and the Waikato River to the south;

• 5 groundwater options, including takes from the Franklin Kaawa aquifer, Hauraki aquifers, Hamilton Basin aquifers and the Waitematā Aquifer Group;

• 6 Purified recycled water for drinking options, ranging from direct potable use at Rosedale or Māngere, and indirect potable use from Rosedale (Campbell Road dam) or Māngere (Waikato River augmentation or Rautawhiti dam);

• 7 source enhancement options, including Onehunga, Ardmore, Mangātawhiri, Hays Creek and Pukekohe; and

• Desalination, rainwater tank and water efficiency options.

The review considered potential cultural challenges, social challenges, environmental challenges, relative carbon impacts and resilience considerations. The list of options for

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 45

further review was refined at this stage by eliminating one groundwater source, two recycling of water for drinking water (indirect potable use), one source enhancement and eleven surface water options.

6.4 STAGE 4 REVIEW

The Stage 4 assessment reviewed:

• 5 surface water options ranging from Campbell Road tributaries and the Hoteo River to the north, the Waihou River to the east and the Waikato River to the south;

• 4 groundwater options, including takes from the Franklin Kaawa aquifer, Hauraki aquifers, Hamilton Basin aquifers and the Waitematā Aquifer Group;

• 3 Purified recycled water for drinking options, including direct potable use at Rosedale or Māngere, and indirect potable use from Rosedale (Campbell Road dam);

• 5 source enhancement options, including Onehunga, Ardmore, Mangātawhiri, Hays Creek and Pukekohe; and

• Desalination, rainwater tank and water efficiency options.

The review comprised a more detailed assessment, including consideration against the following 8 principles:

1. The need to secure future water sources with sufficient lead-in time to enable the delivery of water which meets the Drinking Water Standards New Zealand 2005 (Revised 2018), before the average and/or peak demand exceeds the available supply;

2. International guidance protocols for identifying water supply solutions and delivery systems which have sufficient resilience to service the water requirements of Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland;

3. The need to provide water supply solutions which minimise the environmental, carbon and social impacts at both local and regional levels and takes account of the potential effects of climate change;

4. Where possible in the context of the assessment, the significance of te wai (water), including the environment from which it is taken, to mana whenua and appropriately providing for cultural and spiritual aspirations of mana whenua with respect to te wai;

5. Providing a solution that achieves the long-term project objective while keeping overall costs of water supply to Watercare’s customers (collectively) consistent with s57(1)(a) of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009;

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 46

6. Providing a solution that is consistent with relevant regulatory frameworks, that will meet the needs of the different types of land use activities identified within the zoning and scheme plans under the relevant statutory plans;

7. The Auckland Plan 2050 and Watercare’s Vision and Mission; and

8. The implications for engagement with stakeholders that have the potential to be affected by Watercare’s water take activities.

The Stage 4 process narrowed the list of options further by eliminating two groundwater options (Waitematā Group and Hauraki aquifers), one option involving indirect potable use using the Campbell Road dam with additional surface water abstraction, the use of rainwater tanks as a strategic water supply source, all of the source enhancement options (noting that these could be advanced individually as additional options to supplement the water supply in future), surface water takes from the Waihou, Hoteo and Campbell road dam catchments and harvesting of water from the Waikato River to a new water storage reservoir.

This stage of the review also highlighted potential limitations regarding the ability to implement these options in time to meet the projected need for a new water source between 2025 and 2027.

6.5 STAGE 5 REVIEW

The remaining options, comprising takes from the Franklin Kaawa aquifer, direct potable reuse from Māngere, indirect potable reuse from Rosedale using the Campbell Road dam (with no additional surface abstraction), household rainwater harvesting (notwithstanding this having been rejected at Stage 4), deep-water desalination, upgrading of the Onehunga groundwater take, a Waikato River new abstraction and water efficiency / demand reduction, were considered in more detail at Stage 5.

Part of the more detailed consideration of the principles identified above included consideration of such matters as:

• The lead time required, whether it would improve both average and peak supply performance and whether there is potential to extend the source in the future;

• Whether the DWSNZ standards could be met;

• The level of certainty with regards to expected yield and / or water quality and the benefits / disbenefits the option offers in terms of geographic, operational and drought resilience;

• The expected environmental effects, including the expected lifecycle carbon footprint, social impacts, climate change effects;

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 47

• The cost of the option;

• The existing regulatory framework for the option, land requirements and whether Watercare already has rights to use it, the complexity and risks associated with the RMA consenting process and Auckland Plan and Watercare Vision and Mission implications; and

• Other strategic source implications.

It is noted that cultural / spiritual effects and Te Mana o te Wai implications were considered to the extent practicable within the assessment process but that it was acknowledged that these matters need to be addressed more specifically through consultation and engagement with mana whenua and iwi. Waikato-Tainui representatives participated in the options assessment process and provided valuable insight into Waikato-Tainui mana whenua perspectives.

As part of the Stage 5 assessment, detailed reports on desalination, recycled water use, raising existing dam crests to provide greater storage and rainwater use were considered. These are summarised below.

6.5.1 Desalination Options

A high-level concept design for a desalination scheme based at Rosedale WWTP (being representative of desalination options), including capital and operating cost estimates has been prepared to enable a “like for like” comparison with other water source options, including an equivalent recycled water scheme, and a water treatment plant using an abstraction from the Waikato River. The concept is set out in the report “Water Source Options Assessment for the Metropolitan Supply: Desalination Scheme Concept Report”, December 2020, prepared for Watercare by Beca Limited. A summary of the concept is presented below.

The conceptual desalination scheme comprises:

• New intake pipeline (with a nominal 2m diameter) about 3-4 km offshore to a desalination plant at the Rosedale WWTP site. The location and route of this pipeline has not been determined but will need to be located approximately 2.5 km away from the existing WWTP outfall and could be either north or south of this. Investigations and modelling would need to be undertaken to confirm an appropriate intake location and pipe route; however, this is outside the scope of this concept;

• A desalination plant located at the Rosedale WWTP site to treat the seawater;

• A discharge of brine from the reverse osmosis process used for treating seawater through the existing outfall from Rosedale WWTP. Other waste streams from the

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 48

desalination plant could either be discharged to the head of the WWTP or directly to the outfall; and

• Pumping of treated water from the desalination plant to new treated water storage facilities at Schnapper Rock.

The indicative layout for the desalination concept is shown in Figure 17.

Figure 17: Conceptual Deep Sea Desalination Scheme Based at Rosedale WWTP.

The infrastructure capacity and investment for the desalination scheme are split into two stages:

• An initial 75 MLD desalination plant, being a new treatment facility with a maximum sustainable daily average capacity of 75 MLD (average across 12 months). This stage includes the new outfall, power supply and transmission pipework for a 150 MLD plant and a desalination plant with the 75 MLD capacity; and

• Upgrading the desalination plant to 150 MLD through the addition of another maximum sustainable daily average capacity of 75 MLD, totalling 150 MLD (average across 12 months).

The ultimate design for the concept desalination plant for net supply of 150 MLD requires a gross influent average daily flow of 376 MLD and a peak flow of 400 MLD. The treatment process would result in a brine reject discharge to the sea of 226 MLD.

The cost estimate for the desalination scheme is (which has an accuracy of -25% to +50% at this level of design development and is an indication of cost only for comparison to

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 49

other options and not for budgeting purposes) for the first 75 MLD stage is $1.4 billion, while the second stage cost estimate is a further $380 million.

Operating costs based on examples of reported operating costs from existing overseas desalination facilities (suitable for option comparison purposes only) are estimated at approximately $30 to $58 million for Stage 1 and $60 to $120 million for Stage 2.

Ideally, the intake would be in deeper waters to minimise temperature fluctuations and organic contamination. For the Hauraki Gulf, this would require the intake to be located approximately 15 km offshore, although an intake located approximately 5 km offshore would provide some buffer for temperature fluctuations and organic contamination.

The seawater treatment process would involve initial screening, dissolved air flotation clarification, straining, ultra-filtration membranes, 1st and 2nd pass reverse osmosis steps, disinfection and remineralistion steps, as generally described in Figure 18.

Figure 18: Desalination Process Flow Diagram.

It is noted that the concept design did not include:

• Geotechnical / geological investigations of the sites and tunnel / trenched pipeline routes;

• Survey information of the site, intake and potable water pipeline route;

• Access to the sites for review;

• Details of the Transpower connection charges into the Albany substations;

• Watercare’s previous work on the proposed Schnapper Rock treated water reservoirs; and

• Planning considerations for the pipeline routes.

On that basis the concept is indicative only for the purposes of comparison with other options.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 50

The assumptions and risks associated with this concept include:

• The site identified at Watercare’s Rosedale WWTP may be too small for a 150 MLD desalination plant and further concept design work would need to be undertaken to determine whether a desalination plant could fit on the land identified;

• The conceptual design did not include a review of the marine modelling in the Murrays Bay to Campbells Bay area. A detailed study of the marine currents in this area would be required to confirm the location of the intake to prevent the Rosedale WWTP effluent plume and desalination brine entering the desalination intake;

• Using the Rosedale site for a desalination facility is highly likely to exclude using the site for an advanced water treatment plant to produce purified recycled water, given the limited area available on site;

• A combined desalination and recycled water plant (using Rosedale WWTP effluent) would not be recommended as this would result in a more expensive plant that would not treat either the seawater or the wastewater effluent efficiently;

• The 2015 water quality information used for the assessment would need to be updated and gaps in the data would need to be addressed, including specific boron levels, updating the NIWA model of the marine currents and sourcing environmental sampling information from the shellfish farms for the east coast, specifically information related to algae;

• A route and long section for the desalination plant intake would need to be developed and further work would need to be undertaken to determine a feasible intake location and route;

• The existing Rosedale WWTP outfall has a capacity of 6 m3/s. This is the predicted peak capacity in 2058. When the discharge from the WWTP reaches the outfall capacity during wet weather events, the desalination plant may need to be shut down until there is capacity in the outfall pipe for the desalination plant discharge. The existing ponds at Rosedale may be able to be used as buffer storage;

• The geotechnical / geology assessment is based on a desktop study only and no physical investigations have been undertaken of the site or pipeline routes; and

• The technology proposed is not designed to treat an oil / chemical spill near the intake. Such an event would mean the plant would be offline for a period of time until it was cleaned up and / or naturally dispersed.

The drinking water regulatory framework in New Zealand does not specifically recognise seawater treated through a desalination process as a source of drinking water. While this is not an issue in terms of the need to meet the chemical and radiological maximum

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 51

acceptable values (MAV) in the DWSNZ, some work will be required to amend the current regulatory framework to reflect risks that are specific to seawater and the marine environment. Watercare would need to work with the new regulator (Taumata Arowai) to amend the current regulatory framework. The timeframe to amend the current regulations is expected to be 6 – 10 years.

The implementation of desalination plants in major cities in Australia was primarily triggered by what is now referred to as the Millennium Drought. Given the severity of the drought, there was not significant opposition to these projects in Australia. The timeframe for adopting seawater treated through a desalination process as a source of drinking water will predominantly be based on the regulatory framework requirements. It is expected that once the regulations are amended, it would take a further 5 – 10 years to implement (construct and commission) a full-scale plant.

There would need to be a substantial consultation process as part of the consenting activities.

6.5.2 Purified Recycled Water Schemes

A high-level concept design has been developed for three purified recycled water schemes involving an Advanced Water Treatment Plant (“AWTP”) process at either Rosedale or Māngere WWTP, and transmission of treated water to connect into the wider Auckland transmission system, including capital and operating cost estimates, to enable a “like for like” comparison with other water source options. Those options include an equivalent desalination scheme, and a water treatment plant using an abstraction from the Waikato River. The concept is set out in the report “Source Options Assessment for the Metropolitan Supply: Purified Recycled Water Scheme Concept Report”, December 2020, prepared for Watercare by Beca Limited. A summary of the concept is presented below.

The three schemes considered were:

1. An indirect potable option using a storage lake built at Campbell Road (but with no surface abstractions into the lake). Purified recycled water from the Rosedale WWTP would be stored in an off-line storage lake at Campbell Road and then treated to potable standard before being put into supply at Schnapper Rock; 2. A direct potable option at Rosedale. Purified recycled water from the Rosedale WWTP would be pumped directly into the bulk supply network at new reservoirs at Schnapper Rock; and 3. A direct potable option at Māngere: Purified recycled water from the Māngere WWTP would be pumped directly into the bulk supply network via the Hūnua 4 watermain.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 52

A schematic diagram of the indirect reuse option (option 1 above) is shown in Figure 19, while the direct reuse (Rosedale and Māngere) options are shown in Figure 20 and Figure 21.

Figure 19: Schematic for Indirect Potable Reuse Rosedale AWTP to Campbell Road Reservoir (no surface abstraction).

Figure 20: Schematic for Rosedale Direct Potable Reuse.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 53

Figure 21: Schematic for Māngere Direct Potable Reuse.

The infrastructure capacity and investment for the reuse schemes are split into two stages:

• An initial 75 MLD treatment plant, being a new treatment facility with a maximum sustainable daily average capacity of 75 MLD (average across 12 months).

• Upgrading the plant to 150 MLD through the addition of another maximum sustainable daily average capacity of 75 MLD, totalling 150 MLD (average across 12 months).

The Rosedale WWTP would not be able to achieve the 150 MLD capacity until after 2038 based on average effluent flow. The 150 MLD scheme would need to either be delayed until sufficient flow is available at the Rosedale WWTP or a smaller scheme could be installed at Rosedale to match the North Shore effluent flows. The Māngere WWTP can achieve both the first and second stages now, as indicated in Table 9.

Table 9: AWTP Plant Capacity.

Description Rosedale 2038 Rosedale 2058 Māngere 2020

WWTP Effluent

Dry weather flow (MLD) 86 104 259

Average flow (MLD) 144 174 330

Peak flow (MLD) 433 520 875

AWTP

Influent (gross) Av. Daily Flow (MLD)1 144 174 192

Reject Flows (20% of influent) (MLD) 17 (dry weather) 21 (dry weather) 39 29 (average) 35 (average)

Dry Weather Net Product Flows (MLD) 69 83 150

Average Net Product Flows (MLD) 115 139

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 54

In Table 9, the Māngere WWTP already has sufficient effluent flow to achieve the 150MLD AWTP capacity with the present (2020) dry weather flow, so the influent flow is what is required to achieve 150MLD net product flow. For Rosedale WWTP, the influent flow is equal to average effluent flow.

The cost estimate summary for the recycled water schemes is summarised in Table 10 (values shown are in NZD millions [$,000,000]) and is considered to have an accuracy of - 25% to +50% at this level of design development. These high level estimates are an indication of cost only for comparison to other options and should not be used for budgeting purposes.

The operational cost estimate summary is summarised in Table 11. These costs are based on examples of reported operation costs from existing AWTPs and are suitable for option comparison purposes only.

Table 10: Cost estimate for 75 MLD and 150 MLD Reuse Options.

Option Stage AWTP Reservoir Transmission Indirect Total Total and WTP Costs scheme

Indirect potable – 75 MLD $415 $335 $360 $462 $1,600 Campbell Rd Storage $1,900 Lake Option 3 (no 150 MLD $180 $70 $0 $105 $350 surface abstraction)

75 MLD $415 n/a $65 $200 $680 Direct potable – $940 Rosedale pumped 150 MLD $180 n/a $0 $76 $260

75 MLD $380 n/a $50 $180 $610 Direct potable – $840 Māngere pumped 150 MLD $150 n/a $0 $63 $210

Table 11: Operation Cost Estimate ($/annum) for 75 MLD and 150 MLD Reuse Options.

Operating Cost ($/yr)

75 MLD 150 MLD

Indirect potable – Campbell Rd Storage Lake (no $15 million to $23 million $29 million to $45 million surface abstraction)

Direct potable – Rosedale pumped $8 million to $16 million $16 million to $33 million

Direct potable – Māngere pumped $8 million to $16 million $16 million to $33 million

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 55

While purified recycled water (direct and indirect) are technically feasible, they are unlikely to be achievable in the short term. This is because a change to the existing regulatory framework for drinking water in New Zealand would be required to enable direct or indirect potable purified recycled water use. There is currently no certainty about the willingness of central government to progress such a change, and the timeframe in which this could be achieved, particularly given the likelihood of community resistance and cultural concerns in relation to purified recycled water as a drinking water source.

Community resistance would seem particularly likely if purified recycled water was pumped directly into the treated water network (as with the Rosedale or Māngere direct potable reuse options) and is also likely to be significant with an indirect use option. A direct scheme is likely to require more time to gain community acceptance, particularly as the size of the schemes proposed in this report (up to 150 MLD purified recycled water) are larger than direct purified recycled water plants that are currently operational around the world, which range from 2 – 27 MLD.

The lead time is therefore expected to be considerable as Watercare would need to develop pilot plants, influence changes to legislation and develop a community engagement programme. Therefore, it is not expected that a full-scale recycled water scheme could be implemented (constructed and commissioned) within the next 15 years. It could take 15 years just to get community acceptance and a regulatory framework in place, then potentially a further 5 – 10 years to implement a full-scale plant.

By way of example, Perth’s groundwater replenishment scheme recharges aquifers with purified recycled water. It is one of few Australian utilities to implement and use purified recycled water from wastewater for drinking. The journey to implement the scheme is described as “a result of two decades of work in securing the trust of regulators, bipartisan Government support and community acceptance”25 even though surface water inflows to Perth’s water supply reservoirs decreased by more than 80% over the 40 year period to 2019 due to reduced rainfall (with rainfall expected to decline by a further 15% by 2030).26

6.5.3 Dam Raising Assessment

Tonkin & Taylor Ltd. were engaged by Watercare to investigate the potential to increase water supply to the Auckland region by raising its existing dams so as to increase the yield of its storage lakes. The assessment is described in the report “Water Source Options Assessment for Metropolitan Supply: Report on option to increase water supply by raising

25 All Options on the Table: Urban water supply options for Australia, Water Services Association of Australia, August 2020. 26 Western Australia Water Corporation, https://www.watercorporation.com.au/About-us/Latest- updates/November-2020/Perth-a-growing-city-with-declining-rainfall-adapting-to-the-new-normal.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 56

existing dams”, December 2020 prepared for Watercare by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd. The investigation involved two key parts: a. Assessment of the potential increase in yield for ten of Watercare’s existing storage lakes; and b. Appraisal of the practicality of raising these dams by way of an example case, Māngātangi Dam. Although raising other dams would vary in detail, the challenges are likely to be broadly similar in nature as discussed further below.

The key conclusions from part (a), the assessment of increase in yield, are:

• The estimated yield increase provided by raising any one of the ten existing dams falls short of the minimum screening threshold of 20,000 m3/day that has been adopted in the broader alternative options assessment process that supports the Waikato River take application.

• The estimated increases in yield were 1,835 to 13,550 m3/day for raising each of the ten dams by 10 m. The largest increases were for Māngātangi Dam and Upper Mangātawhiri Dam, so consideration was given to raising these two dams further with the aim of exceeding the screening threshold.

• The estimated increase in yield was 15,600 m3/day for raising Upper Mangatāwhiri Dam by 15 m, and 17,850 m3/day for raising Māngātangi Dam by 15 m. Both options still fall short of screening threshold of 20,000 m3/day.

• The aggregated increase in yield if all ten dams were raised by 10 to 15 m is 73,000 m3/day. Although this exceeds the screening threshold, raising each dam is a complex, major project in its own right.

The assessment of the practicality of raising the dams has been summarised by way of an assessment of raising the Māngātangi Dam as an example case (part b of the assessment), the key conclusions are outlined below.

Major project

Raising Māngātangi Dam would be a major civil engineering project of a similar scale as the original construction of the dam. By way of illustration, approximately the same volume of earthworks is required to raise the dam by 15 m, as was required for the original construction of the whole dam.

Environmental impacts

Raising the dam, and thus the storage lake levels, would inundate an additional margin of native broadleaf / podocarp / Kauri forest which supports ecologically significant habitats, with possible presence of threatened / endangered species of plants and animals.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 57

Furthermore, an additional section of Māngātangi Stream, would be inundated at the upstream end of the storage lake with associated impacts on aquatic ecology.

Construction and operation of the raised dam would result in significant environmental effects, particularly on indigenous biodiversity and habitats and on freshwater systems. Notwithstanding any other measures to avoid, minimise and remedy effects, substantial offsets and/or compensation would still be required.

Consentability

The project will be subject to significant scrutiny and likely opposition through any consent process. The effects management hierarchy required by the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (2020) together with the requirement to demonstrate a functional need to locate in a particular environment, and also to consider alternatives under the RMA, pose significant hurdles to gaining consents. Gaining resource consent approval for the works would be very challenging.

Dam safety

The risk of a breach or dam failure due to a flood could potentially be worsened during construction. This would be mitigated to the extent practicable by careful construction sequencing, defensive measures, and risk management.

The consequences of a dam failure to people, property, and the environment downstream would be permanently worsened due to the increased height and water volume that could hypothetically be released by a breach.

The likely replacement and possible damage to some of the existing dam monitoring instrumentation during the works is also undesirable for ongoing dam safety management, which depends on continuous historical records and trends.

Security and continuity of water supply provided by the existing storage lake

It is assumed that the dam raising works can be undertaken without dewatering the storage lake and without taking the storage lake out of service. However, this is based on several critical assumptions, such as that the existing valve tower can be raised and strengthened while in operation, and that earthworks to raise the dam can be constructed on the downstream face and crest with minimal intrusion into the existing embankment.

There is a risk to water quality during construction with low levels of water and construction activities that may require treatment (settling ponds and filters) before water can be sent to the Ardmore Water Treatment Plant.

Technical challenges

Technical challenges for the raising of the Māngātangi Dam include:

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 58

• Complexity introduced by retrofitting an existing and operational asset, including tying in with the existing core and filter zones in the dam, working within a constrained space to strengthen the valve tower, avoiding contamination risks to the operational storage lake, and managing flood risk during construction while also aiming to avoid dewatering and impacts on operation.

• Uncertainty regarding the condition of existing structures and what might be required to remediate any deficiencies, such as the structural and seismic capacity of the valve tower, and the potential need to take the valve tower out of operation with implications for water supply during construction.

• Borrow areas were extensively mined during the original construction, so suitable material is likely to be further away or potentially already exhausted. Some of the original borrows are now inundated by the storage lake.

• Limited nearby space for spoil disposal and temporary stockpiles which will constrain the speed of construction and extend the period of disruption and risk.

• Limited space for erosion and sediment control.

• Significant uncertainty regarding borrow materials and batter slopes, which could potentially be mitigated by more detailed geotechnical investigation. Any new borrows and haul roads upstream or downstream of the dam are likely to be on steep slopes, which has implications for cost, haul times, erosion and sediment control, and risk of slips. Consenting requirements for the borrows and access may be prohibitive, especially where located in native bush.

• Geotechnical risk and uncertainty which could potentially be mitigated by more detailed investigation. For example, geological and geotechnical conditions are uncertain at the location of the new spillway channels that are currently assumed in the preliminary concept arrangement. Similarly, there is uncertainty regarding the integrity of the east-west aligned ridgeline at the south-eastern edge of the existing dam fill, which would be relied upon to support additional dam fill.

Timeframes and cost

The major scale of the project is reflected in a programme from investigation through to commissioning of approximately five to eight years and a preliminary construction cost estimate of $117 to $135 million (excluding GST).

Summary

The appraisal of raising Māngātangi Dam was based solely on physical works immediately at the dam. Realising the increased yield will likely require upgrading downstream treatment and transmission infrastructure, which will entail additional impacts, risks, and challenges.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 59

The challenges involved in raising other dams are likely to be broadly similar, i.e., loss of significant area of terrestrial habitat on the storage lake margins, major earthworks, retrofitting an existing structure built to historical design standards, flood and dam safety risk during construction, replacement and damage to dam safety monitoring instrumentation, geotechnical risks, challenges in construction, significant consenting risks, and risk of interruption to water supply provided by existing dam levels.

Raising an existing dam would also not introduce any new geographical / source diversity in terms of security of supply and would be affected by the same weather patterns that periodically reduce the yield of the other existing storage lakes.

The increase in yield from raising an existing dam falls short of the minimum threshold of interest for the projected demand under consideration. Moreover, consideration of the practicalities of raising Māngātangi Dam as an example has demonstrated that raising an existing dam is a complex, risky and major project in terms of capital cost, timeframes for development, technical challenges and viability, environmental impacts, and consenting challenges.

6.5.4 Rainwater Use Assessment

As part of the assessment of options to increase water supply to the Auckland region the potential for use of local rainwater tanks to be considered as a strategic water source for Auckland has been assessed. The findings of this study are summarised in the report “Water Source Options Assessment for the Metropolitan Supply: Rainwater Tanks Concept Report”, December 2020 prepared for Watercare by Beca Ltd.

The analysis considers how rainwater tanks could impact the supply/demand balance by 2055 at Watercare’s two relevant LoS:

1. Demand restrictions within the Metropolitan supply area are not required more frequently than 1 in 20 years (peak LoS); and

2. Annual average demand within the Metropolitan supply area can be met in a drought with a 1% probability of occurrence leaving 15% residual capacity in its reservoirs (annual average drought LoS).

The analysis focuses on an “optimistic” scenario designed to represent the maximum possible uptake of rainwater tanks that could realistically be achieved, assuming very strong legislative drive, subsidies and community desire. Under this scenario, installation of rainwater tanks at new properties is mandated from 2023 with 100% of new properties having tanks installed from 2035 onwards. Rainwater tanks are also retrofitted at existing properties at a rate of 3,000 properties per year from 2023 onwards. This results in 270,000 rainwater tanks being installed by 2055; coving approximately 36% of Auckland’s domestic properties. It includes the following:

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 60

• Analysis of recent water tanker sales to gauge the performance of existing rainwater tanks throughout recent dry periods;

• Assessing the rainwater tank peak LoS, particularly with regard to the potential benefit that rainwater tanks could have made during the 2019 and 2020 dry summers;

• Developing detailed information about the annual average yield of rainwater tanks during drought conditions;

• Comparing the scale of total storage volumes that could realistically be obtained from rainwater tanks with Watercare’s existing dam storage;

• Cost estimates based on 2020 prices; and

• Reviewing the conjunctive use benefits of rainwater tanks.

The report concludes that, if approximately 270,000 small, medium and large rainwater tanks are installed within new and existing properties by 2055, the average yield would be expected to be 15 MLD at the peak LoS and 30 MLD at the annual average drought LoS. The reason that rainwater tanks can make a larger contribution to the annual average drought LoS is that, during dry summers, by the time peak demand day occurs many rainwater tanks will be empty due to the combination of low rainfall and high summer demand. However, even during a drought year they do provide some supply when rain occurs (particularly during the winter) which leads to the modelled yield on average across the year.

A disadvantage of rainwater tanks compared to some of the other sources considered is that yields increase incrementally based on the staged installation of tanks, with only 3.8 MLD of annual average drought yield expected to be achievable by 2030.

Cost estimates for the optimistic scenario (2020 prices) are:

• Annual capital costs for tank installations rise from $28 million in 2023 to $58 million in 2055 over the 32-year period, representing a total capital cost of $1623 million;

• Operating costs of rain tanks, excluding periodic replacement of the pumps and tanks, is $1.15 per cubic meter (calculated based on the average annual drought yield);

• The net present value cost of the optimistic scenario (capital and operational cost) is estimated as $726 million; and

• The annualised incremental cost (net present value of the scheme divided by the discounted annual average drought yield) is $15 / m3.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 61

While use of rainwater tanks is technically feasible, they would not provide the water required to meet the supply / demand balance requirements set out in Section 5 of this AEE. There is significant uncertainty associated with implementation of this option (in terms of timing and uptake) and with the ongoing contribution that such tanks would provide (due to maintenance and tank management requirements).

6.5.5 Stage 5 Conclusion

Stage 5 involved assessing the shortlisted options in further detail and consideration of the following perspectives:

• A comprehensive assessment against the project principles;

• A comparative cost assessment (calculation of the marginal unit cost of water for each option);

• An assessment of the relative carbon impact of each option; and

• An assessment of the potential for different combinations of options to maintain the supply / demand balance to 2055 at both of Watercare’s LoS.

Following the stage 5 assessment process, the Waikato River take was identified as the preferred ‘large scheme’ option. It is the only option which has sufficient capacity to provide certainty of supply to meet the demand requirements from 2025 (during drought conditions) and in 2028 (daily peak demand) when the current supply options are at capacity. In addition to this, the other ‘large scheme’ options were not suitable primarily given the significant lead in times and the restrictive planning and legislative framework.

The assessment also recommended that a further three ‘small’ schemes should also be considered by Watercare, being:

• Onehunga groundwater upgrade;

• Water efficiency measures; and

• Franklin Kaawa aquifer.

None of these schemes or approaches would supply sufficient water to meet the estimated daily peak or drought water demand requirements in the foreseeable future but could provide useful adjuncts to the existing Watercare water supply network. Each scheme would require further detailed assessment to determine the likely yield and implementation requirements.

6.6 CONCLUSION

Watercare has undertaken a robust and exhaustive alternative options assessment looking at 156 potential water resource options that could be developed to meet the forecast

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 62

demand requirements over the next 35 years. Through this process, the options were narrowed down through a staged and increasingly detailed assessment process to identify a preferred option for implementation between 2025 and 2026 being the date by which a new water source is required, as demonstrated in the supply/demand balance assessment.

Acknowledging that Watercare has a duty to supply sufficient water for its customers in Auckland and North Waikato, both now and in the future, and given the lead in times for the new strategic scheme approaches assessed (e.g., more than 15 years for a purified recycled water system), the assessment process identified the Waikato River water take as the preferred water source option for meeting the estimated daily peak and drought demand requirements. In addition to progressing with the preferred approach, it was concluded that Watercare should continue to investigate the potential direct and indirect purified recycled water ‘large scheme’ options for potential implementation in the late 2030s to meet ongoing growth in demand.

The certainty provided by the Waikato River source will enable Watercare to properly investigate other future options (potentially including direct purified recycled water, indirect purified recycled water or desalination) and make informed investment decisions once many of the current barriers to implementation have been addressed. Implementation of one of these options could be required by as soon as the early 2040s.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 63

7. INTAKE LOCATION AND TYPE

The intake options assessed for the project are described in the report “Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal: Water Intake Feasibility Report”, December 2020 prepared for Watercare by GHD. The report presents a proposed river intake feasibility design developed from an assessment of a long-list and a short-list of options seeking to minimise environmental, cultural, social, and operational effects. The intake structure incorporates screening to mitigate effects on river ecology, cleaning requirements for the screens and provision for discharges from the proposed Waikato A WTP.27

7.1 INTAKE LOCATION

Key requirements for the proposed intake are:

• The intake structure works must generally be more than 20 m away from a rock platform at the mouth of the tributary stream immediately upstream of the existing intake structure which is a site of cultural significance to iwi;

• The existing pump station and intake must remain operational for the majority of the time. Any downtime to the raw water system operation must be for very short durations (in terms of hours rather than days) and must be planned well in advance;

• The river bathymetry must be suitable for a river intake structure, including sufficient water depth and velocity;

• The proposal must avoid significant risk and downtime to the existing intake and pump station that cannot be appropriately managed during construction;

• The structure must have sufficient resilience of the new intake against high river flows, riverbank erosion, intake sedimentation, land instability and seismic events; and

• The structure must not result in cultural or ecological effects that cannot be appropriately managed.

The intake options in the vicinity of the existing Watercare site are identified in Figure 22. The options were narrowed to four options for further detailed analysis, considering environmental matters, cultural and community matters, statutory matters, constructability, and operation and maintenance matters. Waikato-Tainui representatives participated in the options assessment process and provided valuable insight into Waikato-Tainui mana whenua perspectives.

27 The proposed Waikato A WTP, raw water pump station and rising main do not form part of this consent application.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 64

Figure 22: Long List Intake Options – Watercare Site.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 65

The short listed options considered were:

• A new pump station and in-river fine screened intake downstream of the existing intake structure (Option 2b);

• A floating intake (Option 4) with a pump station on a pontoon in the river;

• A new pump station and in-river fine screened intake located at a bluff approximately 740 metres downstream of the existing intake (Option 5b); and

• A long tunnel and pump station at the Waikato A WTP, with an in-river fine screened intake as for Option 2b (Option 7).

Following the discussion of the short listed options, the preferred option of an in-river screened intake located downstream and adjacent to the existing intake screens was identified. The intake screens would supply a gravity main that would convey the water to the riverbank. The short list assessment identified that both Options 2b and 7 would satisfy these criteria and that the river intake components would likely be identical or very similar for both.

As the in-river components of these two options are similar (both for construction and operation) the consents sought provide for both. A final decision on the landward activities would be made as part of final design for the Waikato A WTP and land based activities associated with the water take. Important characteristics of these two options include:

• The intake would be located in the ideal location from bathymetric perspective. A deep and stable scour channel in the river bed provides sufficient depth for the intake structure and screens;

• From a geotechnical and seismic resilience perspective, the site for the current raw water pump station and intake tunnel are likely to be in the best position.;

• The potential effects on river ecology during operation are well known based on data available for the existing intake;

• Reduced impacts on terrestrial ecology compared to constructing at a new greenfield site, as the existing access road and some of the existing infrastructure can be shared;

• Locating the intake below the water surface and adjacent to the existing intake reduces the potential effects on recreational activities, visual amenity, and natural environment; and

• The operation and maintenance would be the same as or similar to the existing intake and therefore, provide certainty and familiarity to Watercare.

The two intake options are shown in Figure 23 and Figure 24.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 66

Figure 23: Riverbank Pump Station Intake Option.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 67

Figure 24: Waikato A WTP Pump Station Intake Option.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 68

7.2 INTAKE TYPE

The intake would be screened to provide a maximum intake velocity of 0.15 m/s with a maximum slot size of 1.5 mm. This can be readily achieved using a structure similar to that used for the existing intake structure. Given the performance of the existing intake, a similar screening approach is considered appropriate for the proposed intake screen.

Two variations for cleaning the in-river screened intake have been assessed, these being a brushed system and an airburst (sparging) system, the latter being what is used on the existing intake. In terms of construction feasibility, these options are interchangeable. However, further investigation will be carried out to gain certainty around the potential operational and maintenance implications of an air brushed system during a detailed design process. The overall footprint for each option is similar and the assessment of effects has considered both options.

The brushed screen manifold is approximately the same length as the airburst (sparging) manifold and the two types of intake manifolds would weigh a similar amount, the design of the intake structure piles required in the river bed would be identical or very similar.

The proposed new intake screens would be located immediately downstream of the existing intake manifold, allowing for a notional 4 m separation between the existing and new installation. The screens would be designed to allow approximately 2 m of submergence at the top of the screens at low river water level. Monitoring of the river bed at the existing intake indicates that the bed level at this location would provide sufficient water depth for the screens.

The existing screens are located approximately 25 m off the true right bank within a pronounced underwater trench. The highest river flow velocity, and the least likely position for river bed elevation increase occurs in this location. The proposed new screens would be located generally in line with the existing screens, with the new screens being, due to the curve of the river, around 10 m to 15 m from the edge of the riverbank (rock bluff).

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 69

8. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

The Waikato River is New Zealand’s longest river and drains a significant portion of the central North Island. The Waikato River is a significant natural resource and supports many existing uses.

8.1 GENERAL SETTING

The Waikato WTP is located in the north of the Waikato District in the Waikato Region, on Hayward Road approximately 4.5 km southeast of the Tuakau township. The site is adjacent to the true right bank of the Waikato River and is designated for water treatment plant purposes under the Waikato District Plan (Franklin Section). State Highway 1 is 4.6 km east of the Waikato WTP site. Transpower’s 220 kV transmission corridor crosses over part of the site. The location of the Waikato WTP is shown in Figure 4.

The area within which the Waikato WTP is located is sparsely populated and the closest settlements are Tuakau and Pokeno. Land use surrounding the Waikato WTP is predominantly rural, with the Pukekawa Quarry located on the true left bank of the Waikato River opposite the Waikato WTP, and an exotic pine plantation to the north and east of the site. An area of predominantly indigenous vegetation is located within the Watercare site to the west of the Waikato WTP. This mixed indigenous vegetation is dominated by manuka and / or kanuka, along with mature kahikatea and other broadleaved indigenous hardwoods.

8.2 CULTURAL

The Waikato River and surrounding lands are culturally important to mana whenua. Waikato-Tainui has a special relationship with the Waikato River, which is understood to be central to the iwi’s identity and represents the mana and mauri of its people. The importance of the Waikato River to Waikato-Tainui is captured in the he maimai aroha introducing Tai Tumu, Tai Pari, Tai Ao, the Waikato-Tainui Environmental Plan:

Ka maatakitaki iho au ki te riu o Waikato Aanoo nei hei kapo kau ake maaku ki te kapu o taku ringa, Ka whakamiri noa i toona aratau E tia nei he tupu pua hou.

Kia hiwa ake au i te tihi o Pirongia, Inaa, hei toronga whakaruruhau moona ki tooku tauawhirotanga.

Anaa! Te ngoto o toona ngawhaa i ngoona uma kiihai i aarikarika a Maungatautari, a Maungakawa, ooku puke maunga, ngaa taonga tuku iho. Hoki ake nei au ki tooku awa koiora me ngoona pikonga He kura tangihia o te maataamuri.

E whakawhiti atu ai i te koopuu maania o Kirikiriroa,

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 70

Me ngoona maara kai, te ngawhaa whakatupu ake o te whenua moomona, Hei kawe ki Ngaaruawaahia, te huinga o te tangata.

Araa, te pae haumako, hei okiokinga moo taku Upoko, Hei tirohanga atu maa raro i ngaa huuhaa o Taupiri.

Kei reira raa, kei te oroko hanganga o te tangata, Waahia te tuungaroa o te whare, te whakaputanga moo te Kiingi.

I look down on the valley of Waikato, as though to hold it in the hollow of my hand and caress its beauty, like some tender verdant thing.

I reach out from the top of Pirongia, as though to cover and protect its substance with my own

See how it bursts through the full bosoms of Maungatautari and Maungakawa, hills of my inheritance: The river of life, each curve more beautiful than the last.

Across the smooth belly of Kirikiriroa, its gardens bursting with the fullness of good things, towards the meeting place at Ngaaruawaahia.

There on the fertile mound I would rest my head, and look through the thighs of Taupiri.

There at the place of all creation... let the King come forth.

In recognition of this special relationship, Watercare maintains open dialogue and has a collaborative relationship with Waikato-Tainui. The key to this relationship and partnership is tikanga, transparency, good faith, patience and understanding.

8.3 THE WAIKATO RIVER

The Waikato River has two principal sub-catchments, being the main stem of the Waikato River with headwaters in the Taupo area, and the Waipā River with headwaters in the ranges east of Te Kuiti. The Waikato River has a catchment area of approximately 14,456 square kilometres (“km2”) beginning on the slopes of Mt Ruapehu in the central North Island at 2,797 m above sea level and running in a general northwest direction. It is fed by hill-country streams, smaller rivers, springs, lakes and wetlands, with the length of the

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 71

contributing river and stream network being approximately 22,478 km and a main stem length of approximately 336 km.28

Flows are diverted from the headwaters of the Whanganui and Rangitikei Rivers to the Waikato River by the Tongariro Power Scheme. The Waikato River joins the Tongariro River system before flowing into, and out of, Lake Taupo and cutting through the volcanic plateau where it passes through a series of hydroelectricity dams. This Section of the Waikato River is typically identified as the “upper Waikato River” which is characterised by steeper slopes and the hydroelectricity dams. The associated hydroelectric power stations and reservoirs are managed by Mercury Energy. The Karapiro Dam is the most downstream structure, and its operation can significantly affect the flows in the downstream reaches of the river. Downstream of Lake Karapiro, the “lower Waikato River” flows through a number of urban centres before emerging onto the lowland floodplains. The flows in the lower Waikato River are thus determined largely by the Waikato Regional Council flood management rules and conditions of consent for Mercury Energy at Karapiro during high flows, and consent conditions requiring the release of residual flow discharges during low flows.

This Section of the river is wide and shallow and becomes braided in the lowest reaches, and water quality is generally lower than in the upper Waikato River. From around Meremere, the river flows are slower and are influenced by the tidal fluctuations at the seaward end.

There are tidal influences on the Waikato River water levels as far upstream as Rangiriri (approximately 66 km from the mouth of the Waikato River). The daily tidal range at the intake site is approximately 0.5 m.

The Waikato WTP and associated intake structure are located in the most downstream Section of the Waikato River catchment, 36 km from the river mouth. The intake is located within the area of tidal influence.

8.3.1 Waikato River Bathymetry

The Lower Waikato River has a highly mobile bed with a large sediment load. Although the river does have a relatively straight alignment, its thalweg (the locus of the deepest part of the channel between the riverbanks) may wander back and forth from one bank to the other. This wandering behaviour is a dynamic process, changing the shape of the bed both temporally and spatially as the meandering shape migrates downstream. As a consequence, at a particular river location, the cross-sectional shape changes with time as the meandering thalweg moves through the cross-section.

28 Land Air Water Aotearoa website, https://www.lawa.org.nz/explore-data/waikato-region/water- quantity/surface-water-zones/waikato-river-at-mouth/.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 72

At some cross-sections, however, the thalweg does not wander back and forth between the banks, instead remaining against one bank. This behaviour is typical of flows through bends in alluvial rivers and is due to the presence of secondary currents. These currents act to scour the outside of the bend and deposit sediment on the inside of the bend, leading to the relatively stable cross-sectional shape.

The presence of islands, non-erodible bank features such as rock bluffs, bank and bed protection measures can also modify the observed channel behaviour. However, the description above helps to explain in general how the morphology of an alluvial river varies (in straight reaches), or does not vary (in bends), with time.

The Waikato River at the intake site is characterised by a deep channel with the banks around the existing intake dominated by rock walls. The four existing intake screens are located approximately 25 m off the true right bank.

8.3.2 Waikato River Changes

The major developments in the Waikato River catchment that have affected the characteristics of the Lower Waikato River are hydro dam development, sand extraction, flood protection works, and land use changes. These developments are linked to measured changes in bathymetry of the Lower Waikato River.

Hydroelectric power development has been a major factor in the development of the Waikato River. A consequence of dam construction is that flows in the Waikato River are strongly regulated. In particular, regulation at Karapiro Dam, as the furthest downstream structure, has a major influence on flows in the Lower Waikato River. Flood management rules, generation criteria and conditions of consent for Mercury Energy at Karapiro largely govern this regulation.

Apart from flow regulation, the main effect of the hydro dams on the Waikato River is a virtual complete blockage to the movement of sediment below Karapiro Dam. This has led to the creation of an erosion head that is progressively lowering the riverbed below Karapiro Dam. A major source of sediment into the Lower Waikato River is now from the Waipa River, which enters the Waikato River at Ngaruawahia, approximately 45 km downstream of Karapiro.

A further significant impact associated with hydro dam development has been the installation of control gates at Lake Taupō to control outflows from the lake. As a result, flows in the Waikato River are now largely totally controlled to suit electricity generation requirements.

Commercial sand extraction has been a major development aspect in the Lower Waikato River since the 1950s. In the decade from 1984 to 1994, the main sand extraction occurred between Mercer and Tuakau. As a consequence, there has been a marked lowering of the riverbed in the Lower Waikato River.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 73

The rate of sand extraction increased slowly to around 200,000 m3/y in the early 1960s, before increasing rapidly to more than 1 million m3/y in 1974. The extraction rate then fell rapidly to about 250,000 m3/y in 1981. The next peak of about 500,000 m3/y was reached in 1987. Since then, the rates have fallen steadily to approximately 100,000 m3/y in 2009, a level that has been maintained since. In total, some 18 million m3 of sand has been extracted from the Lower Waikato River since 1953.

Sand extraction is now seen as the primary mechanism for maintaining the bed levels sufficiently low to ensure that required flood protection standards in the Lower Waikato catchment are met.

Flood protection works in the Lower Waikato River catchment have had a long history. The first river training works were established between 1911 and 1917, but evidently were not particularly successful.

Floods in 1952, 1956 and particularly 1958 exposed the poor level of natural protection against flooding. In addition to inundating rural agricultural land for long periods, the flood of 1958 caused severe damage within the boroughs of Te Kūiti, Ōtorohanga and Huntly.

As a result of data collected from the 1958 flood event, a comprehensive proposal for a flood protection scheme was created. Work commenced in 1961 and was largely completed by 1982.

The design of the Lower Waikato Flood Protection Scheme was based on mimicking the natural processes within two storage areas, Lake Waikare and the Whangamarino wetland, but in a controlled fashion. The benefits of the storage areas in reducing peak flows were thus retained.

Land use changes are well known to significantly change the river regime, particularly with regard to flow rates and sediment load.

Within the Waikato River catchment, there has been a progressive change in land use from forest plantation to pasture. Such changes result in both the rate and total volume of flood runoff increasing.

The effects of land use changes on sediment yield are less obvious. Where vegetation cover is removed from a land surface, the rate of removal of the soil material, at least initially, increases rapidly. Sediment yields are lower from forested catchments compared with catchments in pasture or horticulture. The tendency for forest land-cover to be associated with steeper, wetter terrain and for pasture to be associated with flatter, drier country tend to counter-balance and reduce the range of sediment yields over the region.

8.4 EXISTING USERS

The upper reaches of the Waikato River are dominated by a series of hydroelectricity schemes, including the Taupō control gates, eight hydro dams and nine power stations.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 74

The lower reaches (downstream of Lake Karapiro) pass through several urban centres and an incised channel before emerging onto the lowland floodplains. In addition to hydroelectricity schemes on the river, the Waikato River supports irrigation, industries, domestic and municipal water supplies, and provides a receiving environment for treated wastewater discharges.

The Waikato River is a significant natural resource and supports many existing uses. Substantial electricity generation infrastructure is located within or affects the Waikato River catchment which is reliant on water from the river. This infrastructure includes the Tongariro Power Scheme and the Huntly Power Station operated by Genesis Energy, and the Waikato Hydro Scheme operated by Mercury Energy.

Water from the Waikato River is also used for irrigation, industry and domestic and municipal supplies for Hamilton, Taupo, Cambridge, Auckland and other regional towns. The Waikato River is also the receiving environment for wastewater and stormwater discharges from Hamilton and other smaller communities adjacent to the river. Additionally, the Waikato River is used for commercial and recreational fishing, water sports, mana whenua activities and duck shooting.

The main existing water takes downstream of the Watercare intake structure are the Pukekawa Quarry (Smeeds Quarry Road), the New Zealand Steel take for the Glenbrook Steel Mill, and further downstream near the river mouth, takes for the Waikato North Head iron sand mine.

8.5 EXISTING WATERCARE TAKES

8.5.1 Māngātangi and Mangātawhiri

In addition to its resource consents to take water directly from the Waikato River, Watercare also holds additional consents for water takes and dams within watercourses located within the Waikato River catchment. These consents relate to Watercare’s Māngātangi and Mangātawhiri dams, located in the Hūnua Ranges. Along with the water takes and structures, the resource consents for these dams also require residual flows to be always maintained downstream of the dam structures.

8.5.2 Waikato River

The Watercare Waikato River intake structure is located approximately 30 km downstream of the Rangiriri recording site on the Waikato River. The catchment area at the abstraction site is estimated as 13,830 km2.

The existing raw water intake, authorised by existing Resource Consent 960092, comprises four Johnson T-54 passive intake screens with 1.5 mm slot widths. Each intake screen has an approximate intake rate capacity of 745 L/s and is designed to have

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 75

through-slot “approach” velocities not exceeding 0.15 m/s in accordance with conditions 14 and 15 of Resource Consent 960092.

Since the commissioning of the existing Watercare intake structure in 2002, Watercare has undertaken routine entrainment monitoring to assess the effectiveness of the intake screens and approach / sweep velocities to prevent the impingement (i.e., capture on the screens) and entrainment (i.e., movement through the screens) of fish eggs or larvae, which are known collectively as ichthyoplankton. Since fish eggs and larvae are often smaller than the 1.5 mm mesh size, some entrainment is expected to occur with the existing intake. Monitoring undertaken at the existing Watercare intake structure indicates impingement or entrainment levels are low.

Watercare’s current maximum consented take when the Waikato River flow is less than the median river flow (i.e., up to 150,000 m3/day (net)) under Resource Consent 960089

represents approximately 0.93% of the river low flow (also referred to as Q5) at the intake location. With the temporary Hamilton City Council Water Allocation (i.e. up to 175,000 m3/day net) the take represents approximately 1.09% of the river low flow.

8.6 HYDROLOGY

8.6.1 Flow

The WRC operates and maintains a number of hydrological recording sites on the Waikato River. The key flow statistics for the Waikato River, provided by WRC, at relevant locations between Rangiriri and the river mouth in terms of instantaneous flow rate are summarised in the report “Waikato Intake: River Hydrology Assessment”, December 2020, prepared for Watercare by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd for this AEE. That report notes that the flow statistics immediately upstream of Watercare’s intake have been calculated using catchment area scaling and that all the data is modified by existing takes, therefore the flow statistics are not representative of naturalised flows.

Table 12 summarises the key low flow statistics for the Waikato River from data collected by the WRC at relevant locations between Rangiriri and the river mouth. WRC has completed the Mercer flow record by using correlations from nearby sites.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 76

Table 12: Summary of Relevant 7-day Low Flow Statistics for the Waikato River.

Site Name Median Mean Flow MALF 3 Q5 (m /s) Flow (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3/s)1

Waikato River at Rangiriri1 330.02 360.3 197.4 181.7

Waikato River at Mercer1 359.8 407.9 203.8 185.3

Waikato River immediately upstream of Waikato intake (i.e., before Watercare 368.24 412.84 204.33 185.93 abstraction)

Waikato River at Tuakau3 - - 204.6 186.0

Waikato River at wetland4 205.0 186.4

Waikato River at Hood’s Landing3 - - 205.2 186.5

Waikato River at the Coastal Marine Area - - 205.24 187.95

Notes: 1. Calculated by WRC from flow records, provided via email correspondence 23 March 2020. 2. Calculated by WRC from flow records, provided via video conference 30 October 2020. 3. Calculated by WRC as Mercer flow plus inflow estimates, provided via email correspondence 23 March 2020. 4. Calculated by interpolation based on catchment area. 5. Calculated by WRC, obtained from ‘Surface Water Allocation Levels’ webpage (accessed 12 November 2020).

8.6.2 Tidal Characteristics

The tidal range at the river mouth is approximately 3.2 m during a spring cycle, dropping to around 1.8 m during the neap cycle. At Hood’s Landing, 11 km up the river, the tidal range is cited by WRC as “approximately half that at the entrance”, with observed spring and neap tidal ranges of approximately 1.8 m and 1.0 m, respectively.

The mean tidal range at the intake site is approximately 0.5 m. The water level records at Hood’s Landing, Tuakau and Mercer indicate that the tidal range at the intake site during a spring cycle (when there is the greatest difference between low and high tide levels) is approximately 1.0 m during low flow conditions. Tidal influence on water levels is dampened during higher river flows.

8.6.3 Sedimentation

Overall, there is an underlying trend of bed degradation in the Lower Waikato River that is slowly moving downstream. The degradation wave is likely still to reach Tuakau, and it is

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 77

possible that further bed degradation may be experienced at the intake site in the short to medium-term. This trend is driven by sand extraction in the lower river, and sediment reductions associated with hydro-power dams upstream of Karapiro.

In the long-term however, with predicted sea level rise, the trend may switch to an aggradational regime, with bed level increases likely. This process is likely to be slow and will be preceded by a general increase in bed level downstream of the intake site.

However, it is noted that changes in sediment composition and size (potentially associated with large scale changes in land use, or large landslides) may also influence future sediment transport processes. Any reduction in sediment size, for example towards silts, could result in increased sediment transport and therefore the effects on downstream reaches.

The intake site is located on the outside of a bend, and large scour holes are likely to form in these locations (generally in high flow conditions) and could drive localised and temporary large reductions in bed level. Conversely, sand bars that form upstream of the site during extended low flow conditions (for example during summer), are likely to migrate downstream and could temporarily raise bed levels at or near the intake.

8.6.4 Lower Waikato River Salinity

Investigations by WRC indicate that there was considerable spatial variability in salinity distributions in the Waikato River estuary and delta. A distinct salt wedge can be observed nearer the river mouth.

The limit of saltwater intrusion to the lower reaches was found to be approximately 10 km from the river mouth on the neap tide cycle, and approximately 13 km on the spring cycle. The WRC investigations noted that there was significant variability in salinity (as well as temperature and dissolved oxygen) through the tidal cycles, and also related to river flow.

8.7 WAIKATO RIVER ECOLOGY

The ecology of the Waikato River is described in the report “Waikato River Water Take: River Ecology Assessment” December 2020, prepared for Watercare by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd. The following description is taken from that report.

8.7.1 Water Quality

Water quality in the Waikato River decreases with distance downstream. Turbidity levels increase with distance downstream largely due to the increased sediment load of the Waipā River. Nutrient levels also increase with distance downstream due to a range of diffuse and point discharge sources. WRC classifies dissolved oxygen, pH and ammonia levels as being at Satisfactory levels in the lower Waikato River, whereas total phosphorus and turbidity were classified as Unsatisfactory.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 78

Water quality conditions at Mercer (upstream of the Watercare intake) and Tuakau (downstream of the intake) are generally similar, although there is a greater tidal influence affecting water levels at Tuakau than upstream at Mercer.

During the construction of the intake structure, one of the key water quality considerations is total suspended solids due to the potential for sediment release during pilling activities. Total suspended solids in river water at the Waikato Intake tend to vary between 5 mg/L and 30 mg/L, with one-off events where levels reach up to 100 mg/L.

8.7.2 Macroinvertebrates

Aquatic macroinvertebrate communities in the lower Waikato River are characterised by species that prefer soft bottomed, macrophyte dominated habitats. Littoral macroinvertebrate communities downstream of Karapiro Dam become increasingly dominated with distance by crustacea, including the freshwater shrimp Paratya curvirostris and the amphipod Paracalliope fluviatilis. The dominance of crustacea has been linked to the food sources associated with phytoplankton and fine particulate organic matter. Benthic macroinvertebrate communities have been found to be less dominated by crustacea and more dominated by taxa tolerant of fine sediment, such as oligochaete worms.

Standard macroinvertebrate community metrics (e.g., Macroinvertebrate Community Index or MCI) used to assess water and habitat quality cannot be meaningfully applied to large river systems like the lower Waikato River. Indices specific to large rivers have also not yet been developed. However, the communities recorded in the lower river (below the hydro dams) do not appear to contain taxa that are particularly sensitive to changes in water quality or habitat availability. Macroinvertebrate communities within the littoral zone close to the shore will also be adaptive to large water level fluctuations as a result of both flow regulation due to the Waikato Hydro Scheme and tidal influences on water level.

8.7.3 Waikato River Fish Community

The Waikato River is the longest river in New Zealand and is a significant migration pathway for many native fish species. Nineteen native fish species have been identified in the river and its hydro lakes, along with ten exotic species.

Of the native fish species, two are considered to be ‘Threatened’, and seven are considered to be ‘At risk’. The ‘Threatened’ species are lamprey (Geotria australis) and short-jawed kokopu (Galaxias postvectis), while the ‘At risk’ species include:

• Inanga (Galaxias maculatus);

• Longfin eel (Anguilla dieffenbachii);

• Torrent fish (Cheimarrichthys fosteri);

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 79

• Giant kokopu (Galaxias argenteus);

• Koaro (Galaxias brevipinnis);

• Black mudfish (Neochanna diversus);

• Giant bully (Gobiomorphus gobiodes); and

• Redfin bullies (Gobiomorphus huttoni).

Other native species found in the Waikato River include:

• Yellow-eyed mullet (Aua, Aldrichetta forsteri);

• Shortfin eel (Hao, Anguilla australis);

• Australian longfin eel (Anguilla reinhardtii);

• Banded kokopu (Para, Galaxias fasciatus);

• Common bully (Pako, Gobiomorphus cotidianus);

• Cran’s bully (Gobiomorphus basalis);

• Grey mullet (Mugil cephalus);

• Common smelt (Ngaoire, Retropinna); and

• Black flounder (Patiki, Rhombosolea retiarii).

Freshwater crayfish (Koura, Paranephrops planifrons) are also found in the river and its tributaries.

Of the native species found in the river, three species tend to spend the majority of their lifecycle in the marine environment (yellow-eyed mullet, grey mullet and flounder). The remaining species range between being catadromous (living in freshwater but migrating to spawn at sea), anadromous (spending the majority of their lives at sea then migrating upstream from the sea to spawn in freshwater), or amphidromous (spending part of their life at sea, but this marine stage is not directly related to spawning). Black mudfish and Cran’s bullies do not migrate as part of their lifecycle.

Ten exotic fish species are present in the lower Waikato River, with Koi carp dominating fish biomass. Many of the exotic species can affect native fish communities through competition for space and food. Exotic species (particularly Koi carp) can also modify habitats as a result of their own feeding behaviours, for example through uprooting aquatic plants and increasing water turbidity. The exotic freshwater fish species found in the lower Waikato River include Catfish (Ameiurus nebulosus), Goldfish (Carassius auratus), Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon Idella), Koi carp (Cyprinus carpio), Gambusia or mosquito fish

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 80

(Gambusia affinis), Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Perch (Perca fluviatilis), Brown trout (Salmo trutta), Rudd (Scardinius erythropthalmus) and Tench (Tinca).

8.7.4 Spawning Habitat

Spawning habitat varies depending on fish species, with some species having more than one type of habitat. Freshwater eels spawn in the Pacific Ocean. Kokopu and koaro spawn along stream margins during freshes. Bullies lay their eggs on rocks, vegetation or other structure that is permanently inundated.

Īnanga (an ‘At Risk’ species) is the most important species of whitebait, as it makes up the majority of the yearly whitebait catch in most New Zealand rivers. The lower Waikato River provides an uninterrupted migration pathway for īnanga upstream to the Karapiro Dam and over 200 km upstream in the Waipā River. Īnanga spawn in the freshwater intertidal zone during high spring tides, which requires that īnanga migrate downstream to appropriate spawning habitats. Eggs are deposited amongst bankside vegetation so that they are immersed for prolonged periods of time. Īnanga show strong preferences for vegetation types that provide a cool, moist microclimate conducive to egg incubation.

Although īnanga spawning has been recorded in all months other than August, peak spawning activity occurs from March to May. Spawning sites have been known to move in response to changes in the range of tidal movement and disturbance of spawning sites. Eggs hatch on the following high spring tide and the larvae are washed out to sea where they grow into whitebait. Īnanga return to freshwater after spending about 21 to 23 weeks at sea.

A range of sites on the lower Waikato River has been identified as known or possible īnanga spawning habitat, with sites detected as far upstream as the Elbow Boat Ramp, which is approximately 10 km downstream of the existing intake. However, spawning sites are likely to extend much further upstream within the zone of tidal influence given that īnanga larvae have been detected in the river at the Watercare intake.

Smelt spawning is thought to occur on sand bars in the mid-channel and on sandy beaches in autumn. Fry then drift in the current towards the sea returning to the estuary between September and November. No specific smelt spawning areas have been identified in the Waikato River, although smelt are known to be abundant there. Smelt are not threatened.

8.7.5 Riparian and Wetland Values

Riparian vegetation along the lower Waikato River is largely dominated by willows (Salix sp.) and alder (Alnus glutnosa). However, there are still relatively extensive remnants of the original native vegetation, comprising Kahikatea (Dacrycarpus dacrydioides) forest, manuka (Leptospermum scoparium) and flax (Phormium tenax). Riparian vegetation in the

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 81

vicinity of the Watercare intake site is dominated by willows along the left bank, while the right bank is dominated by rock walls and limited riparian vegetation.

The margins of the lower Waikato River include a number of Regionally, Nationally and Internationally significant wetlands. Nationally significant wetlands are located in the islands and river margins that make up the delta. These wetlands are located approximately 13 km downstream of the intake. Regionally significant wetlands are concentrated along the elbow around 9 km downstream of the intake.

The Internationally significant Ramsar-listed Whangamarino wetland is located off the main stem of the Waikato River on the Whangamarino River, and therefore well upstream of the intake. Water levels in the Whangamarino River are also set by the Whangamarino Weir and would therefore be unaffected by downstream water levels in the Waikato River, except on the rare occasion that downstream river levels are very high.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 82

9. EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

9.1 INTRODUCTION

The proposal to take water from the Waikato River has a range of both positive and potentially negative environmental effects. This assessment of effects has, in part, used monitoring data obtained through the operation of the existing intake structure and water take to identify potential effects associated with the new intake structure and the combined effects of abstracting up to 300,000 m3/day (net) at the site under consent 960089.01.04 and this consent, if granted by the Board of Inquiry. In this regard, the monitoring data has shown the operation of the existing water take and discharges from the operation of the water treatment plant have had a less than minor effect on the environment. No reason to change from the existing intake operation has been identified. It is also noted that this Section presents a probable worst case scenario in respect of environmental effects associated with the proposal because it assesses the effects of Watercare proposed take during low flows as well as the cumulative effects of Watercare’s proposed take in combination with all other currently undecided take applications lodged with WRC prior to the Watercare application.

A secure and reliable water service for the Auckland region is critical to the economic, social, environmental and cultural wellbeing of Auckland’s people and communities, and is a basic human right. It will contribute to the wellbeing of all New Zealanders through supporting the region’s importance as a centre for commercial, finance, insurance, transport and logistics, manufacturing, marine, advanced materials, and food and beverage sectors and associated business services activities.

The following assessment identifies and assesses the potential effects that may arise from the proposal including:

• Positive effects;

• Cultural effects;

• Construction effects;

• Hydrological effects;

• Ecological effects;

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 83

• Discharge effects;

• Effects on existing users; and

• Effects of climate change.

9.2 POSITIVE EFFECTS

Auckland is home to one third of New Zealand’s population and is its largest commercial centre, contributing a substantial proportion of both the domestic market and imports and exports. The efficient and cost-effective supply of municipal water throughout the region is fundamental to the continued growth and functioning of Auckland, as well as the overall public health and sanitation of the region.

In addition, municipal supply services other integral infrastructure such as hospitals and health care. It is for these services that the provision of water services to a population is considered a basic human right, and a central component of a growing, productive population. The positive benefits of municipal supply of water are distributed throughout the community though the enabling of commercial and industrial development, provision for hospital care, use in a wide range of institutions, commercial ventures, general supply to the wider population to promote health and wellbeing, lift productivity and improving sustainability, all of which provide a driving force in terms of shaping Auckland’s urban form. In short, a modern functioning city cannot exist without the security of a future water supply.

Auckland contributes an annual gross domestic product (“GDP”)29 of approximately $114 billion, more than one third of New Zealand’s annual GDP. The annual GDP per capita for Auckland for the year to March 2019 was $69,974, compared with that for New Zealand of $62,165, while the GDP growth rate (for the 5 years to March 2019) was approximately 39%, exceeded only by Bay of Plenty at 44.4%, and compared with rates for other regions between -4% and 36.1%. Clearly, the economic prospects of New Zealand depend greatly on the performance of Auckland, particularly given that Auckland accounts for about a third of New Zealand’s population.

Maintenance of this level of economic activity and contribution to the New Zealand economy as a whole, while protecting the health and wellbeing of the community, can only be achieved if appropriate infrastructure and services, including water supply, are maintained and enhanced. While the specific benefits accruing as a result of providing a high quality water supply cannot necessarily be isolated from or accounted for separately from other drivers of economic activity and growth, it is apparent that without such water supply services, the continued growth and development of Auckland cannot be sustained.

29 New Zealand's regional economies 2019, March 2020, Stats NZ Tatauranga Aotearoa.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 84

Having the right infrastructure in place is critical, and infrastructure and services have a major role in supporting economic growth and primary production in Auckland.

It is within this background that Watercare is seeking to provide certainty of supply that will ensure that Auckland is serviced by a strategic, infrastructure network designed to promote the wellbeing of the Auckland Region over the long term. Undoubtedly the benefits of making such provision will be regionally and nationally significant.

The importance of water supply certainty can be quantified as an “economic deficit” if the additional supply sought is not available. In numerical terms the economic “deficit” is estimated to involve:

a) Foregoing approximately $12 billion annually in GDP from 2030, increasing to $53 billion by 2055; and

b) Foregoing approximately 97,000 employment positions from 2030, rising to 423,000 or more by 2055.

New Zealand is likely to encounter more frequent climate extremes in the future, which may have resultant effects on water supply availability and the extent or frequency of droughts. In this regard, it is important to maintain the certainty of water supply and to provide for drought resilience in future planning scenarios. The proposed abstraction of water from the Waikato River will assist with providing such certainty and resilience and is therefore an integral part of planning for future potential climate change effects.

9.3 CULTURAL EFFECTS

To Waikato-Tainui, the Waikato River is an ancestor which has prestige and represents the mana and mauri of the tribe.30 The Waikato River sustains life and also provides for economic, social, cultural and environmental purposes. Waikato-Tainui and other river tribes have established authority in respect of the Waikato River over many generations through mana whakahaere. Mana whakahaere entails the exercise of rights and responsibilities to ensure that the balance and mauri of the Waikato River are maintained through appropriate management, and recognises that if the river is cared for, it will continue to sustain the people.

The significance of the Waikato River to Waikato-Tainui is formally recognised in the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 (“River Settlement Act”) which gives effect to the 2009 deed of settlement between Waikato-Tainui and the Crown. The overarching purpose of the River Settlement Act is set out in Section 3, being

30 This Section is based on information derived from the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010, the Waikato River “Vision and Strategy”, and the open dialogue Watercare has had with Waikato-Tainui in relation to this application.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 85

“to restore and protect the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River for future generations”.

The primary direction-setting document for achieving the purpose of the River Settlement Act is Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato, which contains 13 guiding objectives and 12 strategies for achieving the restoration and protection of the Waikato River.

By way of summary, Watercare’s proposal to take water from the Waikato River and to establish a river enhancement trust is generally consistent with the objectives of Te Ture Whaimana. The proposal will not compromise the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River, nor interfere with the joint management agreements between Waikato-Tainui and the relevant local authorities to enhance the health of the river.

Watercare has proposed a number of measures in order to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of the proposal on the environment, including by way of intake design, management of construction activities, and conditions on the discharge of process water and water that does not meet the drinking water standards. In addition to this, Watercare is also proposing the establishment of a river enhancement trust which will contribute to the restoration and protection of the Waikato River.

In addition to the measures identified above, Watercare’s collaborative relationship with Waikato-Tainui is recognised in the Kawenata Whakawhanaunga with Te Whakakitenga.

9.4 CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS

The ecological effects of the construction activities are assessed in the report “Waikato River Water Take: River Ecology Assessment”, December 2020, prepared for Watercare by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd. The following summary is drawn from that report.

9.4.1 Hydrology

Construction of the proposed intake is not expected to produce any effects on the hydrology of the Waikato River. While the proposed coffer dam and construction area will protrude out into the river flow, it will occupy only a minor proportion of the river cross- section at this location and will not result in any backing up or significant increase in water levels beyond the site during any river flow conditions (including during flood flows).

In addition, the relatively short duration for which the structure will be present in the river (up to approximately 21 months) means that the likely coincidence of construction activities and flood flows is small.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 86

Following completion of construction of the permanent structures, the coffer dam will be removed, and all river works completed. In-river construction activities will be suspended during flood events that exceed the height of the proposed coffer dam.

9.4.2 Sedimentation

Potential sources of sediment include access tracks and stream bed sediments generated during installation and removal of the sheet piles associated with the temporary coffer dam, and the driven piles for the temporary work platform. Given the nature of the receiving environments, existing water quality and the temporary duration of the works, any effects are likely to be minimal provided that best practice erosion and sediment control practices are implemented. The release of sediment from the construction activities will be minimised through the development of an erosion and sediment control plan.

9.4.3 Water Quality

The installation and removal of the coffer dam, and temporary access in the bed of the Waikato River will potentially result in the release of suspended sediments. Given the nature of the receiving environments, existing water quality and the temporary duration of the works, any effects are expected to be minimal provided best practice erosion and sediment control practices are implemented. The movement of sediment will be localised and any impact on river bed flora and fauna will be limited to the periods during the construction and removal of the temporary work platform and coffer dam.

9.4.4 Instream Ecology

Works undertaken in and over the bed of the Waikato River have the potential to disturb the upstream migration of native fish for the period of construction (i.e., in the short-term) by reducing water quality (due to increased suspended solids) and by forming barriers to fish passage.

Given the width of the river at the intake location, the comparatively small width of construction works, the limited duration of the works and the lack of suitable habitat, any effects on fish migration will be temporary and relatively insignificant.

However, macroinvertebrates within the drained coffer dam area are not expected to survive. Once the coffer dam is removed it is expected that macroinvertebrate communities will quickly re-colonise the area as pre-construction conditions are re- established. Overall, the effect on macroinvertebrates will be low.

9.4.5 Riparian Values

The construction of the proposed intake will have temporary impacts on the riverbanks and areas of riparian vegetation during the construction of the coffer dam, the placement

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 87

of the temporary work platform and the temporary loss of river bed habitat in the vicinity of the intake structure.

These impacts will be temporary and following the removal of the coffer dam and temporary work platform, the banks and vegetation (in the form of grass) will be returned to pre-construction conditions. Erosion of the riverbank upstream or downstream of the structure is unlikely. Overall, the effects on riparian vegetation during construction will be very low.

9.4.6 Summary

The effects of the construction activity will only be temporary and similar to the construction effects associated with the existing intake, which had no long-term effect on the Waikato River. Overall, the construction related effects will be minor and will not adversely affect the Waikato River. Water quality and ecological effects of the construction activity are summarised in Table 13.

Overall, the potential magnitude of effects from the construction of the intake on river water quality is considered to be Negligible resulting in an overall Very Low level of effect. Similarly, the overall potential magnitude of effects of construction of the new intake on the river bed and on instream freshwater biota is considered to be Low due to only a minor shift away from existing baseline conditions, resulting in an overall Low level of effect.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 88

Table 13: Summary of Intake Construction Effects.

Effect/activity Effect without mitigation Magnitude of Key mitigation measures Magnitude of Overall level of effects with no effects with effect with mitigation mitigation mitigation

Effects on river water quality Elevated suspended sediment and Low Spoil disposed of offsite, operate within a Negligible Very Low reduced clarity immediately coffer dam. downstream of the pile or coffer dam locations due to disturbance of the river bed

Effects on the river bed Permanent river bed disturbance would Low Minimise permanent structures on the river Low Low be approximately 200 m2. Temporary bed. No specific mitigation provided / disturbance would be approximately required. 540 m2.

Effects on instream Reduced water clarity for visual feeders Low No specific mitigation provided / required. Low Low freshwater biota (trout), sedimentation to the bed of the river and associated habitat quality effects, direct disturbance to benthic habitats, and disruption to fish passage and upstream migrating fish species.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 89

9.5 HYDROLOGICAL EFFECTS

The hydrological effects of the proposal are assessed in the report “Waikato Intake: River Hydrology Assessment”, December 2020, prepared for Watercare by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd. The following summary is drawn from that report.

The actual and potential effects of the proposal are identified in the report as follows.

• Effects on flow, water levels and velocity in the river;

• Sedimentation effects following changes in sediment movement within the river due to the presence of the intake structure;

• Effects on other users; and

• Effects on saline intrusion as a result of the changed flow.

The hydraulic analysis indicates that the proposed take will have very small effects on flow velocities in the river, with a mean velocity change at low river flows being no greater than 0.003 m/s (0.6 %) near the intake. The cumulative effect, when assessed with the existing Watercare take, is 0.006 m/s at maximum.

With respect to water level, the cumulative effect of the existing and proposed takes would potentially result in a reduction of up to approximately lower by up to approximately 82

mm at the q5 threshold compared to a river depth of 6.3 metres, at low flows at the intake site, with the effect of the additional take being up to approximately 46 mm. For smaller tides (i.e., less than Springs), the effects will be less. Similarly, where the river is broader about 700 m downstream of the intake, the cumulative effect of the Watercare takes is approximately 58 mm at low river flow, with the incremental effect of the additional take being approximately 34 mm.

The effects of the proposed take on water levels in the river are considered negligible given that the current daily tidal fluctuation at the intake site is approximately 500 mm, increasing to approximately 1 m during spring tidal cycles.

Further downstream, where significant wetlands are present along the river, the analysis indicates that the proposed additional 150,000 m3/day (net) take will result in mean velocity changes at low flows no greater than 0.001 m/s, with the cumulative effect of 0.002 m/s and reduced water levels of 14 mm incrementally, with a cumulative reduction of 25 mm with the presently authorised take.

The effects of the proposed take on water levels in the river are considered minor given that the daily tidal fluctuation in the wetland reaches is approximately 1 m at Neap tides, increasing to approximately 1.8 m during Spring cycles.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 90

The small changes in flow and velocity in the river due to the proposed take are considered negligible and are unlikely to change sediment dynamics or have any effect on bed form processes at the intake site or in the downstream reaches. However, water level fluctuations due to the peak extraction rate could affect the surface water gradient and / or shear stress resulting in minimal localised changes in sediment transport at, or near, the intake itself.

Saltwater intrusion is estimated to occur up to 10 km to 13 km from the river mouth, with the extent of this being strongly influenced by tidal variation and river flow. The change in extent of salinity intrusion resulting from the proposed take is predicted to be approximately 150 m, based on low river flows and mean tide conditions.

Sea level has been rising over the last century, and further sea level rise expected from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change modelling is likely to move salinity further upstream. A sea level rise of 1 m would shift the saline influence upstream by over 2 km. Expected sea level rise is likely to produce much greater changes in the extent of salinity intrusion than the proposed increase in abstraction.

The magnitude of change in the extent of salinity intrusion due to the proposed take will be negligible, considering the other changes that will affect the flow regime of the lower river.

The hydrological effects of the proposed take are summarised in Table 14.

Table 14: Magnitude and Level of Hydrological Effects of the Proposed Water Take.

Effect/activity Effect without Magnitude of effects Key mitigation Overall level mitigation with no mitigation measures of effect

Flow and water Reduction in flows up Negligible – flows None required Very Low level in the to 1.5 % at the intake within allocable limits Waikato River site, and maximum and change in water incremental water level level not significant change of up to 41 mm compared to depth and reducing downstream. daily fluctuations.

Sediment Minimal localised Negligible – very slight None required Very Low localised change in movement change expected to sediment transport within the river sediment transport with around intake. peak rate take during Not significant q5 low flow. Minimal to compared to no change expected to catchment and reach- sediment transport and scale sediment supply bedform processes in interruptions (hydro-

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 91

Effect/activity Effect without Magnitude of effects Key mitigation Overall level mitigation with no mitigation measures of effect

downstream reaches lakes and sand with increased takes. extraction).

Salinity in the Minimal shift in extent Negligible – not None required Very Low river estuary of saline intrusion, of significant compared to and delta approximately 150 m existing 10 km to 13 km

during q5 and mean extent and to regular tide conditions, and tidal fluctuations and less during higher river likely sea level rise. flows.

Other users Reduction in flows up Negligible – flows None required Very Low to 1.5 % at the intake within allocable limits site, and maximum and change in water incremental water level level not significant change of up to 41 mm compared to depth and reducing downstream. daily fluctuations.

9.6 ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS

9.6.1 Background

The ecological effects of the proposal are assessed in the report “Waikato River Water Take: River Ecology Assessment”, December 2020, prepared for Watercare by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd. The following summary is drawn from that report.

The assessment assumes that the WTP and intake designs will be similar to those used for the existing Waikato WTP and intake structure, in particular that:

• Discharges from the Waikato A WTP will typically be of the same quality as current discharges (or better) as the treatment process will be the same as in the existing WTP, although the cumulative rate of discharge will increase;

• The intake structure and screens will be designed to the same specifications as the current intake with regards to screen slot size, and approach and sweep velocities; and

• The intake structure is likely to comprise Johnson screens with either an air sparging screen cleaning system (as per the existing intake) or a mechanical brush cleaning system.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 92

The assessment of ecological effects broadly follows the Ecological Impact Assessment Guidelines,31 with some adaptation for different fauna and ecosystem types. The guidelines include a three-step process for making an ecological impact assessment: involving assigning an ecological value to the existing environment, assessing the magnitude of ecological effect from the proposed activity on the environment; and assessing the overall level of effect to determine if effects management is required.

The actual and potential effects of the proposal are identified in the report as follows:

Construction effects:

• Effects on river water quality associated with sediment release and potential spills;

• Effects on the river bed from pilling and coffer dam activities; and

• Effects on instream freshwater biota associated with the pilling and coffer dam activities.

Operational effects:

• Effects on river temperature and DO due to reduced flow in the Waikato River;

• Effects on river water quality through routine cleaning of the intake screens;

• Effect of the discharge on water quality and the ecology of the lower Waikato River:

‒ Soluble aluminium;

‒ Free available chlorine;

‒ Glycerine;

‒ Fluoride; and

‒ Total suspended solids.

• Effects on instream freshwater biota through the operation of the intake screens:

‒ Upstream and downstream migration;

‒ Fish, fish eggs and larvae impingement;

‒ Fish eggs and larvae entrainment; and

‒ Disturbance due to intake screen cleaning.

Construction effects are discussed in Section 9.4 of this AEE.

31 Roper-Lindsay, J., Fuller S.A., Hooson, S., Sanders, M.D., Ussher, G.T. 2018. Ecological impact assessment. EIANZ guidelines for use in New Zealand: terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. 2nd edition.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 93

9.6.2 Operation

Temperature

A water temperature model has been used to predict the effect of the Watercare abstraction on water temperature 10 km downstream (Tuakau) and 20 km downstream (Port Waikato) of the proposed abstraction, during a period of higher temperatures and stable low flows. The results showed that the maximum change in daily mean water temperature would be a reduction of less than 0.01 °C, both 10 km and 20 km downstream of the intake. Overall, the changes in temperatures shown through the model are small, indicating the abstraction will have little effect on water temperatures. Variations in tidal effects and average water depths and velocities mean that the proposed water take will have a negligible effect on water temperature.

Dissolved Oxygen

A model was also used to assess changes in dissolved oxygen concentrations. This indicated a reduction of between 0.00015 mg/L and 0.00046 mg/L for each m3/s reduction in flow using the modelled parameters. The predicted reduction in minimum dissolved oxygen resulting from the baseline current abstraction of 150,000 m3/day (net) and an additional 150,000 m3/day (net) are less than 0.0011 and 0.0024 mg/L, respectively. The additional abstraction will therefore likely result in a reduction in dissolved oxygen of approximately 0.0015 mg/L, which would not be measurable and would not be of any ecological effect.

While the lower Waikato River is considered to be of High value, the magnitude of the changes to temperature and dissolved oxygen as a result of the proposed increase in take at the Waikato intake is considered to be Negligible. Overall, the potential overall level of ecological effect from the change in temperature and dissolved oxygen is considered to be Very Low.

Screen Cleaning

While the lower Waikato River in the vicinity of the existing and proposed intake screens is known to have water clarity issues at times, with both five year turbidity and water clarity measurements falling within the WRC ‘unsatisfactory’ category, the magnitude of any potential effect on water clarity associated with the cleaning of the screens is considered to be negligible based on previous assessments of the existing sparging process. The brush cleaning process would not result in such an instantaneous discharge, as would occur with the sparge cleaning process.

Overall, the potential magnitude of effect from the cleaning of the screens, either using the sparging or brush screen arrangement, during operation of the intake on river water quality is Negligible, resulting in an overall Very Low level of effect.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 94

Soluble Aluminium

Naturally-occurring aluminium concentrations in Waikato River water (without the addition of the Waikato intake discharges) exceed relevant guideline values. The discharge dissolved aluminium levels will remain below the proposed concentration limit of 4 g/m3 and with the pH levels in the discharge and the Waikato River receiving environment, dissolved aluminium is unlikely to have potential for toxicity effects on aquatic life beyond the mixing zone.

Overall, the potential magnitude of effect from dissolved aluminium in the discharge on aquatic life is Low within a reasonable mixing zone resulting in a Low level of effect and Negligible effect outside of a reasonable mixing zone, resulting in a Very Low level of effect.

Free Available Chlorine

Chlorine is added as part of the drinking water treatment process to help disinfect the water. The likelihood that free available chlorine from the discharge would affect aquatic organisms within the mixing zone would be influenced by the following factors:

• The stability of free available chlorine in natural water is very low, due to chlorine being a strong oxidising agent, rapidly reacting with inorganic and organic compounds, and it is likely that the free available chlorine from the discharge would break down quickly, reducing the likelihood of the free available chlorine having an effect on aquatic organisms;

• Temperature influences the toxicity of free available chlorine, with toxicity reducing in warmer water temperatures, indicating that under low flow conditions, when water temperatures are likely to be expected to be warmer due to dry summer conditions, free available chlorine toxicity would be further reduced;

• Aquatic organisms (in particular, fish) would be expected to show avoidance behaviour if free available chlorine levels were causing them stress, and could move away to avoid the discharge point; and

• Any free available chlorine discharge at the maximum concentration would likely be for a short duration.

Free available chlorine is unlikely to have an effect on aquatic life after reasonable mixing. When the factors that influence free available chlorine toxicity are considered, alongside the natural avoidance behaviours of mobile aquatic life, it is considered that the magnitude of the effect on aquatic life is Low within a reasonable mixing zone, resulting in a Low level of effect; and Negligible outside a reasonable mixing zone resulting in a Very Low level of effect.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 95

Glycerine

New membrane filter modules for the Waikato WTP arrive on-site stored in glycerine. Glycerine is purged from the modules before they are added to service with the majority of the glycerine disposed of off-site. The proposed glycerine discharge concentration will be well below the lowest eco-toxicity value for glycerine and will have no effect on aquatic life. Overall, the potential magnitude of effect from the glycerine on aquatic life is Low within a reasonable mixing zone, resulting in a Low level of effect, and Negligible outside a reasonable mixing zone, resulting in a Very Low level of effect.

Fluoride

Of the species present in the Waikato River, fish are likely to be the most sensitive species to fluoride in the discharge. The median hardness of the Waikato River near the point of discharge reduces the potential for adverse effects to occur to fish within a reasonable mixing zone. Overall, the potential magnitude of effect from the discharge of fluoride on aquatic life is Negligible inside and outside of a reasonable mixing zone, resulting in a Very Low level of effect.

Total suspended solids

The maximum level of total suspended solids in the existing WTP discharge, and what is expected in the discharge as part of this application, is lower than the maximum recorded concentration recorded in the Waikato River, and is well within natural levels experienced by the river. Overall, the potential magnitude of effect with mitigation from total suspended solids discharged on aquatic life is Low within a reasonable mixing zone, resulting in a Low level of effect, and Negligible outside of a reasonable mixing zone, resulting in a Very Low level of effect.

Potential cumulative effects

It is likely the discharges from the new Waikato WTP will occur at the same time as any consented planned or unplanned discharges from the existing Waikato WTP. To understand the likely cumulative effects, the basic mixing calculations to assess potential concentrations in the Waikato River downstream of the discharge have been repeated for free available chlorine, being of most significance in terms of effects on aquatic organisms.

Overall, the assessment indicates that free available chlorine is unlikely to have an adverse effect on aquatic life after reasonable mixing. When the factors that influence free available chlorine toxicity are considered, alongside the natural avoidance behaviours of mobile aquatic life, it is considered that the magnitude of the effect on aquatic life from a cumulative perspective is Low within and beyond a reasonable mixing zone, resulting in a Low level of effect.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 96

Screen Operation – instream habitat

A range of fish species and invertebrates use the low water velocity zones close to the riverbank to move upstream and downstream, away from the main current. While the lower Waikato River is considered to be of high ecological value, the magnitude of the changes to water levels along the river margins due to the proposed increase in take is considered to be negligible, in comparison to daily influences from the tide and frequent increased flows due to catchment freshes and floods. The potential for indirect effects on freshwater biota through changes to water quality, such as increases in temperature or dissolved oxygen (discussed above), have also been assessed as being Negligible.

Overall, the potential magnitude of ecological effect from the change in water depth from the abstraction of an additional 150,000 m3/day (net) from the Waikato River at low flow conditions (worst case) is considered Low, resulting in an overall Low level of effect.

Screen Operation – īnanga spawning habitat

The lower Waikato River is considered to be of high value. However, assessment concludes that the magnitude of the effects on the īnanga spawning habitat in the lower Waikato River from the proposed abstraction at the Waikato intake are considered to be negligible, in comparison to influences from the tide and climatic conditions. Overall, the magnitude of effect on īnanga spawning habitat resulting from the abstraction of an additional 150,000 m3/day (net) is considered Low resulting in an overall Very Low level of effect. Effects experienced during the October to April period would be even lower as the additional take would be constrained by median flow.

Upstream and downstream migration

The proposed abstraction will decrease the volume of water flowing downstream of the water take. However, the predicted cumulative reduction in flow is not considered likely to have any effect on fish due to the dynamic tidal nature of the river at the point of abstraction, and the fact that the take is located approximately 36 km upstream from the sea.

Overall, the potential magnitude of effect from the operation of the Waikato Intake on upstream and downstream fish migration, with the mitigation included as part of the proposal, is considered to be Negligible, resulting in an overall Very Low level of effect.

Fish, fish eggs and larvae impingement

Fish and larvae impingement can occur when approach velocities are high enough to pin larger fish onto the screens and prevent them from moving away. Monitoring undertaken since the establishment of the current Waikato intake has not recorded any aquatic organism impingement on the surface of the screens. The existing intake is located approximately 25 m from the riverbank, and the proposed intake structure will be located

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 97

at a similar distance from the bank directly downstream of the existing intake. This location minimises the risk of impingement, with the screens positioned as far as practicable away from the banks and river bed where most upstream migration occurs, and in deep fast water where sweep velocities are highest. Additionally, the intake will be designed with the mesh sizing (1.5mm slot widths), and “approach” and “sweep” velocities.

Overall, the potential magnitude of effect from the operation of the intake on fish eggs and larvae impingement with the mitigation included as part of the proposal, is considered to be Negligible, resulting in an overall Very Low level of effect.

Fish eggs and larvae entrainment

Fish egg and larvae entrainment occurs when fish eggs and larvae pass through the screens of the intake. Since 2003, routine monitoring carried out for the current screens has shown that on average, entrainment of fish eggs and larvae occurs at levels no greater than would be expected based on densities in the main river channel. Overall, the potential magnitude of effect from the operation of the Waikato Intake on fish eggs and larvae entrainment with the mitigation included as part of the proposal, is considered to be Low, resulting in an overall Low level of effect.

Riparian and wetland values

The lower Waikato River supports regionally and nationally significant wetlands along the main channel and islands of the delta. Wetlands are known to be sensitive to changes in hydrology, to the extent that even relatively small changes can influence the structure and function of wetlands. Reductions in water level are small (relative to tidal fluctuations), and the reduction in flow rate, as a result of the proposed take, is also considered to be low in magnitude.

Overall, the magnitude of effect on wetlands resulting from the abstraction of an additional up to 150,000 m3/day (net) from the Waikato River under low flow conditions is considered Negligible. Because wetland values were assessed as Very High, notwithstanding the magnitude of effects (Negligible), the overall level of effect was determined to be Low.

Intake screen cleaning

The location of the screens in the deep, faster-flowing water means that there are unlikely to be any fish present to be disturbed by either air sparging or brush cleaning of the screens. Overall, the potential magnitude of effect from the operation from either intake screen cleaning system is Negligible, resulting in an overall Very Low level of effect.

9.6.3 Summary

The effects assessment undertaken by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd. for this application concludes that the ecological and hydrological effects of the proposed taking of water will be “low” or

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 98

“very low” when assessed in terms of the Ecological Impact Assessment guidelines for use in New Zealand terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems.32

The Quality Planning website33 states that it is good practice to consider effects along a continuum to ensure that each effect has been considered consistently, and in turn cumulatively, with the continuum including the following effects:

Nil Effects: No effects at all.

Less than Minor Adverse Effects: Adverse effects that are discernible day-to-day effects, but too small to adversely affect other persons.

Minor Adverse Effects: Adverse effects that are noticeable but will not cause any significant adverse impacts.

More than Minor Adverse Effects: Adverse effects that are noticeable that may cause an adverse impact but could be potentially mitigated or remedied.

Significant Adverse Effects that could be remedied or mitigated: An effect that is noticeable and will have a serious adverse impact on the environment but could potentially be mitigated or remedied.

Unacceptable Adverse Effects: Extensive adverse effects that cannot be avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Table 15 provides a summary of the effects addressed in this instream ecological assessment. Overall, the effects on instream ecological values associated with the construction and operation of the Waikato Intake and the operational discharges are between Low and Very Low. Therefore, the overall level of effect on instream ecological values is Low. Given the proposed works and design, and overall effect on ecological values as determined through this assessment, no further mitigation measures beyond those identified above and included as part of the proposal are considered to be required.

32 Roper-Lindsay, J., Fuller S.A., Hooson, S., Sanders, M.D., Ussher, G.T. 2018. Ecological impact assessment. EIANZ guidelines for use in New Zealand: terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. 2nd edition. 33 https://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/index.php/node/837, accessed November 2020.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 99

Table 15: Summary of Operational Effects on Waikato River Water Quality and Ecology.

Effect/activity Effect without mitigation Magnitude of effects Key mitigation measures Magnitude of Overall level of with no mitigation effects with effect with mitigation mitigation

Effects on river temperature and Changes will not be within the Negligible No specific mitigation provided / Negligible Very Low DO due to reduced flow in the resolution of most data recorders, at required. Waikato River. less than 0.02 °C and less than 0.01 mg/L

Effects on river water quality Mobilisation of organic (algal) Negligible No specific mitigation provided / Negligible Very Low through routine cleaning of the material into the water column of the required. intake screens. lower Waikato River.

Soluble Toxicity to instream biota. Negligible Operate within discharge quality limits. Negligible Very Low aluminium

Free available Toxicity to instream biota. Moderate De-chlorination; operate within Negligible Very Low chlorine discharge quality limits. Effect of the discharge on Glycerine Toxicity to instream biota. Moderate Removal of high dosage glycerine off- Negligible Very Low water quality site; operate within discharge quality and the ecology limits. of the lower Waikato River. Fluoride Toxicity to instream biota. Negligible Operate within discharge quality limits. Negligible Very Low

Total Toxicity to instream biota. Negligible Operate within discharge quality limits. Negligible Very Low suspended solids

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 100

Effect/activity Effect without mitigation Magnitude of effects Key mitigation measures Magnitude of Overall level of with no mitigation effects with effect with mitigation mitigation

River habitat Maximum incremental water level Low No specific mitigation provided / Low Low change up to 46 mm (cumulative 82 required. mm) and flow velocity reduction up to 0.003 m/s (cumulative 0.006 m/s) at the intake.

Inanga Maximum incremental water level Negligible No specific mitigation provided / Negligible Low (based on spawning change in the lower wetlands of up required. lower wetland ecological value of habitat to 11 mm (cumulative 19 mm) at very high) spring high tide. Effects on instream Upstream and Have a negative effect on migration Low Locate the screens away from the Negligible Very Low freshwater biota downstream corridors, potentially resulting in a bank but not in the centre of the river. through the migration localised barrier to fish passage. operation of the intake screens Fish, fish egg Fish impinged onto the screen. Moderate Locate the screens away from the Negligible Very Low and larvae bank but not in the centre of the river, impingement 1.5 mm slot widths on the wedge wire screen and “approach” velocities of less than 0.15 metres per second.

Fish egg and Fish eggs and larvae entrained Moderate Locate the screens away from the Low Low larvae through the screen. bank but not in the centre of the river, entrainment 1.5 mm slot widths on the wedge wire screen and “approach” velocities of less than 0.15 metres per second.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 101

Effect/activity Effect without mitigation Magnitude of effects Key mitigation measures Magnitude of Overall level of with no mitigation effects with effect with mitigation mitigation

Effects on Due to the width of the delta and Negligible No specific mitigation provided / Negligible Low (based on riparian and influence of tidal fluctuations water required. lower wetland ecological value of wetland values level, change in the wetlands are very high) predicted to be small (incremental water level change up to 14 mm, cumulative 25 mm based on spring low tide conditions).

Intake screen Fish being damaged by the rotating Low Locate the screens away from the Negligible Very Low cleaning brush screen. Fish disturbance bank but not in the centre of the river, through sparging. 1.5 mm slot widths on the wedge wire screen and “approach” velocities of less than 0.15 metres per second to avoid fish entrainment.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 102

The effects identified by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd. relate primarily to effects on the environment and it is clear that none of the potential adverse effects would be discernible to the extent that they may cause an adverse effect that would require mitigation or remediation. That level of effects is consistent with the potential adverse effects on other persons also being potentially discernible but not significant.

In terms of the Quality Planning website good practice guide, the effects of the proposal would be potentially discernible on a day-to-day basis in some instances but would be too small to adversely affect other persons or the environment or would be barely noticeable and will not cause any significant adverse impacts. On that basis the effects would be, at most, minor, (and less than minor in most instances).

Watercare understands that Waikato-Tainui have particular views on the cultural implications of the proposal that extend beyond the “physical” effects described by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd.

9.7 EFFECTS ON OTHER WATER TAKES FROM THE WAIKATO RIVER

9.7.1 Overview

There are several existing authorised abstractions from the mainstem of the Waikato River downstream of the Huntly Power Station mixing zone.34 The Watercare intake is located in this reach of the Waikato River. The grant of Watercare’s proposed take, in combination with all other existing takes and all takes applied for before the lodgement of Watercare’s application that have not yet been determined, will not result in the allocable flow for the catchment set out in Table 3-5 of the WRP being exceeded. Watercare’s assessment of environmental effects is conservative and assumes that all existing applications lodged with the Regional Council ahead of the Watercare application will be granted. As described in this assessment, the environmental effects of the additional Watercare abstraction on the Waikato River, in those circumstances, will be minor or less than minor.

9.7.2 Water Allocation

The additional Watercare abstraction will have less than minor effects on existing users of the Waikato River and will not affect existing allocations.

Objective 3.3.2 of the WRP identifies several existing uses of water that the Plan provides for, including:

a) The availability of water for reasonably justified and foreseeable future domestic or municipal supply requirements;

34 The river reach that includes the Watercare intake, as defined in Table 3-5 the WRP.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 103

b) Allocation of water for the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources; c) Existing water takes for rural-based activities such as agriculture, perishable food processing and industry; and d) The availability of water for cooling of the Huntly Power Station.

The proposed Watercare water take will not affect existing water takes for domestic and municipal water supplies, nor will it preclude (given the present WRP policy framework) the grant of consent in respect of other applications to take water from the Waikato River for reasonably justified and foreseeable future domestic or municipal supply needs. The proposed water take will not reduce water availability for renewable electricity generation, nor will it affect the availability of cooling water for the Huntly Power Station (which is located approximately 43 km upstream of the Watercare intake).

The existing Waikato River allocation, allocations sought under water take consent applications preceding the Watercare water take application, the allocation sought by Watercare and other applications lodged after Watercare’s application and currently before WRC are shown in Figure 25.

Figure 25: Waikato River Water Allocation.

This figure demonstrates that there is significant remaining allocation available between May and October (which could, for example, be used for a water harvesting proposal for

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 104

supply during summer months). Figure 25 also shows that most of the applications currently before WRC (including those lodged after the Watercare applications) could potentially be granted for the volumes sought in those applications. The reduction in Watercare’s proposed take to 150,000 m3/day has also reduced the extent to which the granting of consent may affect other applicants for consent to take water from the Waikato River, as distinct from existing users. All applications lodged before Watercare’s application was lodged in December 2013 can now be granted within the allocable flow, along with many applications lodged after Watercare’s application December 2013.

It is noted that WRC is seeking reductions35 in the volumes sought in the existing water take applications. This and withdrawals of some applications, if confirmed, would mean the majority of applications after the Watercare application would fall under the allocation limit.

The proposed water take will not affect existing water takes for rural-based activities such as agriculture, perishable food processing and industry. Other water take activities can be considered through the WRP water allocation framework and are not necessarily precluded by the proposed Watercare take if the allocation limit is not exceeded. If the allocation limit would be exceeded in future, it is noted that the WRC may consider (in terms of Policy 19 and Method 3.3.4.10 of the WRP) reviewing conditions of existing consents, seeking shared reductions in water use across the catchment either by consent review for existing takes, or as resource consents expire and alternatives including other potential sources of water are explored, to provide for future activities.

9.7.3 Summary

Overall, the effect of the proposed Watercare take on existing users of the Waikato River upstream and downstream of the proposed Watercare take is less than minor.

9.8 RECREATION AND NAVIGATION

Recreational uses of the Waikato River in the vicinity of the proposed take include boating, canoeing, and whitebaiting, none of which will be significantly affected by the proposed water take and intake structure. The site is not considered suitable for general swimming and is sufficiently removed from main recreation areas that general access will not be affected by the proposal. The location of the proposed intake adjacent to the existing intake means that there is only one area of the river where recreational uses would potentially be affected.

It is noted that the sparging requirements for the existing intake structure and potential sparging for the new intake have the potential to cause disturbance on the water surface and represent a potential hazard to passing craft. However, the site is well marked by surface buoys and signs to warn river users of the location of the intake. In addition, the

35 WRC letter to the Environmental Protection Agency dated 13 November 2020.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 105

WTP operators check that people are not in the vicinity of the intake (via CCTV cameras) when a sparge event is planned. A similar approach would be used for the new intake structure and operation.

The effects of the proposed intake activities on recreational and navigational uses of the river will be less than minor.

9.8.1 Climate Change

Auckland and the Waikato could encounter a range of effects resulting from climate change, including changes to temperature and rainfall patterns, more frequent and intense weather events, and accelerated sea level rise. While the exact scope of scale of such effects is not currently known, it is prudent to take into account all such effects when investing in regionally significant infrastructure. In this regard, the location of Watercare’s proposed intake structure is such that it will not be affected by sea level rise, nor will the proposed take affect the extent of the salt wedge when compared to the changes in the extent of the salt wedge that are expected to result from the maximum predicted sea level rise.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 106

10. MONITORING

As described in Section 9, the construction and operational effects of Watercare’s proposed abstraction from the Waikato River are typically expected to be less than minor and will not adversely affect the Waikato River. The changes in flow at the proposed intake are considered to be insignificant compared to the natural tidal influences. As such, there will be no discernible effects on the hydrology and hydraulic regime of the Waikato River.

The intake screens have been designed, located and positioned to minimise any impediment to fish migration and to mitigate any risk of fish impingement and entrainment. Fish egg and larvae entrainment will be mitigated by using a fine slot size (1.5 mm) for the screens, and by placing the intake structure away from locations where fish egg and larvae movement are the highest.

Discharges from the proposed Waikato A WTP into the Waikato River will be similar to the current discharges from the existing Waikato WTP and will not adversely affect the river or ecology.

In terms of consistent and integrated management, it is considered that the conditions for the new water take and discharge consents should be consistent with those included in resource consents 960089, 960101, 960091 and 120246. To that extent, Watercare proposes (and would accept) conditions related to the quality of discharges to the Waikato River, monitoring of water takes from and discharges to the Waikato River, monitoring plans and annual reporting of Waikato River water take and discharge quality monitoring consistent with those in the existing Watercare consents being included in the consents sought.

Monitoring of the volume of water taken will comply with the requirements for measurement and reporting of the water take contained in the Resource Management (Measurement and Reporting of Water Takes) Regulations 2020. In this regard, the existing resource consent for the taking of water from the Waikato River requires monitoring of the water taken from the river and telemetry of this data to the Council. Watercare proposes (and agrees to) a similar condition requiring monitoring and telemetry of data to the Council being included in the water take consent sought.

Watercare carries out routine monitoring of the intake screens at the current intake to assess the effectiveness of the intake screens and approach and sweep velocities to prevent the impingement and entrainment of fish eggs and larvae. The monitoring has demonstrated that impingement or entrainment levels at the intake are low. Watercare will continue monitoring at the new intake structure to detect any effects on the instream ecology of the Waikato River.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 107

11. CONSULTATION

11.1 INTRODUCTION

Watercare recognises that consultation is a key component of the resource consent application process. Accordingly, the company has undertaken consultation in a way that provides opportunities for key stakeholders to identify issues of concern, and to clarify, where possible, any such issues early in the process.

Watercare has not extended consultation to those parties potentially affected by future stages of this project, for example, those parties potentially affected by construction of a new treated watermain as this is beyond the scope of this application.

Consultation regarding the initial application took place at the time the 2013 application was lodged and was reported on in the 2013 application documents. Since that application was lodged, consultation has continued with various parties, most notably Waikato-Tainui. The consultation set out in this Section of the AEE primarily focusses on that which has occurred since the 2013 application was lodged.

11.2 IWI AND MANA WHENUA CONSULTATION

A key focus of Watercare’s discussion with mana whenua has been Te Whakakitenga, which is the representative organisation for the iwi of Waikato-Tainui and is the trustee of the Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust and the Waikato Raupatu River Trust. Engagement with Waikato-Tainui on this application commenced in the course of developing the application in 2012 / 2013.

Watercare also engaged with the hapuu and marae on the lower Waikato River collectively under Huakina Development Trust i.e., Horahora Marae, Nga Tai E Rua Marae, Ooraeroa Marae, Reretewhiioi Marae, Tauranganui Marae, Te Awamaarahi Marae, and Te Kotahitanga Marae.

In addition, Watercare engaged with Ngaati Tamaoho, including Whaataapaka Marae and Maangaatangi Marae. It also engaged with Ngāti Te Ata, including Tahuna Kaitoto Marae.

After discussions with the Waikato-Tainui Environment Manager, Watercare travelled to Te Kuiti to discuss its water take application with the Maniapoto Māori Trust Board.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 108

Te Ākitai Waiōhua (one of the iwi of Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau) deferred their engagement to the then Waikato Tainui Chair, Rāhui Papa.

Since lodgement of the original application in December 2013, Watercare has continued to provide updates on the application at the Watercare Mana Whenua Managers Kaitiaki Forum, which sits bi-monthly. The 19 tribal authorities represented on this forum are:

• Makaurau Marae Māori Trust;

• Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Trust;

• Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust;

• Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust;

• Ngāti Maru Rūnanga Incorporated;

• Ngāti Rēhua – Ngāti Wai ki Aotea Trust;

• Ngāti Tamaoho Trust;

• Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust;

• Ngāti Tamaterā Settlement Trust;

• Ngāti Wai Trust Board;

• Ngāti Whanaunga Incorporated;

• Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust;

• Te Ākitai Waiohua Iwi Authority;

• Te Ara Rangatū o Te Iwi o Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua;

• Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority;

• Te Patukirikiri Incorporated;

• Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua;

• Te Uri o Hau Settlement Trust; and

• Te Whakakitenga o Waikato Incorporated.

The authorities represented on the forum that have expressed a particular interest in the application, and with which Watercare is continuing to engage on an ongoing basis, are the Ngāti Tamaoho Trust, Te Ākitai Waiohua Iwi Authority, Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust and Te Ara Rangatū o Te Iwi o Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 109

Watercare has continued its engagement with Waikato-Tainui, both at the executive and governance level (i.e., Te Whakakitenga). Watercare has also continued to engage with individual marae of Te Taniwha o Waikato that were formerly under the Huakina Development Trust. Those marae are:

• Hora Marae;

• Maurea Marae;

• Nga Tai E Rua Marae;

• Ooraeroa Marae;

• Tauranganui Marae;

• Te Awamarahi Marae;

• Te Kotahitanga Marae; and

• Tikirahi Marae.

The reduction in Watercare’s proposed net take from 200,000 m3/day to 150,000 m3/day (net) is a direct result of Watercare’s engagement with Waikato-Tainui since 2013. It recognises Waikato-Tainui’s special relationship with the Waikato River (awa) as outlined in the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010, and that Waikato- Tainui’s relationship with and respect for the awa lies at the heart of Waikato-Tainui’s spiritual and physical wellbeing and tribal identity and culture. Watercare and Te Whakakitenga have agreed the terms of a Kawenata relating to this application and the progression of key outcomes that Te Whakakitenga has identified, including the establishment of a trust whose purpose is to protect and promote the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River and through that, the interrelated health and wellbeing of Waikato- Tainui consistent with Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato and Tai Tumu, Tai Pari, Tai Ao.

In addition to the consultation above, Waikato-Tainui representatives participated in the water source and intake options workshops. The representatives indicated that while a Waikato River take is the least favoured option, as the awa is a taonga to Waikato Tainui and water takes from it are considered to impact the mauri of the awa, they recognised that the timing constraints involved in seeking to meet Auckland water supply demands and indicated that other options (e.g. wastewater reuse) should be considered as future water supply options. Watercare acknowledges the importance of this involvement in these processes and seeks to continue this involvement through the design and implementation stages in the event that consent is granted.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 110

11.3 OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

Watercare has identified a range of stakeholders, including other river users, local authorities and interest groups, for the updated application to which an offer to meet to discuss the proposal was extended. This section of the AEE provides an overview of this engagement process.

By way of brief summary, following confirmation of the reduction in the volume of the water to be taken, Watercare sent a letter introducing the updated application to stakeholders in early November 2020. The letter offered the opportunity for stakeholders to meet with Watercare staff to discuss the application, the BOI process and to provide initial feedback on the application.

Follow up emails, including a Stakeholder Summary Sheet which provided a high-level overview of the application (including a summary of the key changes made as part of the updated application), were circulated in mid-November 2020 restating the offer to meet with Watercare.

Where parties responded, meetings were held in late November and early December 2020. While Watercare has made its best endeavours to engage with all parties ahead of lodgement of its updated application once technical and other assessments relevant to the updated application were well advanced or complete , in some instances, meetings could not be arranged ahead of lodgement. Watercare is committed to continue to engage with stakeholders throughout the application process and will provide an update on any engagement / consultation outcomes in due course.

Where relevant, a summary of the key matters raised by stakeholders has been provided below.

11.3.1 Local Authorities

Watercare has met with the following local authorities:

• Hamilton City Council – As holder of a consent to take water from the river for municipal supply, the primary concern for HCC was the impact of the take on future water availability for municipal supply for Hamilton City. Watercare summarised the proposal with respect to the development of the assets at the WTP site and how this would affect Watercare’s ability to exercise the proposed water take over time. Watercare confirmed it is open to exploring water sharing opportunities for any unused water in the short-term (consistent with what is provided for under the consent granted to Watercare to take allocation not being used by HCC). HCC officers advised it is their elected Councillors who would make a decision on HCC’s position on any application and HCC officers advised that they would prepare an initial paper to be presented to the Councillors to introduce the project. Watercare

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 111

offered to provide a presentation to the Councillors in the new year in the event that it would be helpful.

• Waikato Regional Council – Since lodgement of the 2013 application Watercare have been in regular contact with WRC. This engagement has continued following the call in by the Minister on 30 June 2020. However, the context of these meetings has changed given the different role of WRC in the process. Watercare has kept an open and direct line of communication with WRC about the proposal, in particular the reduction in volume of the take that is being sought as part of the updated application and the impact that this reduction will have on the amount of allocation available in the river.

11.3.2 Other Parties with an Interest in Taking Water from the Waikato River

Watercare has met with the following users of the Waikato River:

• Winstone Aggregates – As holder of consents for activities (gravel extraction, water takes and discharges) immediately downstream of Watercare’s intake location, the primary concern was the location of the new intake and how it would affect their consented operations within the river located directly downstream of the proposed intake location. However, as the new intake is proposed next to the existing intake, Winstone’s were comfortable that the proposal still provides sufficient space within the river for their extraction activities and is in line with the existing ‘exclusion zone’ agreement between the parties. Winstone’s stated their support for the proposal.

• Fonterra – As holders of various consents for water takes in the upper Waikato River catchment for multiple processing plants, Fonterra’s primary concern was the impact of Watercare’s take on the allocation status of the river and the ability for Fonterra to take additional water for any expansion at their processing plants and also for small scale water users (i.e., dairy farmers within the catchment) to take water too. Fonterra asked about the proposed take requirements over the 35 year consent term and what consideration Watercare had given to alternative uses for any water that is not required in the immediate future. Watercare stated that it needed certainty of supply over the 35 year term of consent sought; however, it is open to exploring water sharing opportunities in appropriate situations as provided for under the WRP.

• Glenbrook Steel Mill – As a consented downstream water user, the primary concern related to ensuring there was no impact on the intake at the Glenbrook Mill and if Watercare’s application would have any effect their current WRC application to renew their water take. Watercare confirmed that the grant of its application would not have any effect on the Glenbrook Mill intake given its distance downstream from the Watercare intake site. In respect of the Mill’s water take application it was noted that this is currently being processed by the WRC because

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 112

it was lodged before Watercare’s application. Overall, the Mill operators stated that they generally had no concerns with Watercare’s proposal.

• Horticulture New Zealand – As the representative body for fruit and vegetable produce growers in the region, their primary concern is related to water availability and who should get priority over water use particularly given the requirements for provision for water supply for Specified Vegetable Growing Areas under the NPSFM 2020. They queried what the impact of the reduction in take will have on the primary and secondary allocation. Watercare confirmed that there is sufficient allocation available for its application and all applications lodged with the WRC prior to Watercare’s application to be granted without the primary allocation being exceeded. As shown in Figure 25 above, there may also be some additional water available, within the allocation limit, for those who lodged applications with WRC after Watercare’s application was lodged in December 2013. Horticulture NZ also proposed that a meeting be held in the new year between Watercare and the Pukekohe Growing Association. Watercare indicated it was supportive of this. Horticulture NZ stated it was likely that they would oppose the application.

• Mercury Energy (formerly Mighty River Power) – As an upstream user, their primary commentary was around how the new take volume would affect the primary allocation and availability for new water takes into the future. Watercare confirmed that there is sufficient allocation available for its application and all applications lodged with the WRC prior to Watercare’s application to be granted without the primary allocation being exceeded. As shown in Figure 25 above, there may also be some additional water available, within the allocation limit, for those who lodged applications with WRC after Watercare’s application was lodged in December 2013.

11.3.3 Other Parties

Watercare has met with the following parties:

• Fish and Game – primarily interested in how the intakes would be managed to address potential effects on fish and larvae becoming entrained. A summary of the proposed intake controls / measures was discussed. No position on the application was provided at the time of the meeting.

• Department of Conservation – The primary concern of DoC was related to the effects of the intake and take on fish, eels and small fry and also about the discharge / removal of weeds and algae from the intake and what effect this may have on the downstream river environment. A summary of the proposed intake controls / measures was discussed. No position on the application was provided at the time of the meeting.

• Waikato Rivercare Group – Primary concerns are the potential for any effects on the river environs and its margins. Watercare stated that the take will not result in

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 113

any discernible changes to the river hydrology that would affect the river and that there were some river enhancement works that would be linked to the project as part of the proposed river enhancement trust which is included in the Kawenata agreement. The Group communicated that they were interested in being part of the projects involving river restoration and enhancement and identified that it is important that any planting or enhancement is ‘fit for purpose’ as they otherwise can end up with high maintenance and / or replacement costs. The Group indicated that it was generally supportive of the proposal.

• Waikato River Harbour Master – email correspondence only. The Harbour Master confirmed that beyond any navigational safety issues that the new intake may present, consultation should be directed to WRC. As navigational safety matters will be managed in a manner consistent with that for the current intake, and that no navigational safety issues or incidents have been linked to the current structure, no further consultation with the Harbour Master was considered necessary.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 114

12. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT

12.1 INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS

12.1.1 Schedule 4 Requirements

Schedule 4 to the RMA provides sets out the required content of an Assessment of Effects on the Environment (“AEE”).

Schedule 4 contains seven clauses, of which clauses 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 specify information requirements that are relevant to this application and this AEE. Clause 4 (subdivision consents) and Clause 5 (reclamations) are not applicable to the proposed activity.

By way of brief summary, Schedule 4 matters have been addressed as follows:

Clause 1 Information must be supplied in sufficient detail

This AEE provides information relating to the proposed resource consents sought for the taking of up to 150,000 m3/day (net) at a maximum rate of up to 3,200 L/s from the Waikato River for municipal water supply purposes, the construction and operation of the associated intake structure, and discharges of process water and off-spec water, in sufficient detail to satisfy the purpose for which it is required.

Clause 2 Information required in all applications

This assessment includes a description of the activity, a description of the site at which the activity is to occur, the name and address of the owner and occupier of the site, a description of any other activities that are part of the proposal, an assessment of the activity against the matters set out in Part 2, and an assessment of the activity against any relevant statutory documents.

An assessment of the relevant statutory documents, with particular reference to WRP matters, follows this section of the AEE.

The actual and potential effects of the proposed abstraction of water from the Waikato River are described in in Section 9 of this AEE.

Clause 3 Additional information required in some applications

No permitted activities form part of the proposal and the activity is not affected by Sections 124 or 165ZH(1)(c). The activity does not occur in an area within the scope of a planning document prepared by a customary marine title group.

Clause 6 Information required in AEE

(a) The activity will not result in any significant adverse effect on the environment, so no alternative locations or methods require consideration in terms of Schedule 4.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 115

Notwithstanding this, Watercare has considered a wide range of water source options and alternatives as set out in Section 6 of this AEE before concluding that a water take from the Waikato River is the preferred option for Auckland’s next strategic water source. A range of options and alternatives for the intake structure have also been assessed, as set out in Section 7 of this AEE.

(b) An assessment of the actual or potential effect on the environment of the activity is included in Section 9 of this AEE.

(d) The activity involves discharges of water and contaminants as set out in Section 4.1.4 of this AEE. The discharges will result in very low levels of effects when assessed under the EIANZ guidelines, and effects that are, in planning terms, minor or less than minor on the Waikato River. The river is not sensitive to the contaminants contained in the discharge (noting that in large part, the discharges comprise a return of water taken from the river). Alternatives to discharging to the river, including discharge to the Pukekohe wastewater treatment plant (discounted because of the distance to the plant and because the ultimate discharge would still be to the Waikato River) and onto land (discounted because of insufficient land area available and potential post-discharge contamination occurring) have been considered.

(e) As the proposed water take will result in adverse effects on the Waikato River that are at most minor (and are less than minor in most instances), no mitigation measures other than the proposed rate of taking and intake structure design are considered necessary.

(f) The AEE identifies a range of parties who may potentially consider themselves to be affected by the proposed activities. The AEE concludes the effects on other parties will generally be less than minor. With respect to mana whenua, Watercare has undertaken consultation and has amended its proposal as set out in the Kawenata Whakawhanaunga in response to concerns raised by Te Whakakitenga on behalf of Waikato-Tainui. Consultation undertaken in relation to the proposal is summarised in Section 11 of this AEE.

(g) Watercare proposes that the activity be subject to conditions imposing monitoring requirements, and that these be the same as under Resource Consent 960089.01.04.

(h) The proposed take will have no effects on the exercise of any protected customary rights as there are no customary rights applicable to the proposal.

No additional information is required to be provided by the provisions of any policy statement or plan.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 116

Clause 7 Matters that must be addressed by assessment of environmental effects

(a) The activity will not affect anyone in the neighbourhood or the wider community (other than providing for water supply demands). The effects of the proposal are discussed in Section 9 of this AEE.

(b) The physical effects of the activity on the Waikato River are discussed in Section 9 of this AEE.

(c) The effect of the proposed activity on ecosystems, including effects on plants or animals and any physical disturbance of habitats in the vicinity is discussed in Section 9 of this AEE.

(d) The effect of the proposed activity on natural and physical resources having aesthetic, recreational, scientific, historical, spiritual, or cultural value, or other special value, for present or future generations is discussed in Section 9 of this AEE.

(e) The proposed discharges are set out in Section 4.1.4 of this AEE.

(f) The proposed activity does not pose any risk to the neighbourhood, the wider community, or the environment through natural hazards or the use of hazardous substances or hazardous installations.

(g) The matters relevant to the assessment of effects contained in the relevant policy statement or plan have all been addressed, and there are no other matters in the provisions of any policy statement or plan requiring further assessment.

12.1.2 National Environmental Standards for Freshwater Information Requirements

The National Environmental Standards for Freshwater set out various information requirements for structures in or on the beds of rivers and are summarised in as follows:

62 Requirement for all activities: information about structures and passage of fish

(a) is the placement, alteration, extension, or Standard 62 (a)(iv) applies. reconstruction of any of the following The proposal involves a coffer dam on the bed structures in, on, over, or under the bed of of a river. any river or connected area: (i) a culvert: (ii) a weir: (iii) a flap gate (whether passive or non- passive): (iv) a dam: (v) a ford; and

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 117

(b) is a permitted activity, or a class of activity that requires a resource consent, whether under this subpart or otherwise.

(2) The information specified in this regulation All information specified in the regulation is must be collected and provided to the either provided in this application or can be relevant regional council, together with provided as a condition of consent. the time and date of its collection, within 20 working days after the activity is finished – (a) for a permitted activity; or (b) as a condition of a resource consent granted for the activity, for another class of activity.

(3) The information is – Refer to Section 3 of this AEE and the (a) the type of structure: supporting technical documents. (b) the geographical co-ordinates of the structure: (c) the flow of the river or connected area (whether none, low, normal, or high):

(d) whether the water is tidal at the The river is subject to tidal water level structure’s location: fluctuations at the intake location but is not subject to saline intrusion.

(e) at the structure’s location – The width of the river varies between (i) the width of the river or approximately 120 m and 240 m wide at the connected area at the water’s water surface in the vicinity of the intake. surface; and The width of the bed of the river at the intake (ii) the width of the bed of the river location is approximately 120 m. or connected area:

(f) whether there are improvements to Refer to Section 3 of this AEE. the structure to mitigate any effects the structure may have on the passage of fish:

(g) whether the structure protects Refer to Section 3 of this AEE. particular species, or prevents access by particular species to protect other species:

(h) the likelihood that the structure will Refer to Section 3 of this AEE. impede the passage of fish:

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 118

(i) visual evidence (for example, Such evidence can be provided once the photographs) that shows both ends intake structure is built. of the structure, viewed upstream and downstream

66 Requirement for dam activities: information about dams

(2) The information specified in this regulation All information is either provided in this must be collected and provided to application or can be provided as a condition relevant regional council, together with of consent. the time and date of its collection, within 20 working days after the activity is finished – (a) for a permitted activity; or (b) as a condition of a resource consent granted for the activity, for another class of activity;

(3) The information is – The coffer dam is a temporary structure and will not have an asset identification number. (a) the dam’s asset identification The structure will be removed upon completion number, if known: of construction.

(b) whether the dam’s ownership is – The coffer dam is a temporary structure and (i) held by the Crown (for example, will be removed upon completion of the Department of construction. Conservation), a regional council, a territorial authority, the New Zealand Transport Agency, or KiwiRail Holdings Limited; or (ii) held publicly by another person or organisation; or (iii) held privately; or (iv) unknown:

(c) the dam’s height: The coffer dam will be built to a height that will enable work on the intake tunnel to be undertaken in dry conditions and to minimise overtopping risks during construction. The height will be determined as part of the construction design.

(d) whether the dam has a spillway, The coffer dam is a temporary structure and meaning a structure used to control does not require a spillway. the release of flows from the dam into a downstream area:

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 119

(e) the numbers of each other type of The dam will be a temporary sheetpile structure to which this subpart structure. applies, or of wingwalls or screens, on the dam:

(f) if there is any apron or ramp on the The dam will be a temporary sheetpile dam, the information required by structure. regulation 68 for each of them.

12.1.3 Waikato Regional Plan requirements

Chapter 8 of the WRP sets out a range of information requirements for resource consent applications. The matters specific to this application are discussed in Table 16 (general information requirements), Table 17 (water take information requirements), Table 18 (discharge information requirements), Table 19 (information requirements for dams), Table 20 (information requirements for structures) and Table 21 (information requirements for removal of structures).

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 120

Table 16: Waikato Regional Plan General Information Requirements for all Applications.

Information Requirement Comment

a. Name of the applicant and the name of the owner or occupier (if different from The name of the applicant is included in the updated resource consent application the applicant). forms submitted with this AEE.

b. The address of the applicant and owner or occupier. The address of the applicant is included in the updated resource consent application forms submitted with this AEE.

c. A description of the activity for which consent is sought, and its location. A detailed description of the activity is included within Section 3 of this AEE.

d. An assessment of any actual or potential effects (including cumulative effects), This document is an assessment of environmental effects as required under the RMA on the environment, and the way in which adverse effects may be mitigated 1991 and meets the Fourth Schedule requirements. (see Fourth Schedule of the RMA for matters which should be included).

e. A statement specifying all other resource consents that the applicant may In addition to the proposed water take and intake structure, and discharge consents for require from any consent authority in respect of the activity to which the the discharge of process water and off-spec water for which resource consents are application relates, and whether or not the applicant has applied for such sought, the existing Waikato WTP will need to be expanded over time to provide consents. sufficient capacity to supply the increased water take. The Water Treatment Plant site is covered by an existing designation and any required RMA approvals for the construction and operation of new water treatment facilities and associated pumping stations and pipelines at the Waikato WTP site will be sought once an allocation of water from the Waikato River has been secured and design requirements are known. For that reason, approvals for these activities do not form part of these applications.

f. Where it is likely that any activity will result in any significant adverse effect on As outlined in Section 9, the proposed activities are not likely to result in any significant the environment, a description of any possible alternative locations or methods adverse effects on the environment. for undertaking the activity.

g. A record of any consultation undertaken by the applicant and the level of any The consultation undertaken as part of this application is detailed in Section 11 of this consultation undertaken with tangata whenua. AEE.

h. The way in which any adverse effects will be avoided, remedied or mitigated. The actual and potential adverse effects of the proposal are described within Section 9 of this AEE. Details on how adverse effects will be avoided, remedied or mitigated are

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 121

Information Requirement Comment contained in Sections 7 and 9 and in the technical reports accompanying the application.

i. An indication of any actual or potential effects on neighbouring land owners, The actual and potential effects of the proposed activity are set out in Section 9. The tangata whenua who are Kaitiaki, or special interest groups that are potentially proposal will not affect neighbouring land owners. adversely affected by the activity, and an accurate representation of the views of those parties.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 122

Table 17: Waikato Regional Plan Information Requirements for Water Take Applications.

Information Requirement Comment

a. The location of the take. The location of the water take and associated activities is included in Section 3.3.5 of this AEE.

b. The purpose for which water is to be taken including the proposed The purpose for which water will be taken is for municipal supply as outlined in Section crop/pasture type, reflecting rotational crop requirements. 3 of this AEE.

c. Define the maximum volume of water to be taken as a minimum per day and Section 3 identifies the maximum volume of water to be taken under the proposed per year. activity. This proposal is for an additional take of water from the Waikato River of 150,000 m3/day (net) for municipal supply purposes, or a volume of up to 54.9 million m3/year.

d. The rate at which water is to be taken. The combined maximum rate of take for the existing and new takes is up to 5.65 m3/s, while the rate at which water would be taken for this proposal is 3.2 m3/s.

e. The source of water. The source of the water is the Waikato River.

f. Any associated discharges used to offset the cumulative allocation effects of As described in this AEE, up to 20,000 m3/day of process and off-spec water will be the taking of water. discharged back to the Waikato River. The allocation sought under this consent (taking into account water returned to the Waikato River) is 150,000 m3/day (net).

g. Identification of alternative water sources including groundwater, water An outline of the other water sources considered by Watercare is provided in Section 6 harvesting and water reuse and provide an assessment of how these may of this AEE. minimise adverse effects, including those on existing and foreseeable future users.

h. Intake screening. The intake screens will have a 1.5 mm slot size as set out in Section 3.3.1.

i. The identity and location of other neighbouring abstractors. The proposal will not affect the abstraction of water at the take location. Other abstractions are considered under the water allocation assessment.

j. What effects this activity will have on the environment. Section 9 of this AEE presents a comprehensive assessment of the actual and potential effects of the proposal on the environment.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 123

Information Requirement Comment

k. The proposed method of recording water use and reporting to Waikato Watercare’s existing resource consent 960089 requires data on the gross and net take Regional Council. of water to be telemetered to the WRC at 15 minute intervals. The same condition to record and report on the proposed take is proposed.

l. In the case of an application for the replacement of an existing resource The application is not to replace an existing resource consent. Notwithstanding this: consent: o The need for the volume and rate of water applied for is addressed in Section 5 o a demonstrated continued need for the volume and rate of water applied and is additional to the water currently taken in accordance with resource consent for based on water use records, recognising seasonal and crop rotational 960089; factors, o No enforcement action has been taken by Council in relation to resource consent o any enforcement action taken by Council, and 960089; and o use of best industry practice. o The use of best practices is addressed in the WMP accompanying this application.

m. In the case of an application for domestic or municipal supply, a water A WMP is appended to this AEE as Appendix A. It has been prepared in accordance management plan prepared as detailed in Method 8.1.2.2 shall be provided with Method 8.1.2.2. with all resource consent applications made in accordance with 3.3.3 Policy 9 and Rules 3.3.4.18, 3.3.4.21, 3.3.4.23, 3.3.4.24 and 3.3.4.26.

n. Details, including distribution extent, of any other properties to which water is Section 3 addresses the distribution extent of the properties to be supplied by the to be supplied from this take. proposed take.

o. In the case of an application for domestic or municipal supply, details shall be The assessment described in Section 9 concludes that any adverse effects of the provided of any existing or proposed riparian fencing and planting necessary to proposed taking of water from the Waikato River will be minor or less than minor. mitigate adverse effects of the take on the water body. Details on proposed Watercare is proposing the establishment of a trust on terms to be agreed between riparian fencing and planting shall be provided in the form of a Riparian Watercare and Te Whakakitenga, whose purpose is to protect and promote the health Vegetation Management Plan having regard to Standard 3.3.4.28. and wellbeing of the Waikato River.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 124

Table 18: Waikato Regional Plan Information Requirements for Discharges to Water.

Information Requirement Comment

a. Purpose for which the consent is sought. As described in Section 3, consent is sought to discharge both process and off-spec water from the Waikato A WTP.

b. Maximum volume of the discharge. Section 3 describes the different discharges proposed within this application.

c. The rate at which waste is to be discharged. Section 3 describes the rate of discharge to the Waikato River.

d. What treatment the waste will receive prior to discharge. Section 3 of this AEE provides a description of the discharge to the Waikato River.

e. How the volume discharged will be minimised. Section 3 of this AEE provides a description of how discharges to the Waikato River will be minimised.

f. How the contaminant loading of the discharge will be minimised. Section 3 of this AEE provides a description of how Watercare will minimise the contaminant loading of the discharges.

g. What happens to any sludge or solid waste that may be generated. Water treatment sludge is sent to a landfill.

h. The characteristics of the waste to be discharged. The characteristics of the discharges are detailed in Section 3 of this AEE.

i. What effect the discharge will have on the receiving environment, including the The actual and potential effects of the proposed discharges are set out within Section 9 effect on the purpose of water management classes in Section 3.2.3 of the of this AEE. Plan.

j. The site location and point of discharge. The location of the discharges is set out in Section 3.

k. The extent to which the discharge will comply with Policy 1 in Chapter 6.1 of this The proposed activity does not involve the discharge of odour or particulate matter to Plan, with regard to objectionable odour and particulate matter effects. air.

l. What or whether alternative methods of discharge and treatment have been The discharge methods are discussed in Section 3 of this AEE. Alternatives to considered. discharging to the river, including discharge to the Pukekohe wastewater treatment plant (discounted because of the distance to the plant and because the ultimate discharge would still be to the Waikato River) and onto land (discounted because of insufficient land area available and potential post-discharge contamination occurring) have been considered.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 125

Table 19: Waikato Regional Plan Information Requirements for Damming Water.

Information Requirement Comment

a. Purpose for which water is to be dammed. A description of the proposal is included in Section 3 of this AEE. By way of summary, the damming and diversion will be temporary and associated with the construction of a coffer dam to isolate the proposed construction area from the flow of the Waikato River.

b. Full description of existing works, or works to be constructed, and the location The proposed works are described in Section 3 of this AEE. of the works.

c. Whether a qualified and experience consultant is to be involved in the design Suitably qualified and experienced individuals have been involved in the design and will and or construction of the proposed works. be involved in the construction of the proposed works.

d. Expected date of completion of any works to be constructed. The construction period is described in Section 3 of this AEE and in the associated technical reports.

e. Source of water. Activities will be undertaken in the Waikato River.

f. Description of the topography, soil type and vegetation, including vegetation A description of the existing environment is presented in Section 8 of this AEE, and the that could be directly or indirectly affected by a change in water levels. actual and potential effects of the proposal on the environment are presented in Section 9.

g. Sketch plan or design of dam. The design is described in Section 3 of this AEE.

h. What other options have been considered. A consideration of construction methods is presented in Section 3 of this AEE and associated technical reports.

i. What effects this activity will have on the environment. A comprehensive assessment of the actual and potential effects of the proposed activities is set out in Section 9 of this AEE.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 126

Table 20: Waikato Regional Plan Information Requirements for Applications to Use, Erect, Place, Extend, Alter or Reconstruct a Structure In, On, Under or Over the Bed of a River or Lake.

Information Requirement Comment

a. A description and plan of the structures’ dimensions, including an assessment A description of the proposed structures is included in Section 3 of this AEE. of any percentage change in the size of the structure.

b. The expected construction period. The construction period is expected to be up to approximately 21 months.

c. A description of the proposed method of construction including: The indicative construction methodology is described in Section 7 of this AEE and will i. the material to be used to erect or place, or extend, alter or reconstruct be determined as part of the final design. the structure, ii. the equipment to be used, iii. a construction plan.

d. Description of the site, nature of the river or lake bed and banks, and A description of the existing environment is provided in Section 8 of this AEE. vegetation.

e. An assessment of the environmental effects of the activity including: A comprehensive assessment of the actual and potential effects of the activity is i. the potential effects on bed and bank stability, provided in Section 9 of this AEE. ii. the extent to which the activity will adversely affect areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna, iii. the extent to which the activity will adversely affect the natural character of the water body, iv. the extent to which the activity will affect neighbouring or downstream properties, v. the extent to which the activity will affect any other lawfully established structure, vi. the extent to which the activity affects tangata whenua values, vii. the effects on the uses and values of the water body.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 127

Information Requirement Comment

f. Evidence that the owner of the river or lake bed has authorised the structure to The river bed in which the proposed works will be undertaken is in Crown ownership. be built.

g. The extent to which the activity will affect navigation safety. An assessment of the actual and potential effects on navigation is provided in Section 9 of this AEE.

h. All mooring applications must include the following information: This application is not for a mooring. i. Contact details of applicant, ii. General location of the mooring (i.e. name of the bay in a lake), iii. GPS location of mooring, iv. Draft, beam and length of vessel, v. Type of vessel (launch/yacht, etc.), vi. Written comment from harbourmaster (if applicable) on the navigation safety implications of the mooring, vii. Alternative locations considered, viii. An assessment of any actual or potential affects that the activity may have on the environment, ix. Consultation with potentially affected local iwi, owners of legal mooring structures within 75 metres and landowners.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 128

Table 21: Waikato Regional Plan Information Requirements for the Demolition or Removal of a Structure.

Information Requirement Comment

a) A description of the structure to be removed, including a description of its The temporary coffer dam and construction platform will be removed once construction former purpose and use. of the intake is complete.

b) A description of any amenity or historic value attached to the structure to be There is no amenity or historic value associated with the temporary intake structure and removed. the coffer dam.

c) An assessment of the environmental effects of the removal of the structure, The effects of the proposal are described in Section 9 of this AEE. including: i) the potential effects on bed and bank stability, ii) the extent to which the activity will adversely affect areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna, iii) the extent to which the activity will adversely affect the natural character of the water body, iv) the extent to which the activity will affect neighbouring or downstream properties, v) the extent to which the activity will affect any lawfully established structure, vi) the extent to which the activity will affect tangata whenua values, vii) the effects on the uses and values of the water body, viii) the beneficial effects of removing the structure.

d) An assessment of the effect of the activity on any natural hazard, and the extent The removal of the temporary intake structure and coffer dam will have no effect on any to which it is likely to exacerbate a natural hazard. natural hazard, nor will it exacerbate any natural hazard.

e) Evidence that the existing authorised owner of the structure, if known, has Watercare is the authorised owner of the structure. given their approval for that demolition and removal.

f) A description of the extent to which all or part of the structure is to be The temporary coffer dam and construction platform will be removed once construction demolished or removed. of the intake is complete.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 129

Information Requirement Comment

g) A description of the methods to be used to remove the structure, the The methods to be used to remove the structure will be developed as part of the anticipated disturbance of the bed and bank resulting from the removal and the construction design. The effects of removal of the structure will be minor. methods to be used to rehabilitate the site.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 130

12.2 RESOURCE CONSENT REQUIREMENTS AND ACTIVITY STATUS

The resource consents required and the activity status of these are described in Section s 3.3.5 and 4.1 of this AEE.

12.3 SECTION 104 ASSESSMENT

12.3.1 Introduction

Section 104(1) of the RMA specifies the matters that a consent authority must ‘have regard to’ when considering applications for resource consents, as follows:

104 Consideration of applications

(1) When considering an application for a resource consent and any submissions received, the consent authority must, subject to Part 2 have regard to- (a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and (ab) any measure proposed or agreed to by the applicant for the purpose of ensuring positive effects on the environment to offset or compensate for any adverse effects on the environment that will or may result from allowing the activity; and (b) any relevant provisions of – (i) a national environmental standard: (ii) other regulations: (iii) a national policy statement: (iv) a New Zealand coastal policy statement: (v) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement: (vi) a plan or proposed plan; and

The matters set out in Section 104(1) of the RMA are considered in relation to the activities that are the subject of the resource consent application in the following Section s of this report.

Section 104B of the RMA applies to Discretionary Activities:

104B Determination of applications for discretionary or non-complying activities

After considering an application for a resource consent for a discretionary activity or noncomplying activity, a consent authority— (a) may grant or refuse the application; and (b) if it grants the application, may impose conditions under Section 108.

Section 108 of the RMA (referred to in Section 104B quoted above) sets out the nature of conditions that a consent authority may include on a resource consent. A consent

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 131

authority is entitled to have regard to any proposed conditions (and legally must assume those conditions will be complied with) as part of the assessment of the applications.

The following Section s of this Planning Assessment present an analysis of the activities that are the subject of the resource consent applications by Watercare in relation to the matters that need to be considered under Section s 104, 105 and 107 of the RMA as applicable. Policy documents that need to be considered include:

• National Environmental Standards and Other Regulations;

• National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020;

• Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River;

• Waikato Regional Policy Statement;

• Waikato Regional Plan; and

• Proposed Change 1 to the Waikato Regional Plan.

12.3.2 Actual and Potential Effects

The actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activities covered by the proposal are discussed in Section 9 of this AEE. In summary, the proposal will have positive effects, while its adverse effects on the environment would be, at most, minor (and would be less than minor in most instances).

12.3.3 National Environmental Standards

Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Freshwater) Regulations 2020

The Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Freshwater) Regulations 2020 (“NES Freshwater”) came into force on 3 September 2020 and aim to regulate activities that pose risks to freshwater and its ecosystems. The relevant Section of the NES Freshwater is Subpart 3 that relates to passage of fish affected by structures. In particular, clause 66 relating to dam activities is relevant. An assessment of the information requirements in Section 12.1.2 of this AEE confirms that the proposed coffer dam activities meet the regulation requirements.

The NES Freshwater also imposes requirements to obtain resource consent for certain activities affecting “natural wetlands”. “Natural wetlands” are defined under the NES Freshwater as having the meaning given under the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (“NPSFM 2020”).

There is a wetland mosaic present within the unnamed tributary adjacent to the Watercare WTP site. The area of the unnamed tributary adjacent to the proposed intake structure meets the definition of a wetland under the Waikato RPS. This is due to the presence of hydrophytic vegetation (Glyceria maxima) i.e., plant species capable of

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 132

growing in soils that are often or constantly saturated with water during the growing season. Glyceria maxima is considered a facultative wetland species usually found in wetlands and as such, in its current state, provides wetland-like habitat at this location.

However, in terms of whether the wetland comes within the definition of “natural wetland” under the NPSFM 2020 and the NES Freshwater, the NPSFM 2020 narrows the definition of a “natural wetland” by providing exclusion criteria to account for historic modification that may have resulted in functional, but not “natural” wetlands.36 The wetland adjacent to the intake structure has developed by “artificial means” as a result of historic cut and fill to create the building platform for the existing pump station and existing plant. The true right bank of the unnamed tributary has been widened and armoured. Changes in hydrology upstream of this reach due to widening of the stream banks for attenuation purposes has also reduced stream flows and Glyceria has established, further altering the stream, dispersing flows evenly through the widened stream profile resulting in the modified wetland now present.

As such, the subject site is not considered a natural wetland under the NES Freshwater 2020 or the NPSFM 2020.

Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water) Regulations 2007

The National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water (“NES Human Drinking Water”) applies to sources from which water is abstracted for use in registered drinking water supplies. These are community supplies that are recorded in the drinking water register maintained by the Ministry of Health.

Water is not taken under existing water take consents downstream of the Watercare intake so the proposed Waikato A WTP discharges would not affect any water supply take. In that regard, the NES Human Drinking Water does not apply, and regulations 7 and 8 of the NES do not prevent or restrict the grant of the discharge permit sought.

12.3.4 Other Regulations: Resource Management Measurement and Reporting of Water Takes Regulations 2020

The Resource Management (Measurement and Reporting of Water Takes) Regulations 2020 (“Water Measuring Regulations”) came into force on 3 September 2020. These regulations set out the minimum requirements in respect of measuring, record-keeping and reporting for water permits that allow freshwater to be taken at a rate of greater than 5 l/s.

The proposed water take will be measured and reported in accordance with the Water Measuring Regulations. Watercare’s existing resource consent 960089 requires data on the gross and net take of water to be telemetered to the WRC at 15 minute intervals. That methodology is considered appropriate for ensuring compliance with the Water

36 NPSFM, clause 3.21 Definitions Relating to Wetlands and Rivers.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 133

Measuring Regulations. It is anticipated a similar requirement will be imposed on the proposed take.

12.3.5 National Policy Statements

National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020

The NPSFM 2020 came into effect on 3 September 2020 and provides direction on how freshwater should be managed under the RMA. Local authorities must give effect to the NPSFM 2020 “as soon as reasonably practicable” and must “publicly notify any changes to their regional policy statements, regional plans, and district plans that are necessary” to give effect to the NPSFM 2020 (Section 4.1).

The NPSFM 2020 supports improved freshwater management in New Zealand by directing regional councils to establish objectives and set limits for fresh water in their regional plans. The fundamental concept, objectives and policies of the NPSFM 2020 are discussed below.

Te Mana o te Wai

Te Mana o te Wai is the fundamental concept underpinning the NPSFM 2020. It recognises that protecting the health of freshwater protects the health and wellbeing of the wider environment and protects the mauri of the wai. Te Mana o te Wai involves restoring and preserving the balance between the water, the wider environment, and the community.

The proposal is focused on the steps necessary to restore and protect the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River by seeking a quantity of water that will result in effects on the river that have been assessed as minor or less than minor and by using an intake screening option that has been demonstrated to have less than minor effects on fish in the river. It promotes environmental enhancements via the establishment of a river enhancement Trust whose purpose is to protect and promote the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River that will assist with restoring the balance between water, the wider environment and the community. In that respect, the proposal is consistent with and gives practical effect to the concept of Te Mana o te Wai.

Objective

The objective of the NPSFM 2020 is to ensure that natural and physical resources are managed in a way that prioritises:

a) First, the health and wellbeing of water bodies and freshwater ecosystems;

b) Second, the health needs of people (such as drinking water); and

c) Third, the ability of people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing, now and in the future.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 134

As noted above, the proposal is focused on the steps necessary to restore and protect the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River and puts the river first. In particular: i) The proposal puts the health and well-being of the River first by:

a) Seeking a quantity of water that is within the assessed allocable flow and will result in effects on the river that have been assessed as minor or less than minor; and

b) Adopting an intake screening option that has been demonstrated to have minor effects on fish in the river and which will have effects on the river ecology that have been assessed as less than minor effects on fish in the river and effects on the river ecology that have been assessed as minor or less than minor; ii) Watercare proposes the establishment of a river enhancement Trust whose purpose is to protect and promote the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River and through that, the interrelated health and wellbeing of Waikato-Tainui and other iwi and hapuu; iii) As a proposal for municipal supply, it is needed to provide for the needs of people in terms of human health and sanitation; and iv) The proposal will enable the people of Auckland (and the North Waikato) to provide for their social and economic well-being.

Overall, the proposal is consistent with the hierarchy set out in the objective for the NPSFM 2020.

Policies

There are 15 policies included in the NPSFM 2020, commencing with Policy 1 that states freshwater is to be managed in a way that gives effect to Te Mana of Te Wai. As noted above, the proposal is consistent with and gives practical effect to the concept of Te Mana o te Wai.

Policy 2 promotes the involvement of tangata whenua in freshwater management (including decision-making processes), and that Māori freshwater values are identified and provided for. Tangata whenua have been consulted and their values considered as part of the proposal (refer to Section 11.2). In response to consultation with Waikato- Tainui, the proposed water take has been reduced to 150,000 m3/day (net) and a maximum cumulative net take of 300,000 m3/day with a consequent reduction in the WTP discharge volume and surrender of the Seasonal Water Take and Hamilton City Water Allocation take consents held by Watercare.

A catchment wide approach has been taken with respect to assessing the effects of the proposal, consistent with Policy 3 of the NPSFM 2020. In particular existing water permit holders have been consulted.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 135

The proposal will assist with providing certainty and resilience in response to more frequent climate extremes in the future, which may have resultant effects on water supply availability and the extent or frequency of droughts and is therefore an integral part of planning for future potential climate change effects. (Policy 4).

Policy 5 of the NPSFM 2020 requires that freshwater be managed through a National Objectives Framework to ensure that the health and wellbeing of degraded water bodies and freshwater ecosystems is improved, and the health and wellbeing of all other water bodies and freshwater ecosystems is maintained and (if communities choose) improved.

The National Objectives Framework and associated values are discussed briefly below.

With respect to Policies 6 – 15 of the NPSFM 2020: a) The proposal will not result in loss of extent of natural inland wetlands and will not adversely affect wetland values that are protected (Policy 6) and will not result in further loss of river extent or values (Policy 7); b) The project will not adversely affect the values of outstanding water bodies (Policy 8); c) The proposal will not result in significant adverse effects on habitats of indigenous freshwater species or the habitat of trout (Policies 9 and 10); d) The NPSFM 2020 sets a national target for increasing proportions of rivers and lakes that are suitable for primary contact to at least 80% by 2030, and 90% no later than 2040 (Policy 12 and Appendix 3). The proposal will not affect the ability to achieve the targets set; e) The proposal will not result in Waikato River allocation limits being exceeded (Policy 11) and the proposal will not result in adverse water quality effects (Policy 13) with monitoring results telemetered every 15 minutes provided to the WRC (Policy 14); and d) The proposal will enable the supply of water to Auckland and North Waikato communities (Tuakau and Pokeno) to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing while ensuring that adverse effects on the environment are consistent with the NPSFM 2020 (Policy 15).

National Objectives Framework

The NPSFM 2020 provides a National Framework that directs how councils must set objectives, policies, and rules about fresh water in their regional plans. They must do this by establishing freshwater management units across their regions and identifying the values that communities hold for the water in those areas. Councils are required to maintain or improve water quality within their region.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 136

Subpart 2 of the NPSFM 2020 sets out the approach Regional Council’s must follow in setting freshwater objectives, attributes and limits for individual water bodies. The NPSFM 2020 requires that Regional Councils must consider freshwater values and how they should apply to local or regional circumstances. Appendix 1A of the NPSFM 2020 sets out compulsory national values, while other values to be considered are set out in Appendix 1B.

There are four compulsory national values:

1. Ecosystem Health: The NPSFM 2020 identifies 5 biophysical components that contribute to freshwater ecosystem health that require management, including water quality, water quantity, habitat, aquatic life and ecological processes. It states that in a healthy freshwater ecosystem, all 5 biophysical components are suitable to sustain the indigenous aquatic life expected in the absence of human disturbance or alteration (before providing for other values).

2. Human Health for Recreation: This refers to the extent to which people are able to connect with the water through a range of activities such as swimming, waka, boating, fishing, mahinga kai, and water skiing, in a range of different flows or levels, taking into account such matters as pathogens, water clarity, deposited sediment, plant growth, cyanobacteria, other toxicants, and litter.

3. Threatened Species: This refers to the extent to which a population of threatened species has the critical habitats and conditions necessary to support the presence, abundance, survival, and recovery of the threatened species.

4. Mahinga Kai: Mahinga kai generally refers to freshwater species that have traditionally been used as food, tools, or other resources, the places those species are found and to the act of catching or harvesting them. Mahinga kai provide food for the people of the rohe and these sites give an indication of the overall health of the water.

Non-compulsory values (Appendix 1B) for the Waikato River relevant to the proposal include provision for drinking water supply, provision for wai tapu (where applicable), fishing, hydro-electric power generation, provision for animal drinking water and commercial and industrial use.

Appendix 2 of the NPSFM 2020 sets out the attribute tables that are applicable to a waterbody and are related to the national values.

The proposal will not affect the compulsory national values and is consistent with the non-compulsory values relevant to the Waikato River. Overall, the proposal is consistent with the objective and policies of the NPSFM 2020 and the proposed establishment of a Trust with the purpose of protecting and promoting the health and wellbeing of the

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 137

Waikato River, consistent with Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato, will give practical effect to the objective of improving the quality of the Waikato River.

National Policy Statement for Urban Development

The National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (“NPS-UD”) became operative on 20 August 2020 and replaced the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity 2016.

The NPS-UD 2020 recognises the national significance of:

• Having well-functioning urban environments that enable all people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing, and for their health and safety, now and into the future; and

• Providing sufficient development capacity to meet the different needs of people and communities.

The proposed water take is consistent with the objectives and policies of the NPS-UD as it will enable the areas serviced by the Watercare network to continue to be well- functioning urban environments and will enable the social, economic and cultural wellbeing, and health and safety of the community served. Providing infrastructure services, such as the proposed water supply, is integral to providing development capacity to meet the different needs of people and communities.

12.3.6 Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato

As discussed in Section 2, Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato is intended by Parliament to be the primary direction-setting document for the Waikato River and activities within its catchment affecting the Waikato River. Under Section 11 of the River Settlement Act Te Ture Whaimana is deemed part of the Waikato Regional Policy Statement.

The “Vision” for the Waikato River as set out in Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato is as follows:

Our Vision is for a future where a healthy Waikato River sustains abundant life and prosperous communities who, in turn, are all responsible for restoring and protecting the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River, and all it embraces, for generations to come.

There are 13 objectives included to realise the above vision, 12 strategies to achieve those objectives and 18 methods to implement those strategies.

Of these provisions it is the 13 objectives which contain the desired outcomes for the management of the Waikato River, and which are most relevant to the proposal. Each of these objectives is discussed below.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 138

Objective A – Restoration and Protection of the Health and Wellbeing of the Waikato River.

With respect to Objective A, Section 9 of this AEE outlines how the proposed activity will be protective of the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River. Of particular relevance, effects on the flows, intrinsic values and ecological values of the river will all be minor or less than minor.

In addition, Watercare has reached an agreement relating to relationship matters with Te Whakakitenga that provides for the establishment of a Trust with the purpose of protecting and promoting the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River consistent with Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato.

Objectives B, C and D – Restoration and Protection of the Relationship of Waikato Tainui, Waikato River Iwi and the Waikato Community with the Waikato River.

Watercare has reached an agreement relating to relationship matters, Kawenata Whakawhanaunga, with Te Whakakitenga. The proposals set out in this assessment are consistent with the Kawenata Whakawhanaunga which recognises Waikato-Tainui’s relationship with the Waikato River, its respect for the River and its wellbeing, and the rights and responsibilities of Waikato-Tainui and Te Whakakitenga to protect the mana and mauri of the River and to exercise mana whakahaere (control, access and management) in respect of the River and its resources in accordance with long established tikanga.

Watercare is committed to continuing this constructive relationship into the future.

Objective E – Integrated, Coordinated and Holistic Approach to Management.

In respect of Objective E, the approach taken to assessing and managing the effects of the proposed activities has included consideration of both the physical and cultural values of the Waikato River. It has also considered effects, and the management of those effects, on a whole of catchment scale.

Objective F, G, H and I– Adverse Effects

With respect to Objective F, as outlined in Section 9 the proposed activities will not result in any significant adverse effects on the Waikato River, nor any effect that is significant or irreversible.

Objectives G and H seek to avoid adverse cumulative effects and further degradation of the Waikato River. As outlined in this AEE, the proposed discharges will be of similar quality to the Waikato River into which they will be discharged and will have minor or less than minor effects on water quality or aquatic ecology.

As set out in Section 9, the proposed activity is protective of the Waikato River’s fisheries, flora and fauna as sought by Objective I.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 139

Objective J – Strategic Importance of the Waikato River to Community Wellbeing.

The Auckland domestic and municipal water supply network is nationally and strategically important infrastructure as contemplated in Objective J. If the consent sought is granted, the Watercare infrastructure will continue to operate in a way that is consistent with the restoration and protection of the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River. It is of strategic importance to the wellbeing of the communities serviced by the Watercare network, given that it has been identified as Watercare’s preferred strategic source and is the only strategic source capable of delivering a sufficient supply of potable water via the Watercare water supply network within the timeframes required in order to maintain a secure and reliable water supply (by 2025 – 2027 to ensure that annual demand can be met during a drought and by 2028 to meet peak demand).

Objective K and L – Use of the Waikato River

With respect to Objective K, as outlined in Section 9, the proposed activities will have minor or less than minor effects on water quality.

With respect to Objective L, which promotes improved access to the Waikato River, access at the proposed point of take is only restricted to the extent necessary for health and safety purposes.

Objective M – Use of Maatauranga Maaori and Latest Scientific Methods.

With respect to Objective M, the latest scientific methods have been used in assessing and managing the effects of the proposed activities on the Waikato River. In respect of maatauranga Maaori, Watercare will continue to liaise with Waikato-Tainui and Te Taniwha o Waikato (see Section 11.2) regarding inclusion of maatauranga Maaori into the management of effects on the environment.

Strategies

Strategies 1- 5 relate to the management of the Waikato River through available data to ensure the Waikato River is restored and protected. Monitoring data will be available through WRC to give effect to these strategies.

Strategies 6-7 relate to protecting waahi tapu and sites of significance to Waikato- Tainui and other Waikato River iwi and to protecting appropriate sites associated with the Waikato River that are of significance to the Waikato regional community. The proposals will not affect waahi tapu, sites of significance to Waikato-Tainui (noting that the culturally significant site near the existing intake will continue to be protected) or other sites that are of significance to the Waikato regional community.

Strategies 8 – 10 promote public knowledge and understanding of the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River, encourage a “whole of river” approach to the restoration and protection of the Waikato River, and support new and enhanced existing, relationships between Waikato-Tainui other Waikato River iwi (where they so

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 140

decide), and stakeholders with an interest in advancing, restoring and protecting the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River.

The ongoing dialogue with Waikato-Tainui and Te Taniwha o Waikato will enable the cultural, spiritual and historic relationship and values associated with the Waikato River to be protected.

Watercare will continue to foster relationships enabling ongoing implementation of Te Ture Whaimana strategies with respect to the Watercare activities related to the Waikato River. These discussions have and continue to inform mitigation measures for the proposal.

The cumulative effects of the proposal on the Waikato River has been appropriately assessed in accordance with the statutory planning documents and have been assessed as minor or less than minor (Strategy 11)..

With respect to public access (Strategy 12), while access is restricted at the intake site for public safety reasons, access is provided for cultural purposes at the site.

Overall Conclusion

Overall, the proposed activity, and the manner in which it proposes to assess and manage its interaction with the Waikato River, is demonstrably consistent with Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato.

12.3.7 Waikato Regional Policy Statement

Section 104(1)(b)(v) of the RMA requires the consent authority to “have regard to” any relevant provisions of “a regional policy statement”. The Waikato Regional Policy Statement 2016 (“Waikato RPS”) was made operative on 20 May 2016 and is the relevant regional policy statement. While the Waikato RPS was made operative after the WRP, the objectives and policies in the Waikato RPS relevant to water allocation matters were developed in a manner such that the WRP gives effect to the Waikato RPS. In that regard, the WRP water allocation provisions are supported by the Waikato RPS and can be relied upon without further reference to the WRPS.

In addition to water allocation matters, the Waikato RPS includes objectives and policies intended to ensure that natural and physical resources are managed in a way that recognises and provides for sustainable resource use and development and enables people and communities to provide for their economic, social and cultural wellbeing while protecting and enhancing the life supporting capacity of soils, water and ecosystems. The Waikato RPS also supports the restoration and protection of health and wellbeing of the Waikato River and seeks that the Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River is achieved. The Waikato RPS also supports investment in existing and new infrastructure to provide for planned and expected growth and to protect the health and safety of people and communities.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 141

Issue 1.1 (state of resources) in the Waikato RPS states that declining quality and quantity of natural and physical resources impacts their life-supporting capacity, reduces intrinsic values and ecosystem services and in general reduces the ability to provide for wellbeing. While addressing this issue generally, the Waikato RPS states that specific focus should be directed to addressing several matters including restoring and protecting the health and wellbeing of the Waikato and Waipā Rivers and the availability of water to enable people and communities to provide for their existing and future social, economic and cultural wellbeing.

Objective 3.2 (Resource use and development) in the Waikato RPS is to recognise and provide for the role of sustainable resource use and development and its benefits in enabling people and communities to provide for their economic, social and cultural wellbeing, including by maintaining and where appropriate enhancing various aspects including the availability of water for municipal and domestic supply to people and communities.

Objective 3.12 (Built environment) of the Waikato RPS requires that development of the built environment (including transport and other infrastructure) and associated land use occurs in an integrated, sustainable and planned manner which enables positive environmental, social, cultural and economic outcomes, including by recognising and protecting the value and long-term benefits of regionally significant infrastructure.

These objectives are supported by several policies that seek to enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing and objectives and policies which seek to safeguard environmental quality. This includes Policy 8.6 (Allocating fresh water) which is to manage the increasing demand and competition for water through the setting of allocation limits, efficient allocation within those limits, and other regional plan mechanisms which achieve identified freshwater objectives and to:

• Maintain and enhance the mauri of fresh water bodies;

• Retain sufficient water in water bodies to safeguard their life-supporting capacity and avoid any further degradation of water quality;

• Enable the existing and reasonably justified foreseeable domestic or municipal needs of people and communities and an individual’s reasonable animal drinking water requirements to be met (with discretion to consider additional allocations for those particular uses in fully and over-allocated catchments);

• Avoid any reduction in the generation of electricity from renewable electricity generation activities, including the Waikato Hydro Scheme; and

• Recognise that lawfully existing water takes (including those for regionally significant industry and primary production activities supporting that industry) contribute to social, economic and cultural wellbeing and that significant investment relies on the continuation of those takes.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 142

In respect of the take and use of water for municipal supply, the Waikato RPS anticipates the activity occurring, provided that the water is used efficiently, and the effects of the take are managed in an appropriate manner. In respect of the objectives and policies provided in the Waikato RPS to guide how those effects are to be managed, the primary mechanism proposed is the setting of flow and allocation regimes. In terms of water use efficiency, average daily residential water use in Auckland ranked second lowest in the Water New Zealand 2019 National Performance Review of 42 water suppliers and the lowest of the largest (city) suppliers.

The Waikato RPS reinforces the importance of Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato as the primary direction-setting document for the Waikato River, as discussed in this AEE.

Granting the consents as sought is consistent with the provisions set out in the Waikato RPS to achieve the integrated management of natural and physical resources in the Waikato Region.

12.3.8 Waikato Regional Plan

The December 2013 “Proposed Waikato River Take: Resource Consent Applications and Assessment of Environmental Effects” supporting the 2013 resource consent application by Watercare to take water from the Waikato River includes an extensive discussion of the WRP requirements applicable to the taking of water from the Waikato River. That assessment is equally applicable to this application.

The WRP was made partially operative on 28 September 2007 and fully operative on 10 April 2012 upon the resolution of Variation No. 6 – Water Allocation. The document is set out in the eight modules.

Module 1 – Approaches to Resource Management

This module describes the purpose of the document, and the legislative framework within which it is being developed. The Module also contains the procedural aspects for cross-boundary issues, monitoring and review.

Module 2 – Matters of Significance to Maori

This module addresses resource management issues of concern to Maori.

Modules 3 – 7

There are five resource-based modules relating to water, river and lake beds, land and soil, air, and geothermal resources. Each resource-based module is comprised of a number of chapters. Of relevance to the Watercare proposal are Modules 3 (Water Resources) and Module 4 (River and Lake Beds).

Module 8 – Information Requirements

This module addresses information requirements (for consent applications).

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 143

The relevant provisions of these modules are addressed below in four Section s which address the following:

• Objective 3.1.2 which sets the “desired end point for management of water bodies in the region” and is relevant to all the proposed activities;

• The key provisions of the WRP in respect of water allocation;

• The key provisions of the WRP in respect of the establishment and operation of the intake structure; and

• The information requirements specified in Module 8 for the Watercare resource consent application are addressed in Section 9.2.3 above.

Objective 3.1.2

Objective 3.1.2 sets the “desired end point for management of water bodies in the region” and is relevant to all the proposed activities. Objective 3.1.2 states:

3.1.2 Objective The management of water bodies in a way which ensures: a) that people are able to take and use water for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing b) net improvement of water quality across the Region c) the avoidance of significant adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems d) the characteristics of flow regimes are enhanced where practicable and justified by the ecological benefits e) the range of uses of water reliant on the characteristics of flow regimes are maintained or enhanced f) the range of reasonably foreseeable uses of ground water and surface water are protected g) inefficient use of the available ground surface water resources is minimised h) an increase in the extent and quality of the Region’s wetlands i) that significant adverse effects on the relationship tangata whenua as Kaitiaki have with water and their identified taonga such as waahi tapu, and native flora and fauna that have customary and traditional uses in or on the margins of water bodies, are remedied or mitigated j) the cumulative adverse effects on the relationship tangata whenua as Kaitiaki have with water their identified taonga such as waahi tapu, and native flora and fauna that have customary and traditional uses that are in or on the margins of water bodies are remedied or mitigated k) the management of non-point source discharges of nutrients, faecal coliforms and sediment to levels that are consistent with the identified purpose and values for which the water body is being managed l) the natural character of the coastal environment, wetlands and lakes and rivers and their margins (including caves), is preserved and protected from inappropriate use and development m) ground water quality is maintained or enhanced and ground water takes managed to ensure sustainable yield

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 144

n) shallow ground water takes do not adversely affect values for which any potentially affected surface water body is managed o) concentrations of contaminants leaching from land use activities and non- point source discharges to shallow ground water and surface waters do not reach levels that present significant risks to human health or aquatic ecosystems p) that the positive effects of water resource use activities and associated existing lawfully established infrastructure are recognised, whilst avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment.

In respect of clause (a) and (p), the substantial benefits derived from the proposed take and use of water by Watercare are set out in this AEE and the associated technical reports. With respect to clause (b), the proposed discharges will have minor or less than minor effects on water quality and will not compromise the long term improvement of water quality across the region. Consistent with clause (c), as outlined in Section 9 of this AEE, the proposed activities would be managed in a manner which protects aquatic ecology and they will not have significant adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems. Consistent with clause (h) the proposed activity will have less than minor effects on wetlands.

With respect to clauses (i) and (j), as discussed in Section 11, Watercare has undertaken consultation with mana whenua to better understand the effects of the proposed activities on cultural values and has modified its proposal accordingly to reduce the proposed water take.

In respect of natural character, as addressed by clause (l), the intake structure will be largely submerged (the only surface manifestation is likely to be a buoy marking the location of the structure) while any pump station will be set back from the river bank in what is an already modified environment. The effects on river hydrology and ecology have been assessed as minor or less than minor. In that context, the effects of the proposed activities on natural character are considered to be minor or less than minor. There is a functional need for the infrastructure to be located where it is proposed and it is not an inappropriate use of that location.

With respect to clause (d), (e) and (f) effects on the characteristics of the Waikato River flow regime, and the ecological and human use values the river supports are outlined in this AEE and the associated technical reports. The actual or potential effect of the additional Watercare abstraction on the ecological and human use values supported by the River (including existing users) will be minor, or less than minor.

Consistent with clause (g), water will be used efficiently for the reasons set out in the Water Management Plan accompanying the application.

Clauses (m), (n) and (o) which address groundwater, and clause (k) which addresses non-point source discharges, are not relevant to the proposed activities.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 145

Relevant Provisions – Water Allocation

Chapter 3.3 sets out the WRPs approach to the protection, allocation and use of the Region’s surface water resources. Chapter 3.4 is also relevant and addresses efficiency matters. Together, they contain the key WRP provisions in respect of water allocation.

Chapter 3.3 contains one objective and 21 policies, while Chapter 3.4 contains three policies. Many of these provisions are procedural, particularly the policies in Chapter 3.3. However, those relevant when considering the proposed take and use of water are addressed below.

Provision for Municipal supply

Within the water allocation provisions of Chapter 3.3 there is a strong emphasis that the allocation and use of water is managed to provide for existing, and reasonably justified and foreseeable future municipal supply requirements.

By definition, those provisions apply to the proposed take and use of water for Auckland’s existing and reasonably foreseeable future, municipal supply needs noting that some of the water taken will be supplied to Tuakau and Pokeno.

The objective and policies which contain this explicit direction are outlined below:

3.3.2 Objective In addition to Objective 3.1.2, the management of water allocation and use in a way which ensures: … b) The availability of water to meet the existing and the reasonably justified and foreseeable future domestic or municipal supply requirements of individuals and communities and the reasonable needs for an individual’s animal drinking water requirements. c) The recognition of the significant community benefits that derive from domestic or municipal supply takes. …

Policy 1: Establish Allocable and Minimum Flows for Surface Water Establish and review allocable and minimum flows for surface water bodies which are to be used when assessing authorised water takes and resource consent applications from surface water bodies while having particular regard to the following matters: … m. The benefits to be derived from the efficient take and use of water for reasonably foreseeable future consumptive uses, and in particular existing and reasonably justified and foreseeable future needs for domestic or municipal supply and the reasonable needs for an individual’s animal drinking water. …

Policy 9: How Surface Water Takes for Domestic or Municipal Supply Will Be Classified

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 146

The Waikato Regional Council will manage water allocation in catchments to ensure the availability of water to meet the existing and reasonably justified and foreseeable domestic or municipal supply requirements of individuals and communities by: a. Classifying applications for takes for domestic or municipal supply to replace resource consents as controlled activities provided that: i. At the time of application the take was an authorised water take; and ii. There is no increase in the nature, rate and volume of the take from that previously authorised; and iii. A water management plan which meets the requirements of Method 8.1.2.2 has been provided. b. Classifying as a controlled activity applications for takes not previously authorised for domestic or municipal supply when the net take, assessed in combination with all other existing authorised water takes within the same catchment, is for a rate less than or equal to 70 percent of the primary allocable flow identified in Table 3-5. c. Classifying as a restricted discretionary activity applications for takes not previously authorised for domestic or municipal supply when the net take, assessed in combination with all other existing authorised water takes within the same catchment, is for a rate exceeding 70 percent and up to and including 100 percent of the primary allocable flow identified in Table 3-5. d. Classifying as a discretionary activity applications for takes not previously authorised for domestic or municipal supply which exceed 100 percent of the primary allocable flow identified in Table 3-5 or exceed 100% of the combined primary and secondary allocable flows identified in Table 3-5. e. Classifying all applications for takes for domestic or municipal supply as a non-complying activity where a water management plan which meets the requirements of Method 8.1.2.2 has not been provided.

Policy 11: Consent Application Assessment Criteria – Surface Water When assessing resource consent applications for surface water takes and/or any associated water use, the effects of these activities shall be assessed individually and cumulatively with all other existing or authorised (or currently applied for) water take and use activities. In doing so the Council shall have particular regard to the following matters: … f. The significant social and economic benefits associated with the take and use of water for domestic or municipal supply g. With the exception of water harvesting undertaken in accordance with Policy 20 and Rule 3.3.4.22 and takes associated with renewable electricity generation, any need to limit the duration of a water take consent, impose conditions to provide for the review of the volume of water taken pursuant to a consent, or to decline to grant a water take consent, all in order to enable domestic or municipal supply takes required for future growth.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 147

These matters are considered below. By way of summary, it is concluded that the proposed allocation fits comfortably with the allocation framework of the WRP.

Objective 3.3.2

Objective 3.3.2 contains a number of matters the plan seeks to ensure in managing the allocation and use of water. It states:

3.3.2 Objective a. Giving effect to the overarching purpose of the Vision and Strategy to restore and protect the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River for present and future generations. b. The availability of water to meet the existing and the reasonably justified and foreseeable future domestic or municipal supply requirements of individuals and communities and the reasonable needs for an individual’s animal drinking water requirements. c. The recognition of the significant community benefits that derive from domestic or municipal supply takes. d. The efficient allocation and the efficient use of water. e. No further allocation of water that exceeds the primary allocation in Table 3-5 that reduces the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources. f. The recognition that existing water takes contribute to social and economic wellbeing and in some cases significant investment relies on the continuation of those takes, including rural-based activities such as agriculture, perishable food processing and industry. g. The continued availability of water for cooling of the Huntly Power Station. h. Sufficient water is retained instream to safeguard the life supporting capacity of freshwater, including its ecosystem processes and indigenous species and their associated ecosystems. i. That decisions regarding the allocation and use of water take account of the need to avoid the further degradation of water quality, having regard to the contaminant assimilative capacity of water bodies. j. Subject to Objectives a) to h) above, the availability of water to meet other future social, economic and cultural needs of individuals and communities (including rural-based activities such as agriculture, perishable food processing and industry).

In addition to providing for municipal supply within clause (b) and (c), Objective 3.3.2 places emphasis on a number of other matters in managing water allocation and use. With respect to those other matters the following is noted:

• Objective 3.3.2(a) – as outlined in Section 12.3.6, the proposed take of water is demonstrably consistent with Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato and the restoration and protection of the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River for present and future generations;

• Objective 3.3.2(d) – As provided for in the WMP (Appendix 1 of this AEE), the proposed take and use of water is an efficient use of water;

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 148

• Objective 3.3.2(e) – The proposed allocation of water to Watercare will not reduce the generation of electricity from renewable sources;

• Objective 3.3.2(f) – The effects on existing takes are addressed in detail in Section 9 of this AEE and in relation to Policy 19 below;

• Objective 3.3.2(g) – The proposed taking of water will not adversely affect the continued availability of water for cooling of the Huntly Power Station;

• Objective 3.3.2(h) – Sufficient water will remain instream to safeguard the life supporting capacity of the Waikato River; and

• Objective 3.3.2(i) – The proposed activity will have no discernible effect on the assimilative capacity of the Waikato River.

Policy 1

Policy 1 primarily relates to the establishment of allocable and minimum flows for waterbodies and has been implemented by setting flows in Table 3-5 of the WRP. This application has been assessed in terms of the allocable and minimum flows set through Table 3-5 and has taken account of the benefits to be derived from the efficient take and use of water for reasonably foreseeable future consumptive uses, and in particular existing and reasonably justified and foreseeable future needs for domestic or municipal supply (Policy 1(m)).

It is considered the proposed allocation of water to Watercare will not compromise the ability of the flow regime for the lower Waikato River to provide for those matters set out in Policy 1.

Policy 9

The proposed take is classified as a restricted discretionary activity in terms of Policy 9(c) as it is a take not previously authorised for domestic or municipal supply when assessed in combination with all other existing authorised water takes within the same catchment, is for a rate exceeding 70% and up to and including 100% of the primary allocable flow.

Policy 11 – Consent Application Criteria

Policy 11 sets out a list of matters to which the consent authority shall have particular regard when assessing the effects of the proposed take and use of surface water. These matters are addressed in Table 22.

In addition to the above matters, Rule 3.3.21 sets out matters of discretion for restricted discretionary activity water takes. These matters are addressed in Table 23.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 149

Table 22: Waikato Regional Plan Policy 11 Assessment Criteria for Surface Water Takes.

Policy 11 Provision Comment a. Whether the proposed take would adversely affect the restoration and The proposed water take is within the allocation limits provided for in the WRP protection of the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River. and will not adversely affect the restoration and protection of the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River b. The effect of the activity on the relationship of tangata whenua and their The operation of the proposed activities is consistent with the restoration and culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wahi tapu protection of the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River. The relationship and other taonga. of tangata whenua and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wahi tapu and other taonga will be provided for through the ongoing relationship Watercare has with Waikato-Tainui. c. Phasing out any existing allocation of surface water that exceeds the The proposed water take, in combination with all other existing consented combined primary and secondary allocable flows in Table 3-5, or takes, will not result in or exacerbate any existing over-allocation of water. exceeds the water harvesting limits in Policy 20 b) by 31 December 2030 in accordance with Policy 19. d. Whether the applicant has demonstrated a need for the volume and rate The proposed water take recognises the present allocation status in the of water sought, taking into account the applicant’s seasonal and Waikato River and takes into account future water requirements and efficiency rotational requirements (if any), and has proposed appropriate water measures. The WMP accompanying the application sets out measures efficiency measures including an assessment of measures to be taken to (including a Drought Management Plan) for managing the water take. reduce the take and use during water shortage conditions as defined in Policy 17. e. The need to ensure that surface water is available for existing and The application is for consent to provide water for the reasonably justified and reasonably justified and foreseeable future domestic or municipal supply foreseeable future municipal supply needs as described in the technical needs identified in a water management plan that meets the reports accompanying the application. A water management plan meeting the requirements of Method 8.1.2.2, stock drinking water requirements and requirements of Method 8.1.2.2 is provided with the application. fire fighting purposes.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 150

Policy 11 Provision Comment f. The significant social and economic benefits associated with the take and The proposed water take recognises and provides for the significant social use of water for domestic or municipal supply. and economic benefits associated with the take and use of water for municipal supply. g. With the exception of water harvesting undertaken in accordance with The proposed water take recognises and provides for the significant social Policy 20 and Rule 3.3.4.22 and takes associated with renewable and economic benefits associated with the take and use of water for electricity generation, any need to limit the duration of a water take municipal supply and provides for future growth. consent, impose conditions to provide for the review of the volume of water taken pursuant to a consent, or to decline to grant a water take consent, all in order to enable domestic or municipal supply takes required for future growth. h. Restricting takes that exceed the primary allocation in Table 3-5 and The proposed water take will not exceed the primary allocation in Table 3-5 which reduce the amount of water that would otherwise be available for and will not reduce the amount of water that would otherwise be available for renewable electricity generation or be used for cooling of the Huntly renewable electricity generation or be used for cooling of the Huntly Power Power Station, including in particular any takes from the Waikato River Station. catchment upstream of the Huntly Power Station mixing zone that when assessed in combination with all other authorised water takes would exceed 100% of the primary allocable flows in Table 3-5. i. The significance of the social and economic benefits that derive from The proposed water take is a new take from the Waikato River but would be existing takes and the significance of the investment that relies on the exercised in tandem with the existing Watercare take from the Waikato River. continuation of those takes. It will enable more efficient use of the existing Watercare infrastructure. j. The potential adverse effects on existing users of granting a consent The proposed take will not adversely affect existing users by allocating flows which may result in the allocation of a catchment exceeding the exceeding the primary allocable flows in Table 3-5 for the Lower Waikato combined primary and secondary allocable flows in Table 3-5. River. The proposal will not result in an exceedance of the primary allocable flow.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 151

Policy 11 Provision Comment k. Subject to the matters listed in a), e) and h) of this Policy, the social and The proposed water take recognises and provides for the significant social economic benefits that may arise from the take and use of water and economic benefits associated with the take and use of water for (including rural-based activities such as agriculture, perishable food municipal supply (as section out in section 9.2 of this AEE). processing and industry). l. The net effect of the take on water quality in the water body from which The proposed water take will result in minor or less than minor effects on the water will be taken i.e. whether the further degradation of water water quality and will not result in degradation of water quality. quality is avoided (having regard to the flow rates and contaminant concentrations in that water body. m. Whether the applicant has demonstrated adequate consideration of The proposal for taking water from the Waikato River has considered use of a alternative water sources including water harvesting and water reuse and wide range of alternative water sources and water harvesting opportunities. It that the current application is industry good practice. will be integrated with the existing water take infrastructure to provide an enhanced water take network. The application represents industry good practice. n. The effects on the water body of any associated discharge of The associated WTP discharges will result in minor or less than minor effects contaminants, (either point source or diffuse) arising from the take and on water quality or result in degradation of water quality. use. o. Whether existing lawful takes will be adversely affected, including those The proposed water take will not adversely affect other lawful takes of water granted by neighbouring regional councils where water bodies cross within the Waikato or Auckland regions. regional boundaries. p. Impacts on, and integration with, other existing authorised uses of the The proposed water take will not adversely affect other existing authorised relevant water body (including customary uses). uses (including customary uses) of the Waikato River. q. Whether tangata whenua uses and values, including the mauri of water, Tangata whenua uses and values of the Waikato River, including the mauri of are maintained or enhanced. water have been recognised in developing the proposal.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 152

Policy 11 Provision Comment r. The effects on ecological values and biodiversity and the benefits of the The proposed water take will result in minor or less than minor effects on natural flow regime variability, including sediment transport and natural ecological values, biodiversity and the Waikato River natural flow regime flushing and flood flows. variability. It will not adversely affect sediment transport, natural flushing or flood flows. s. The need to ensure that water bodies are not over-allocated (having The proposed water take will not result in over allocation of the Lower regard to the current allocation limits of the water body as indicated by Waikato River. Table 3-5 and to the provisions of Policy 6, Policy 9 and Method 3.3.4.10.k). t. In the case of an application for the replacement of an existing resource The application is not for a replacement consent but is for a new consent to consent, whether the applicant has demonstrated a continued need for provide water for municipal water supply. The proposal is based on a the volume and rate of water, taking account of seasonal and rotational continued need for an increased volume of water for supply to meet growing requirements, applied for based on water use records, the efficiency of demand, taking account of present and planned water use and the efficiency the use of the resource, any enforcement action taken by Council in of the use of the resource. respect to the previous consent and use of industry good practice. u. Any improvements in water take and use infrastructure, and whether Watercare has a comprehensive asset management plan to ensure that it adequate metering, data collection and leak detection mechanisms are operates efficient and effective water supply infrastructure. Water metering, adopted. data collection and leak detection mechanisms are adopted throughout the Watercare network, ensuring that Watercare has one of the lowest per capita water use rates in New Zealand. v. The effects of the abstraction on wetlands, areas of significant indigenous The proposed water take will result in minor or less than minor effects on vegetation, or significant habitats for indigenous fauna. wetlands, areas of significant indigenous vegetation, or significant habitats for indigenous fauna. w. The effects of the take and associated intake structure on fish passage The proposed water take will result in minor or less than minor effects on fish and fish migration, and the potential for the entrainment of aquatic passage and fish migration. The effects of the intake infrastructure (which will organisms.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 153

Policy 11 Provision Comment be similar to that used for the existing intake) on fish passage, fish migration and entrainment of aquatic organisms will be minor or less than minor. x. Whether appropriate mitigation measures are to be implemented, The location of the proposed water take and the use of an intake structure including the maintenance of adequate environmental flows or flow similar to that already in use for the existing Watercare Waikato River take will regimes, the location of the abstraction, the maintenance of fish passage, minimise effects on river ecology. the application of riparian planting, or other measures. y. Using site specific flow measurement methods where practicable to The proposed take of water will be measured and reported in accordance ensure compliance with water restrictions. with the Water Measuring Regulations. Watercare’s existing resource consent requires data on the gross and net take of water to be telemetered to the WRC at 15-minute intervals. That methodology is considered appropriate for ensuring compliance with the water measurement regulations and with water restriction requirements. z. Demonstration that physical access to the water does not adversely affect This assessment demonstrates that the proposal will not adversely affect any any other land and/or property owner. other land and/or property owner. aa. In the case of temporary transfers; the extent to which the consent has The proposal does not involve a temporary transfer of water. already been given effect to on the site which the original consent relates. ab. The requirements of the National Environmental Standard for Human Water taken under the consent sought will be treated to the standards Drinking water required by the NES Human Drinking water (or better).

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 154

Table 23: Waikato Regional Plan Rule 3.3.21 Matters of Discretion.

Rule 3.3.4.21 Provision Comment i. Measures to restore and protect the health and wellbeing of the water Watercare proposes that the resource consent to take up to 150,000 m3/day body for present and future generations. (net) at a maximum rate of up to 3,200 L/s would be subject to the relevant resource consent conditions applicable to Resource Consent 960089. The proposed take on the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River will be minor or less than minor. ii. The matters contained in Policy 8. Policy 8 provides for the activity as a restricted discretionary activity where the allocation sought (in combination with other authorised takes) does not exceed 100% of the allocable river flow. The proposal, if granted, will result in minor or less than minor effects on the Waikato River, and would not affect any allocation limits for the river. It would provide for growth in demand in metropolitan Auckland, north Waikato townships and north Franklin communities. It would not affect existing takes, electricity generation or the ecological values and biodiversity of the Waikato River. iii. The timing of abstraction, the volume allocated and the rate at which The taking of approximately 1% of the river flow will have a minor or less than water is abstracted. minor effect on the Waikato River. iv. Where the application is for a domestic or municipal supply the content A WMP prepared in accordance with Method 8.1.2.2 is provided with the and implementation of a water management plan. application and it is proposed would apply to this application. The WMP provides a tool for managing the Watercare water supply network in an efficient and integrated manner.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 155

Rule 3.3.4.21 Provision Comment v. The carrying out of measurements, samples, analyses, inspections, Policy 12 provides consent application assessment criteria for groundwater recording and reporting having regard to the matters contained in Policy and is not relevant to this application. 12. The proposed water take would be subject to conditions requiring measurement of the volume of water taken and forwarding of data to WRC, consistent with the existing conditions in Resource Consent 960089. vi. Measures to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects associated The design of the proposed intake structure (which will be similar to that used with the intake structure. for the existing intake) means that effects on fish passage, fish migration and entrainment of aquatic organisms will be minor or less than minor. vii. Measures to satisfy the intake velocity and screening requirements for the The proposed take would be subject to the same intake velocity and protection of aquatic fauna. screening requirements applicable to Resource Consent 960089 which meet or exceed the requirements defined in the Water Management Class standards. viii. The level(s) of priority to apply during water shortage conditions having A level of priority applicable to a municipal water supply take is expected to regard to the matters contained in Policy 18 and Standard 3.3.4.27. apply to the activity. ix. Abstraction restrictions during water shortage conditions (including The proposed water take will be subject to conditions requiring it to be suspension of abstraction and rostering) having regard to the matters exercised in a manner that maintains minimum flow requirements, including contained in Policies 17, 18 and Standard 3.3.4.27. restrictions during water shortage situations. x. The duration of the resource consent and future demands for domestic or The term of consent sought for the taking of water from the Waikato River is municipal supply for water from the surface water body on which the the maximum duration of 35 years. In terms of Policy 15 (Consent Duration for application applies having regard to the matters contained in Policy 15 the Taking of Water), the proposed take is for a municipal water supply (clause and Policy 19. a(i)) and involves large scale, capital intensive infrastructure (clause a(v)). The proposed duration is appropriate given the extensive capital investment required and the need to provide certainty for future municipal water supply (clause b). In terms of Policy 19 (Phasing Out Exceedances of the Table 3-5

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 156

Rule 3.3.4.21 Provision Comment Allocable Flows), the proposal will not result in an exceedance of allocable flows and does not warrant a shorter duration than that sought (clause c). xi. Review date with respect to the catchment investigation date as detailed No review date is necessary for the proposed water take consent conditions in Method 3.3.4.9 and Table 3-4A. in terms of the requirements set out in Method 3.3.4.9 or Table 3-4A. xii. The effect of the activity on the relationship of tangata whenua and their The proposed water take will have a minor or less than minor effect on the culture, and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wahi tapu Waikato River. Watercare has an agreement with Te Whakakitenga which and other taonga. provides for the establishment of a Trust with the purpose protecting and promoting the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River consistent with Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato. xiii. Measures to maintain and enhance tangata whenua uses and values of The proposed water take will have a minor or less than minor effect on the water, the ability to exercise kaitiakitanga, and measures to protect and Waikato River. Watercare has an agreement with Te Whakakitenga regarding enhance the mauri of water bodies. its Waikato River water takes. xiv. Measures to ensure that the net take is achieved whenever any consent The proposed water take would be subject to conditions requiring granted under this rule is being exercised. measurement of the net volume of water taken and forwarding of data to WRC.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 157

Chapter 3.4 – Efficient Use of Water

Chapter 3.4 identifies outcomes for which the use of water, and any associated discharge of water onto or into land is to be managed. These include managing the use of water such that:

• The overarching purpose of the Vision and Strategy to restore and protect the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River for present and future generations is given effect to;

• Further degradation of water quality is avoided;

• Any adverse changes to natural flow regimes are avoided as far as practicable and otherwise mitigated;

• Adverse effects on the relationship tangata whenua as Kaitiaki have with water are avoided, remedied or mitigated;

• Adverse effects on in-stream ecological values are avoided, remedied or mitigated;

• Adverse effects on wetlands that are habitats for significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats for indigenous fauna are avoided, remedied, or mitigated;

• Adverse effects on groundwater quality are avoided as far as practicable and otherwise mitigated;

• Does not result in an adverse effect relating to the objectives in Chapter 5.2 of this plan; and

• The benefits to be derived from the efficient take and use of water for reasonably foreseeable future uses, and in particular for domestic or municipal supply, are maintained and/ or enhanced.

The Watercare proposal will not compromise efforts to achieve these outcomes.

Chapter 3.4 (Policy 2) also addresses matters relating to the efficient use of water. The WMP accompanying this application addresses each of the relevant matters listed in Policy 2. This AEE and associated technical reports provide robust reasoning as to why the amount of water sought is reasonable and justifiable, the WMP identifies an extensive and proactive programme of water conservation and minimisation methods, including a range of public awareness programmes targeted at raising community awareness of water efficiency measures.

Summary

Overall, the proposed take and use of water fits comfortably within the water management framework contained in Chapters 3.3 and 3.4 for managing the allocation and use of water.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 158

Establishment and Operation of the Intake Structure

Provisions relevant to the establishment and operation of the intake structure are included in Modules 3 (Water) and 4 (River and Lake Beds). They include the following:

• Chapter 3.2 – Management of Water Resources;

• Chapter 3.5 – Discharges;

• Chapter 3.6 – Damming and Diverting;

• Chapter 4.2 – River and Lake Bed Structures; and

• Chapter 4.3 – River and Lake Bed Disturbances.

Each is addressed below.

Chapter 3.2 – Management of Water Resources

Chapter 3.2 contains a set of general policies and methods that apply to the management of water quality and flow regimes in the Region. This generic policy regime is to be read in conjunction with the more specific policies and methods that appear in the other issue or resource specific chapters of this Plan.

Policies 4, 6 and 7, which address the three WRP water management classes that apply to the section of the Waikato River where the proposed activities will be undertaken, contains policy direction that is relevant to the establishment and operation of the intake structure. The proposed intake structure is consistent with these policies and in particular, adopts screen slot size and intake velocity limits consistent with or more stringent than those required under the WRP.

In terms of the matters addressed in Policies 4, 6 and 7:

• No significant adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems are expected (Policy 4(a));

• The effects of the proposed activity on water quality would be minor or less than minor (Policy 4(c), (d) and (e), Policy 6(a) and (b) and Policy 7(c), (d) and (e));

• The intake structure will incorporate screens similar to those used on the existing intake, with a slot size of 1.5 mm and intake velocity of 0.15 m/s to minimise fish entrapment and effects on fish will be less than minor (Policy 4(b) and Policy 7(a));

• No structural or temperature barriers or changes in flow regimes will occur that would prevent fish from completing their lifecycle and/or maintaining self-sustaining populations, including migration and spawning (Policy 7(f));

• No adverse bacterial, fungal or periphyton growth is expected to occur as a result of the proposed activities (Policy 6(c) and (d)); and

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 159

• The effects of the construction activities will be temporary and minor (such as the coffer dam affecting bankside migration and their being minor sediment discharges) and will have no cumulative effect on the river with respect to other damming or discharge activities.

Chapter 3.5 – Discharges

As discussed in this AEE, process water, off-spec water and material from backwashing of intake screens will be discharged to the Waikato River. During construction activities dewatering water from the area inside the coffer dam will also be discharged to the river.

As outlined in Section 9, the proposed discharges would have minor or less than minor effects on the environment and would be consistent with the discharge policies. The proposed discharge methods largely involve the return of water taken from the Waikato River back into the river (less some sediment entrained in the water taken and with the addition of small amounts of water treatment chemicals used to treat the water for drinking water purposes). In all of these cases discharge to land is not practicable, particularly considering the minor effects of the proposed methods.

Chapter 3.6 – Damming and Diverting

The temporary damming and diversion of water using a coffer dam will be undertaken in a manner consistent with the provisions in Chapter 3.6. While fish migration along the bank of the river may be temporarily affected by the presence of the coffer dam fish are likely to move to the other side of the river and effects will be minor. There will be no increase in the adverse effects of flooding or land instability hazards, and there will be no adverse effects on wetlands that are areas of significant indigenous vegetation and/or significant habitats of indigenous fauna.

Chapter 4.2 – River and Lake Bed Structures

The effects of the construction and use of the intake structures, coffer dam and the construction platform, and the manner in which those effects will be managed is consistent with Chapter 4.2. In particular the following is noted:

• No adverse effects on the relative stability of the Waikato River bed will occur;

• The proposed activity will have no effects on water quality, flow regimes, aquatic ecosystems and wetlands that are inconsistent with the WRP;

• While the structure may have a temporary minor effect on fish migration, the proposed construction and operation of the intake structure will not obstruct fish passage for trout and indigenous fish in a manner which will adversely affect the completion of their lifecycle;

• The proposed activities will not increase the effects of flooding;

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 160

• The effect of the proposed activities on navigation will be less than minor; and

• Public access to the intake site area is restricted only to the extent required for health and safety purposes.

In respect of natural character, the intake structure will be largely submerged (the only surface manifestation is likely to be a buoy marking the location of the structure) while any pump station will be set back from the river bank in what is an already modified environment. The effects on river hydrology, the bed of the river and ecology have been assessed as minor or less than minor. In that context, the effects of the proposed activities on natural character are considered to be minor or less than minor. There is a functional need for the infrastructure to be located where it is proposed and it is not an inappropriate use in that location.

Chapter 4.3 – River and Lake Bed Disturbances

The effects of the construction and use of the intake structure, and the manner in which those effects will be managed is consistent with Chapter 4.3. In particular the following is noted:

• No loss of adjacent land will occur (Objective 4.4.2(a), Policy 1(a));

• The effects of the proposed activity on aquatic habitat, downstream water uses or the passage of trout and indigenous fish will be minor or less than minor and will not be inconsistent with Objective 3.1.2 or Section 3.2.3 (Objective 4.4.2(b), Policy 1(b));

• No accelerated infilling of any significant wetland will occur (Objective 4.4.2(c), Policy 1(c));

• No obstruction of fish passage will occur (Policy 1(d));

• No adverse effects on the relative stability of the Waikato River bed are expected (Objective 4.4.2(d), Policy 1(e));

• The proposed activities will not increase the effects of flooding (Objective 4.4.2(e), Policy 1(f));

• The introduction and clearance of vegetation will be undertaken in a manner consistent with Objective 4.4.2(i), (j) and (k), Policy 2 and Policy 3;

• No faecal contamination will occur (Objective 4.4.2(l));

• No damage to any lawfully established structure, drainage district or river control scheme will occur (Objective 4.4.2(m), Policy 1(g));

• Public access to the intake area will be restricted only to the extent required for health and safety purposes; and

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 161

• The effect of the proposal on natural character would be less than minor and the activity is not inappropriate.

Summary

The proposed construction and operation of the intake structure fits comfortably with the objective and policy framework of Chapter 4.2 the WRP.

12.3.9 Proposed Waikato Regional Plan Change 1: Waikato and Waipā River Catchments

The decisions version of Proposed Waikato Regional Plan Change 1 (“PC1”) was notified on Wednesday, 22 April 2020. In overall terms, PC1 seeks to:

• Reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment and microbial pathogen losses from land;

• Manage diffuse and point source discharges of nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment and microbial pathogens;

• Give people and communities time to adapt to the PC1 requirements and supporting actions to achieve short-term objectives while being clear that further reductions in diffuse discharges of nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment and microbial pathogens from land will be required;

• Ensure that ongoing research, monitoring and tracking of changes on the land and in the water to provide for the application of Mātauranga Māori and the latest scientific methods, as they become available is facilitated; and

• Prepare for future requirements on what can be undertaken on the land.

As noted above, the focus of PC1 is the management of the four contaminants: nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment, and microbial pathogens, particularly with respect to diffuse discharges. The objectives of PC1 require improvements to the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River, in the short term (10 years) and long term (80 years).

The policies of PC1 set out the manner in which those objectives are to be achieved over the life of the plan (10 years).

As the focus of PC1 is on diffuse discharges and the management of nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment, and microbial pathogens, there are few implications for the Watercare proposal. It is noted that the proposed water take is within the allocation limits provided for in the WRP and within the flow regimes assessed for the purposes of establishing the PC1 provisions. The Watercare proposal will not result in any significant reduction in the capacity of the Waikato River to accommodate discharges of nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment, and microbial pathogens and will not adversely affect the achievement of the outcomes sought in PC1. The proposed discharges of process water and off-spec water will not contain any added nitrogen, phosphorus or pathogens and will result in some river

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 162

suspended sediment being removed to landfill (following its separation from the water taken from the river).

12.3.10 Waikato District Plan

There are no District Council land use matters associated with the proposed taking of water from the Waikato River and therefore the provisions of the Operative District Plan (Franklin District) or Proposed Waikato District Plan are not relevant to this application. The existing land use activities at the site are provided for by Designation 172 (Watercare is the requiring authority for the existing infrastructure).

12.3.11 Other matters

Tai Tumu, Tai Pari, Tai Ao – Waikato – Tainui Environmental Plan

Overview

The Waikato-Tainui Environment Plan, Tai Tumu Tai Pari Tai Ao (“Waikato-Tainui EP”) outlines an expectation that all people who use Waikato River consider the Plan when proposing to undertake activities in respect of the Waikato River.37 Waikato-Tainui consider that the Waikato-Tainui EP is a matter that the consent authority must have regard to under Section 104(1)(c) when considering these applications.38

The Waikato-Tainui EP contains 29 chapters. Of those, it is considered the following are most relevant to the proposed activities, and each is addressed individually below:

• Chapter 6: Consultation – Te Koorero Tahi me Waikato-Tainui;

• Chapter 7: Towards Environmental Enhancement – Te Whakapakari i te Taiao;

• Chapter 8: Managing Effects – Te Whakahaere i ngaa Paanga;

• Chapter 11: The Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River – Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato;

• Chapter 14: Customary Activities – Ngaa Mahi Tuku Iho a Waikato-Tainui;

• Chapter 16: Valuable Historical Items, Highly Prized Sites, Sites of Significance – Ngaa Taonga tuku iho, ngaa Waahi Tapu, ngaa Waahi Tuupuna; and

• Chapter 19: Freshwater – Te Wai Maaori.

37 Section 5.4.1 of the Waikato-Tainui EP. 38 Section 2.1.4 of the Waikato-Tainui EP.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 163

Chapter 6 – Consultation – Te Koorero Tahi me Waikato-Tainui

Chapter 6 of the Waikato-Tainui EP outlines a preference for early and meaningful consultation and engagement with Waikato-Tainui by applicants seeking RMA approvals for resource use.

The consultation undertaken by Watercare with Waikato-Tainui in respect of the proposed activities is summarised in Section 11.2 of this AEE, and the approach taken is broadly consistent with the principles set out in Chapter 6 of the Waikato-Tainui EP. That consultation has included maintaining early and ongoing dialogue with Waikato-Tainui in respect of the proposed activities, and a commitment to continuing to work with Waikato- Tainui to look at how it can develop on-going partnerships with its people to mitigate cultural effects of the application and enhance the Waikato River environment.

Chapter 7 – Towards Environmental Enhancement – Te Whakapakari i te Taiao

Chapter 7 outlines the goal of Waikato-Tainui to ensure that the needs of present and future generations are provided for in a manner that goes beyond sustainability and towards an approach that enhances the environment.39 As a result of engagement with Waikato-Tainui Watercare has agreed to reduce the volume of the take and associated discharges and to establish a trust with the purpose of protecting and restoring the Waikato River. Watercare is committed to maintaining an on-going relationship with Waikato Tainui as part of its agreement with Te Whakakitenga, the Kawenata Whakawhanaunga.

Chapter 8 – Managing Effects – Te Whakahaere i ngaa Paanga

Chapter 8 outlines the suggested approach to managing the effects of activities. That approach goes beyond the obligation set out in Part 2 of the RMA and outlines a desire for an activity or collection of activities to provide a net benefit when considering its social, economic, environmental, spiritual and cultural impacts, and that activities strive for environmental enhancement.

Chapter 8 notes that only Waikato-Tainui can determine for Waikato-Tainui if, from a Waikato-Tainui perspective, the magnitude, frequency, and duration of the effect, and if the overall effects of an activity are positive or negative, and if an effect has been suitably managed. In that respect, Watercare acknowledges only Waikato-Tainui is in the position to determine whether the manner in which Watercare proposes to manage the effects of its proposed activities accords with the direction set out in the Waikato-Tainui EP. As outlined in this AEE Watercare has maintained an ongoing dialogue with Waikato-Tainui and local mana whenua to identify any potential concerns they may have.

39 Section 7.1.1 of the Waikato-Tainui EP.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 164

Chapter 11 – The Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River – Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato

Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato is addressed in detail in this AEE. Watercare considers that overall, the proposed activity, and the manner in which it proposes to assess and manage its interaction with the Waikato River, is demonstrably consistent with Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato.

Chapter 14 – Customary Activities – Ngaa Mahi Tuku Iho a Waikato-Tainui

Chapter 14 outlines the importance of customary activities to Waikato-Tainui, and in respect of the Waikato River, it promulgates a clear direction that Waikato-Tainui access to and ability to undertake customary activities and resource use, including along the margins of the river, is protected and enhanced.

The physical footprint of the proposed activity on the Waikato River is very small, and in that respect, Watercare is not aware of any adverse effects its proposed activity will have on access to the Waikato River, or the ability to undertake customary activities and resource use. Provision for access to the site of cultural significance adjacent to the existing intake structure will continue to be provided by agreement with iwi and a 20 metre exclusion zone for construction activities will be maintained around the site.

Chapter 16 – Valuable Historical Items, Highly Prized Sites, Sites of Significance – Ngaa Taonga tuku iho, ngaa Waahi Tapu, ngaa Waahi Tuupuna

Chapter 16 sets out a range of objectives, policies and methods which address the management of activities on valuable historical items, highly prized sites or sites of significance.

Of relevance to those provisions, Watercare understands a rock platform at the mouth of the tributary stream to the Waikato River located upstream of the existing intake structure is of cultural significance. Accordingly, it is considered appropriate to restrict works to ensure that they do not impinge on the rock platform. No other sites have been identified during consultation for this proposal.

Watercare is not aware any other known valuable historical items, highly prized sites or sites of significance located in the vicinity of the proposed works. However, an accidental discovery protocol will be employed while construction activities are being undertaken. Consistent with the overall approach to this application, Watercare proposes to work with Waikato-Tainui to ensure the accidental discovery protocol to be followed is appropriate.

Chapter 19 – Freshwater – Te Wai Maaori

Chapter 19 outlines the importance of water and the Waikato River to Waikato-Tainui, and sets out a suite of objectives, policies and methods to guide the management of those water resources.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 165

With respect to those provisions addressing water quality, as outlined in Section 6 of this AEE the proposed activities will have minor or less than minor adverse physical effects on water quality in the Waikato River, and it is considered the proposed activities are broadly consistent with those provisions.

With respect to those provisions addressing water quantity, the principal objective is as follows:

19.4.4 Water allocation is consistent with restoring and protecting the health and wellbeing of water bodies within the rohe of Waikato-Tainui.

Objective 19.4.4 is supported by four policies and their associated methods. Of those, Policy 19.4.4.3 addresses resource consents and is directly relevant to the proposed activities. The other policies address matters more relevant to the establishment of the planning framework for freshwater in the Regional Plan, and the administration of that framework by the Regional Council. Policy 19.4.4.3 states:

19.4.4.3 Resource consents granting, monitoring, and reassessment ensures any allocation of water has regard to best practice and the objective of restoring and protecting the health and wellbeing of Waikato-Tainui water bodies.

With respect to restoring and protecting the health and wellbeing of water bodies within the rohe of Waikato-Tainui, it is considered the proposed activities are consistent with this principle. With respect to the focus on best practice in Policy 19.4.4.3, it is noted that the proposed allocation comprises reasonably foreseeable and justified domestic and municipal supply, and that Watercare implements best practice water efficiency measures such that Auckland performs well when compared with both national and international measures in respect of its use of water.

Conclusion

Overall, the proposed activity fits comfortably with, and is not inconsistent with the Waikato-Tainui EP.

12.3.12 The Auckland Plan 2050

Section 79 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires Auckland Council to prepare a spatial plan (the Auckland Plan). There are six outcomes that the Auckland Plan seeks to achieve. The relevant outcomes in relation to the proposal are Māori Identity and Wellbeing and the Environment and Cultural Heritage outcome that the Auckland Plan seeks to achieve.

The proposal is consistent with Māori Identity and Wellbeing in particular with Direction 3 where it aims to recognise and provide for te Tiriti o Waitangi outcomes. The proposal

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 166

achieves this through ongoing consultation with Waikato-Tainui and other relevant mana whenua entities that have provided input in the development of this proposal.

In regard to the Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome, the proposal is consistent with Direction 4 that aims to ensure Auckland’s infrastructure is future proofed by enabling sufficient drinking water resource to be provided to Auckland.

Furthermore, Watercare is a Council-Controlled Organisation charged with providing water and wastewater services, and its Statement of Intent says that it will give effect to the Auckland Plan. This means Watercare needs to ensure it has appropriate water and wastewater services in place to meet growth before it occurs. Accordingly, the proposed activities are a key part of doing that. Provision of water supply infrastructure is a critical and essential part of providing for the future growth envisaged through the Auckland Plan, and is an essential component of enabling Auckland to provide for its social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing as envisaged through the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 provisions.

12.4 SECTION 105 ASSESSMENT

Section 105(1) of the RMA provides that:

If an application is for a discharge permit or coastal permit to do something that would contravene Section 15 or Section 15B, the consent authority must, in addition to the matters in Section 104(1), have regard to— (a) the nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving environment to adverse effects; and (b) the applicant’s reasons for the proposed choice; and (c) any possible alternative methods of discharge, including discharge into any other receiving environment.

The matters identified in a, b and c are discussed below.

12.4.1 Nature of the Discharge and Sensitivity of the Receiving Environment

The nature of the discharge is set out in Section 3 of this AEE.

While the Waikato River downstream of the discharge is sensitive to discharges of wastewater and to nutrients, the effects of the proposed discharge of process water and off spec water from the Waikato A WTP on the Waikato River will be minor or less than minor.

12.4.2 Reasons for the Proposed Choice

The proposed discharge is an appropriate way to return water to the Waikato River and will not contribute to contaminant loads in the river. The proposed discharge is considered appropriate for discharges from the Waikato A WTP as it will largely comprise Waikato

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 167

River water being returned to the river and material from (or in) the river being cleaned from the intake screens.

12.4.3 Alternative Methods of Discharge

Alternative options for the discharges have been considered, including discharges to land and removal contaminants offsite. Discharge to land and discharge via a wastewater treatment system (such as the Pukekohe wastewater treatment system) are not practicable because of the volumes involved, the distance from wastewater systems and potential intermittent flooding of land. Some material (such as suspended solids separated from the inlet water flow) will be disposed of at an off-site landfill, while some on the waste stream produced will be recycled through the WTP avoiding a discharge to the river.

12.5 SECTION 107 ASSESSMENT

Section 107 of the RMA restricts the grant of a discharge permit which may result in a contaminant (or contaminants) entering water if, after reasonable mixing, the contaminant or water discharged is likely to give rise to all or any of the following effects in the receiving waters:

• The production of any conspicuous oil or grease films, scums or foams, or floatable or suspended materials;

• Any conspicuous change in the colour or visual clarity;

• Any emission of objectionable odour;

• The rendering of fresh water unsuitable for consumption by farm animals; or

• Any significant adverse effects on aquatic life.

Policy 3.2.3.8 in the WRP states that:

“the zone of reasonable mixing is the area within which a discharge into water (including any discharge that occurs subsequent to a discharge onto or into land) does not need to achieve the standards specified in the water management class for the receiving water body. The size of the mixing zone must be minimised as far as is practicable and will be determined on a case-by-case basis, including consideration of the following matters”.

Importantly, the core definition is silent on physical mixing processes, and only refers to the area where specified standards need not be met and that its extent is minimised “as far as practicable”. Policy 3.2.3.8 of the WRP sets out a non-exclusive list of matters to be used in determining the zone for reasonable mixing. These include (but are not limited to):

• The nature of the effluent, including its flow rate, composition and contaminant concentrations;

• River flow rate and flow characteristics;

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 168

• The design of the outfall;

• The depth, velocity and rate of mixing in the receiving water body;

• Existing contaminant concentrations in the receiving water body both upstream and downstream of the discharge point and the assimilative capacity of the water body;

• The frequency of the discharge;

• The speed with which any contaminants will be diluted;

• The ability of the discharger to alter the location of the discharge and the mixing characteristics of the outfall so as to ensure that adverse effects of the discharge beyond the zone of non-compliance are not inconsistent with the purpose for which the water body is being managed;

• Whether the discharger has taken all practicable steps to minimise the concentration and volume of contaminants at source;

• Any effects of the mixing zone on other users of the water body; and

• The extent of adverse effects within the mixing zone.

The proposed discharges will not result in any of the effects identified in Section 107 occurring.

The reasonable mixing zone for discharges of free available chlorine and other contaminants (as discussed in the Tonkin & Taylor Ltd. report “Waikato River Water Take: River Ecology Assessment”, December 2020) is appropriate and reasonable given the list of matters identified in Policy 3.2.3.8 in the WRP to be used in assessing the zone of reasonable mixing.

12.6 PART 2 OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991

All of the matters specified in Section 104 of the RMA to which the consent authority must ‘have regard to’ are subject to Part 2 of the RMA which sets out the purpose and principles of the Act and which are central to the determination of the applications for resource consent made by Watercare.

It is understood that a consent authority is generally no longer required to consider Part 2 of the RMA beyond its expression in the relevant statutory planning documents, unless it is appropriate to do so.40 In this case, it is considered that the planning context is clear, and that the proposed activities align well with the various planning directions set out earlier.

40 R J Davidson Family Trust v Marlborough District Council, (2018) NZCA 316.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 169

However, for completeness and in accordance with Schedule 4(2)(1)(f) of the RMA, Part 2 of the RMA is considered in the following paragraphs.

The purpose of the RMA is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. In this regard, the proposed activities will enable the ongoing taking and treatment of water from the Waikato River which, in turn, will enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety by contributing to the overall public health and sanitation of the region, servicing integral infrastructure such as hospitals and health care, creation of employment, export earnings, and adding to the benefits to be derived from the supply of water by the wider community through supporting the functioning of a significant population centre like Auckland. The positive effects associated with the proposed water take are discussed in Section 9 of this AEE.

Furthermore, in terms of the needs of future generations, the proposed water take is intended to meet the increasing demand for water by present and future generations.

The proposed activities will result in adverse effects that are minor or less than minor and will not affect the safeguarding of the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems. Any actual and potential adverse environmental effects have been appropriately avoided, remedied, and/or mitigated by measures included as part of the proposal.

With respect to key matters in Section s 6, 7, and 8 of the RMA, the following points are pertinent:

• The proposed water take and intake structure are not an ‘inappropriate’ form of use and development of the Waikato River under section 6(a), particularly given that the objectives and policies in the relevant lower order statutory instruments (discussed previously) recognise and provide for the type of activities proposed;

• The Waikato RPS identifies “outstanding natural features and landscapes” in the region under section 6(b) but none of these are within proximity to the Watercare intake;

• No areas of significant indigenous vegetation will be affected by the proposed activities under section 6(c). Similarly, in respect of Section 6(d), there will be no impacts upon public access to waterbodies as a result of the applications;

• Watercare will continue to engage with Waikato-Tainui and Te Taniwha o Waikato to ensure that their relationship with the Waikato River is recognised and provided for under section 6(e) in respect of this proposal;

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 170

• The ability for tangata whenua to exercise kaitiakitanga under section 7(a) in relation to the Watercare site and activities are will be part of the ongoing discussions that Watercare will have with Waikato-Tainui and Te Taniwha o Waikato;

• The proposed activities will enable the efficient management of natural and physical resources in a manner which does not give rise to any issue in terms of Section 7(b) of the RMA; and

• Watercare will continue to work with tangata whenua in a manner that is intended to be consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi under section 8.

Overall, and based on the technical assessments that have been commissioned by Watercare, it is considered that the proposed activities will promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources in accordance with Part 2 of the RMA (noting that Part 2 of the RMA is not being explicitly relied upon given the full coverage of relevant resource management issues provided in the other relevant statutory planning documents).

The granting of consent for the Watercare proposals is consistent with and gives effect to the purpose of the RMA.

12.7 OVERALL SUMMARY

• It sustains the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations;

• It safeguards the life-supporting capacity of air, water and soil, and ensures that adverse effects are appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated; and

• It is demonstrably consistent with Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato and the other relevant planning documents under the RMA, including the water allocation provisions in the WRP.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 171

13. CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Watercare currently abstracts up to 175,000 m3/day (net) of water from the Waikato River at the Waikato WTP site in Tuakau. The water is treated then pumped northward as part of an integrated network supplying to the metropolitan Auckland Region. Watercare holds consents authorising the taking of up to 250,000 m3/day (net) of water from the Waikato River during winter months (May to September) or when the river flow exceeds the median flow. The volume of water taken will rise to 225,000 m3/day (net) when the Waikato 50 Temporary WTP is commissioned in 2021.

In addition to the Waikato River water take, the conjunctive Auckland water supply includes five water storage lakes in the Waitakere Ranges, four water storage lakes in the Hūnua Ranges, and groundwater takes from aquifers in Onehunga and Pukekohe. A further storage lake at Hays Creek is due to be recommissioned by the end of 2020. The lakes range in size from 35.3 gigalitres (Māngātangi) to 1.1 gigalitres (Hays Creek).

Watercare is currently building a temporary water treatment plant adjacent to the existing Waikato WTP to enable existing consents to be utilised for the supply of up to 225,000 m3/day (net) of water to Auckland. This plant is expected to be operational in the first quarter of 2021 and to operate until further water is required to meet demand potentially by 2025.

Auckland’s population is increasing, and additional water is required to meet demand. Following an extensive review of potential water supplies available near Auckland, the Waikato River has been identified as Watercare’s preferred source for the next addition to water supply sources for the Auckland Region. It is also the only strategic source that can be available to meet increased demand by 2025. Applications were initially lodged with WRC in 2013 for the consents required for an additional water take from the Waikato River and the associated construction and operation of an intake structure.

After consultation with Waikato-Tainui, Watercare has reduced the volume sought in its 2013 application from 200,000 m³/day (net) to 150,000 m3/day (net). It has also agreed that in combination with its existing take from the Waikato River, the maximum take will not exceed 300,000 m3/day (net). Existing consents held by Watercare allowing the take of more than 150,000 m3/day will be surrendered if a new consent for an additional 150,000 m3/day (net) is granted, limiting the total allowable take to 300,000 m3/day (net).

Resource consents are sought for the taking of 150,000 m3/day (net) from the Waikato River, the construction and operation of an intake and discharge structure in the Waikato River, the discharge of process and off-spec water and discharges associated with the construction activities. The allocation of water for the purpose of municipal supply is fundamental to meeting future demand, and the applications focus on that. Additional water treatment and land based facilities will be required for the new take but will only be

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 172

designed once the Waikato River allocation is confirmed, so do not form part of the application. Such works can be completed within the Watercare site designated for the existing water treatment facilities.

Detailed analysis of the actual and potential effects of the activities associated with the proposed take, including construction effects, effects of the abstraction of water, and effects of the ancillary discharges have been presented in Section 9 of this AEE. These assessments demonstrate that those effects are minor or less than minor.

The proposed take is also consistent with the Waikato WRPS and WRP provisions. The proposed take, in combination with all existing takes, and all currently undecided take applications lodged before Watercare’s application, will not exceed the Primary Allocation limit for the lower Waikato River set out in the WRP. Taking into account the broader water allocation framework, including the explicit provision for reasonably justified and foreseeable future municipal supply needs and the effects of the proposal it is considered appropriate that water be allocated for Auckland’s reasonably justified and foreseeable future municipal supply needs.

Watercare acknowledges that Waikato-Tainui has a special relationship with the Waikato River as outlined in the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010, the Waikato River Deed of Settlement between Waikato-Tainui and the Crown, and that Te Whakakitenga (the representative organisation for the iwi of Waikato-Tainui) and wishes to ensure that its special relationship with the Waikato River is recognised and upheld and that the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River is restored and protected. In that regard, Watercare will establish a river enhancement Trust whose purpose is to protect and promote the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River, and through that the interrelated health and wellbeing of Waikato-Tainui, consistent with Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato.

Watercare has consulted widely with both interested and potentially affected parties about the proposed additional abstraction, and Watercare is committed to maintaining open dialogue with key stakeholders throughout the consenting process. Watercare is appreciative of the time and effort taken by all parties participating in and contributing to the consultation process.

Waikato River Water Take and Discharge Proposal – Board of Inquiry 173

APPENDIX A

Water Management Plan

Auckland Water Management Plan

May 2020

CONTENTS

1 Introduction ...... 1

2 Auckland’s Metropolitan Water Supply System ...... 6

2.1 Overview 6 2.2 System Operation and Distribution Extent 6 2.2.1 Water Sources and Yields 6 2.2.2 Water Treatment Plants 8 2.2.3 Water Transmission and Network Supply 10 2.2.4 Pressure Points 11 2.3 Levels of Service 11 2.4 Water Use Measurement 12 2.5 Maintenance and Asset Management Procedures 12

3 Auckland Metropolitan Water Demand Assessment ...... 15

3.1 Overview 15 3.2 Current Water Supply Situation 16 3.2.1 Legislative Requirements 16 3.2.2 Water Users 18 3.2.3 Gross Per Capita Consumption (PCC) 19 3.3 Future Water Needs 20 3.3.1 Planning Period 20 3.3.2 Population Growth 20 3.3.3 Other Factors 23 3.3.4 Requirement for Water from the Waikato River 24 3.4 Auckland Plan 25 3.5 Summary 25

4 Water Pricing Procedures ...... 27

5 Managing Reticulation Networks to Minimise Water Losses ...... 28

5.1 Overview 28 5.2 General Approach 28

6 Patterns of Water Use ...... 30

6.1 Overview 30 6.2 Water Supplied 30 6.2.1 Customer Base 32 6.2.2 Volume of Water Supplied 32 6.3 Peak and Average Demand 33 6.4 Overview of Per Capita Consumption 34 6.4.1 Overview 34 6.4.2 Gross and Residential Per Capita Consumption 35 6.4.3 Influence of Pricing on Per Capita Consumption 37 6.4.4 Influence of the Economy on Per Capita Consumption 37 6.4.5 Influence of Climate on Per Capita Consumption 37 6.4.6 Improving Our Understanding of Per Capita Consumption in Auckland 38 6.5 Residential Consumption 38 6.6 Non-residential Consumption 39

7 Water Saving Targets ...... 42

7.1 Water Savings Target 42 7.2 Background 42 7.3 Savings Required 42

8 Key Performance Indicators for Water Savings Targets ...... 43

9 Auditing and Benchmarking Procedures ...... 44

9.1 Overview 44 9.1.1 New Zealand Benchmarking 45 9.1.2 International Benchmarking 46

10 Drought Management Plan ...... 48

10.1 Overview 48 10.2 Background 48 10.2.1 Auckland’s Drought Management 49 10.2.2 Trigger for Water Restrictions 49 10.3 Steps to be Taken for Drought Management 50 10.4 Targets for the Water Savings Expected to be Achieved 51 10.5 Drought 2020 52 10.6 Public and Commercial User Education Programmes 54 10.7 Steps Taken to Reduce Consumption When Demand is Approaching the Maximum Take Volume Specified Under Watercare’s Waikato River Abstraction Consents 54 10.8 Enforcement Procedures 54

11 Actions and Performance Measures ...... 56

12 Consultation ...... 57

13 Water Conservation and Demand Management Review ...... 58

14 Anticipated Increases in Water Demand ...... 59

15 Ability to Reduce the Amount of Water Use by Existing Industrial and Agricultural Users to Meet the Projected Increase in Water Demand ...... 61 16 Large Industrial, Commercial and Agricultural Users ...... 62

17 Future Domestic and Municipal Supply Needs Required to Meet Growth and Development that is Provided for in Planning Instruments ...... 64 FIGURES

Figure 1: Auckland Bulk Water Supply System 7 Figure 2: The Watercare Asset Management Approach 14 Figure 3: Gross per capita consumption vs population growth from 2006 to 2017. 20 Figure 4 Projected total population in Auckland, at five year intervals (2018 to 2048) 21 Figure 5: Watercare Metropolitan Network Water Balance 2019 31 Figure 6: Typical volume consumption by customer type (2015-16) 32 Figure 7: Monthly Average Demand for Financial Years 2010 to 2020 33 Figure 8: Monthly Peak Demand for Financial Years 2010 to 2020 33 Figure 9: Auckland’s historical water use (1980-2013) 34 Figure 10: Auckland’s demand management savings pathway 35 Figure 11: Residential Per Capita Consumption for 2012-2019 36 Figure 12: Breakdown of water use across businesses and organisations in 2016. 37 Figure 13: Breakdown of water use in an Auckland home. 38 Figure 14: Total annual water usage per non-residential 2012 to 2016 (excluding minor commercial uses) 40 Figure 15: Auckland residential PCC benchmarked against similar cities (medium and large, over 95 per cent of population metered) 44 Figure 16: Average Residential Water Consumption in New Zealand 45 Figure 17: Water Consumption IBNET Comparison 47 Figure 18: Non-Revenue Water IBNET Comparison 47 Figure 19: Drought response trigger levels (2020) 50 Figure 20: Hūnua rainfall 2020, Upper Mangatawhiri 53 Figure 21: Average annual water usage 2012 to 2016 62 TABLES

Table 1: Individual Source Contributions 8 Table 2: Water Treatment Plant Capacities 10 Table 3: Water supply and demand statistics 16 Table 4: Relevant Legislation 16 Table 5: Sequential plan of action for drought management 50 Table 6: Dam Storage, April – May 2020 52

APPENDICES

Appendix One: Auckland Water Efficiency Strategy, 2017 to 2020

Appendix Two: Auckland Drought Management Plan

1. INTRODUCTION

Watercare Services Limited (Watercare) is a lifeline utility providing water and wastewater services to 1.7 million people in Auckland and parts of northern Waikato. Its services are vital for life, keep people safe and helping communities to flourish. Watercare supplies reliable, high-quality drinking water to homes and businesses. It then collects, treats and manages their wastewater in environmentally responsible ways.

Watercare plans and builds infrastructure to ensure growth is supported today and into the future. As a council-controlled organisation (CCO), it is fully owned by Auckland Council. Its services and programmes are funded through user charges and borrowings. Watercare is required by law to be a minimum cost, cost-efficient service provider and does not pay a dividend to its shareholder.

Auckland is growing at an unprecedented pace. Over the next 35 years the population could grow by another 800,000 people to reach 2.5 million. This means another 320,000 dwellings and another 270,000 jobs. Over the next 10 years, Watercare plans to invest $5.5 billion in water and wastewater infrastructure for Auckland.

Watercare currently produces approximately 164,000,000 cubic metres per year (“m3/year”) of water. Auckland’s metropolitan water supply is currently collected from 9 storage lakes, 1 aquifer and the Waikato River. The water is treated at 11 Water Treatment Plants (WTP) and distributed through approximately 9,400 kilometres (“km”) of treated water mains, 85 reservoirs and 94 pump stations to some 439,000 connections. This document is the Water Management Plan (“WMP”) required by the Waikato Regional Plan as part of requirements associated with taking water from the Waikato River for use in the Auckland Metropolitan Water Supply. The WMP excludes non- metropolitan supplies which will typically have their own water management plans.

This WMP has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Section 8.1.2.2 of the Waikato Regional Plan. Section 8.1.2.2 requires this WMP establish a long-term strategy for the water requirements of the Auckland Metropolitan Water Supply and its communities. It is required to demonstrate that the volume of water required, including any increase over that previously authorised, has been justified and that the water take will be used efficiently and effectively. In doing so Section 8.1.2.2 requires a WMP to provide the following information:

1. A description of the water supply system including system operation, distribution extent, levels of service, water use measurement, maintenance and asset management procedures.

2. A comprehensive assessment of existing demand and future demand for water with regard to an assessment of reasonable population growth within the planning horizon to meet the following:

a) reasonable domestic needs;

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 1 b) public health needs in accordance with requirements under any Act of Parliament or regulation;

c) reasonable community needs (e.g. for public amenities);

d) reasonable commercial, rural supply and industrial needs;

e) an assessment as to how each of the assessments required by clauses a) to d) above is predicted to vary over time;

f) a justification for each of the assessments required by clauses a) to e) above including reference to any relevant planning instruments promulgated under the Resource Management act 1991 that provide for future growth or relevant documents promulgated under the Local Government Act 2002 such as Long Term Plans, growth strategies or spatial plans.

3. Any existing or proposed water pricing procedures and any linkages with wastewater pricing or management.

4. How water reticulation networks are planned and managed to minimise their water losses as far as practicable.

5. A description of patterns of water use practices and/or behaviour in all sectors of use (and distribution) with the objective of maximising water use efficiency and reducing water use, as far as practicable.

6. Water saving targets for the full range of demand conditions including demand saving targets for council owned facilities, domestic demand targets and demand saving targets for commercial and industrial customers.

7. Key performance indicators for each of the water saving targets.

8. Any external auditing and benchmarking procedures that have been adopted.

9. A drought management plan that includes:

a) steps to be taken to reduce consumption during water shortage conditions, including those uses that will be restricted at the same time as priority SW-B users (in accordance with Policy 18 and Standard 3.3.4.27) and steps to be taken to implement those restrictions.

b) Targets for the water savings expected to be achieved via the restriction of activities identified in a) above, which shall align as closely as possible to the restrictions for SW-B users provided for in Standard 3.3.4.27.

c) public and commercial user education programmes.

d) steps taken to reduce consumption when demand is approaching the maximum take volume specified under the relevant resource consent.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 2 e) Enforcement procedures

10. Actions, performance measures and a timeline for implementing actions. The actions and performance measures identified will depend on the circumstances of each applicant.

11. Any consultation undertaken with key stakeholders and outcomes of such consultation.

12. Details of an appropriate water conservation and demand management plan review process.

13. Identification of any anticipated increases in water demand over the term of the consent and ability to stage water take volumes to more closely reflect demand requirements over time.

14. Ability to reduce the amount of water used by existing industrial and agricultural users, as a result of improvements in the efficiency of the use of water, in order to meet any increase in water demand over the term of the consent.

15. Identification of any single industrial, commercial or agricultural use of water that uses more than 15 cubic metres of water per day (not being water used for human drinking purposes or human sanitation purposes).

16. Identification of future domestic or municipal supply take needs over and above authorised domestic or municipal supply takes required to meet growth and development that is provided for in planning instruments promulgated under the Resource Management Act 1991 or relevant documents promulgated under the Local Government Act 2002, such as Long Term Plans, growth strategies or spatial plans (or similar).

The projected future needs shall be identified in terms of:

a) Location of take; and

b) Volume of take (including any seasonal variations); and

c) The date at which the water is likely to be required.

Each of the 16 matters listed in Section 8.1.2.2 is addressed sequentially in Chapters 2 – 17 of this WMP which is structured as follows:

Chapter 2: Provides a description of the Auckland water supply system.

Chapter 3: Provides a comprehensive assessment of existing and future demand for water. This chapter identifies the growth in demand and the need for additional water supplies to meet that demand while providing for peak, outage and headroom requirements.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 3 Chapter 4: Outlines the pricing mechanism implemented by Watercare as part of managing the Auckland water supply system.

Chapter 5: Provides an overview of how Watercare actively monitors and manages the water reticulation network for the Auckland water supply to minimise water losses, including reference to the Watercare Water Efficiency Strategy.

Chapter 6: Provides describes patterns of water use within the Watercare network, including residential and non-residential consumption, customers supplied, per capita consumption changes and the influence of pricing and other factors on consumption.

Chapter 7: Outlines Watercare’s ambitious water savings target for Auckland water use and the strategies adopted to achieve those targets.

Chapter 8: Outlines the key performance indicators for the water savings targets contained in Chapter 7 and sets out how Watercare will report on those key performance indicators.

Chapter 9: Provides a summary of benchmarking relevant to the Watercare water supply network to identify how the efficiency and effectiveness of its water supply system compares with those of other domestic and international metropolitan centres.

Chapter 10: Contains the drought management plan.

Chapter 11: Outlines the options to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the use of water within the Auckland water supply network, in particular referring to the Watercare Water Efficiency Strategy.

Chapter 12: Summarises the consultation Watercare must follow with respect to any of its publications.

Chapter 13: Outlines the review process for the water conservation and demand management matters contained in this WMP.

Chapter 14: Identifies how Chapter 3 addresses clause (13) which is concerned with the increase in water demand over the term of the consent, and the ability to conjunctively manage water takes within the Watercare network to ensure that increasing demand and demand peaks are met while using water effectively and efficiently.

Chapter 15: Identifies how the comprehensive demand management programme of actions outlined in the Watercare Water Efficiency Strategy ensures that the amount of water used by existing and new industrial and agricultural users is consistent with and appropriate for a major metropolitan water supply.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 4 Chapter 16: Sets out information relating to industrial, commercial and agricultural users connected to the Auckland water supply which use more than 15 cubic metres of water per day and that the Watercare Water Efficiency Strategy is the preferred mechanism for driving improvements in the efficiency of use of water in Auckland.

Chapter 17: Outlines how the demand assessment contained in Chapter 3 addresses those matters required by clause (16).

The WMP has been using information available at the time of preparation and references the Auckland Plan 2050, the latest Watercare Annual Report (2019), the Watercare Asset Management Plan (2018 – 2038), the Watercare Auckland Water Efficiency Strategy (2017 – 2020) and the Auckland Metropolitan Drought Management Plan. It is noted that the information referenced, and the documents referred to above are updated from time to time but that the overall conclusions reached will not change substantially over the short term. The latter documents referred to (the Asset Management Plan, the Water Efficiency Strategy and the Drought Management Plan) are living documents and will be updated on an ongoing basis.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 5 2. AUCKLAND’S METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

WRP Requirement:

1) A description of the water supply system including system operation, distribution extent, levels of service, water use measurement, maintenance and asset management procedures.

2.1 Overview

Watercare currently delivers approximately 164 million m3 per year of water to about 1.6 million people connected to the metropolitan water supply system. Auckland’s metropolitan water supply is collected from nine water storage lakes1, one aquifer and the Waikato River. This water is treated at six water treatment plants and distributed through more than 9,349 km of water pipes, 85 reservoirs and 94 pump stations to some 439,000 connections. The layout of the bulk water supply system is shown in Figure 1, and more detail on each aspect is provided in the following section.

The network continues to increase as population grows and several previously unconnected non- metropolitan towns and communities have been added.

2.2 System Operation and Distribution Extent

2.2.1 Water Sources and Yields

Raw water sources for the Auckland metropolitan water supply include nine water storage lakes located in the Hūnua Ranges southeast of Auckland and the Waitākere Ranges west of Auckland, together with direct abstractions from the Waikato River and groundwater at Onehunga.

These individual sources are operated conjunctively, meaning that they are operated as a single system in order to optimise the use of water, and ensure that the capacity of overall supply can be maintained. It means, for example, that when rainfall derived inflow to the water storage lakes decreases, use of the Waikato source is increased to maintain total system storage. When the storage dams are near capacity and inflows are high, water from the water storage lakes is used preferentially ahead of Waikato River water due to higher pumping costs from the Waikato River.

The Waikato River take is a critical component of Watercare’s conjunctive use system, ensuring a drought resilient supply (see Section 3.5.8). It is particularly relevant as Auckland has a relatively low total system storage volume covering approximately 220 days of usage (2019).

‘Deployable output’ is the average rate at which water can reliably be abstracted from a water source for water supply purposes. In practical terms it represents the water resources available in the total storage system to continue to supply water through a drought of a given severity, taking into account the factors affecting availability (such as water quality and consent conditions).

1 Excluding recommissioning of the Hays Creek dam.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 6 Deployable Output is based on the inflows anticipated for the design drought standard which has been adopted for the system. The deployable outputs for Watercare’s water sources are outlined in Table 1 below based on the Watercare level of service of 1:100 year to 15% residual dam storage (see Section 2.3).

Figure 1: Auckland Bulk Water Supply System

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 7 The gross yield (Deployable Output) of the system is 462.53 ML/day. However planned and unplanned temporary events (Outage) can reduce source yields. The net yield of the system is calculated by subtracting outage from Deployable Output, giving a total volume of water available for use (“WAFU”).

For the Watercare water supply network, the outage allowance estimates are approximately 6.5% of peak day Deployable Output (or 41.7 ML/day) and approximately 5.3% of the annual drought Deployable Output (or 24.8 ML/day). Using this outage allowance, the average drought Deployable Output for the Auckland Metropolitan Water Supply amounts to 457.73 ML/day (see Table 1).

Table 1: Individual Source Contributions – Average Day 1:100 Yield with 15% residual Dams (ML/day) Waitākere 7.55 Upper Nihotupu 14.10 Lower Nihotupu 24.25 Upper Huia 12.10 Lower Huia 29.40 Total Waitākere Dams 87.40 Cosseys 37.50 Wairoa 26.75 Upper Mangatawhiri 55.40 Mangatangi 96.10 Total Hūnua Dams 215.75 Onehunga 15.00 Total System (Ex Waikato) 318.15 Waikato 144.38 Total System (with current Waikato) 462.53 Conjunctive use of existing sources 20.00 Total Deployable Output 482.53 Water Available for Use 457.73

2.2.2 Water Treatment Plants

Watercare currently operates six water treatment plants to supply the metropolitan system. This combination of plants offers flexibility to use different raw water sources. Details of the treatment plants are as follows:

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 8 • Waikato Water Treatment Plant (WTP) is located adjacent to the Waikato River abstraction site and has a sustainable production capacity of 150,000 m3/day.2 The treatment process at the Waikato WTP comprises coagulation, clarification, ultra-filtration membranes, activated carbon filtration, disinfection and treated water correction.

• Ardmore WTP is the largest WTP and is located to the southeast of Auckland. The Ardmore WTP receives raw water from the four storage lakes in the Hūnua Ranges, namely Mangatangi, Upper Mangatawhiri, Wairoa and Cosseys. The treatment process at Ardmore WTP is carbon dosing (optional), coagulation, clarification, sand filtration, disinfection and treated water correction.

• Huia WTP is located west of Auckland and receives raw water from four storage lakes in the Waitākere Ranges, namely Upper Nihotupu, Lower Nihotupu, Upper Huia and Lower Huia. The treatment process at Huia WTP is carbon dosing (optional), coagulation, clarification, sand filtration, disinfection and treated water correction. Watercare is planning to replace the Huia treatment plant3 with a new 140 ML/day peak capacity system, subject to securing appropriate resource consents.

• Waitākere WTP is located west of Auckland and receives raw water from the Waitākere water storage lakes. Due to the high quality of the water in the Waitākere sources, the treatment process at Waitākere WTP is carbon dosing (optional), coagulation, clarification, sand filtration, disinfection and treated water correction.

• Onehunga WTP is located south of Auckland Central and the plant receives raw water from the Onehunga shallow aquifer. The treatment process at the Onehunga WTP is coagulation, sand filtration, disinfection and treated water correction.

• Huia Village WTP is a small treatment works having a capacity of 300 m3/day and is used to meet local demand. Raw water is sourced from the Lower Huia water storage lake. This treatment plant services the local community at Huia Village and whilst it draws water from a metropolitan source, it is not connected with the rest of the treated water network; therefore it is not included in the treatment capacities listed in Table 2 below.

The combined total peak capacity of the five main metropolitan plants at present is 627,500 m3/day, providing up to 585,800 m3/day for use (see Table 2).

2 The sustainable peak production capacity is limited by resource consent 960089 as a maximum of 175,000 m3/day can only be taken for limited periods when the Waikato River 7-day rolling average flow at Rangiriri flow exceeds the median river flow. 3 The replacement plant is unlikely to be available for 7 – 10 years.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 9 Table 2: Water Treatment Plant Capacities

Peak Day / Week Treatment Treatment Plant Capacity m3/day

Waitākere 12,000

Huia 126,000

Ardmore 350,000

Onehunga 12,0004

Waikato 127,5005

Total 627,500

WAFU 585,800

The combined water yield and water treatment plant capacities available at present demonstrate that there is a close margin between source availability, treatment plant capacity and water supply demand and that additional capacity is required.

2.2.3 Water Transmission and Network Supply

Bulk water is conveyed from the water storage lakes and other water sources to the WTPs through large concrete lined tunnels, aqueducts and a predominantly concrete lined steel pipeline network.

Once treated, the water is conveyed and distributed through an extensive network of pipelines to the various customer supply areas. The pipeline network extends from the Waikato WTP in the south to Orewa in the north. The pipe assets comprise some 500 km of bulk water mains, and more than 9,400 km of distribution network, with the pipes typically being between 50 and 200 mm in diameter for local reticulation.

The treated water systems also include some 94 pump stations and 85 reservoirs. After treatment, water is gravity fed or pumped to reservoirs located at high elevations. The reservoirs provide extra supply into the networks to balance normal diurnal variations in demand and to meet emergency supply situations, such as for fire-fighting. The metropolitan water supply system stores approximately 24 hours of demand across the region.

The metropolitan network is divided into zones to maintain pressure across the widely variable topography. Hydrants are installed on all the pipe networks (except the bulk system) for fire-fighting and operational purposes such as flushing and draining pipes.

4 In summer with low aquifer levels. 5 The Waikato WTP is currently being upgraded to enable a larger volume of water to be taken.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 10 2.2.4 Pressure Points

Several of the conveyance systems are critical to the security of water supply and could result in major consequences should failure occur. In particular, these include the following:

• The Wairoa Tunnel – which delivers the combined raw water from the Wairoa, Upper Mangatawhiri and Mangatangi water storage lakes to Ardmore WTP. Failure of this tunnel would result in a loss of supply of up to 295,000 m3/day. Delivery of raw water to Ardmore WTP would thus be reduced to 140,000 m3/day (limited to six weeks) from the Cosseys storage lakes and could result in critical water supply shortfall to the Auckland Region, depending on the time of year and duration of the incident.

• The Ardmore WTP – which provides about 58% of the region’s treated water. The potential failure of this plant is one of the major risks to the system in view of its large contribution to meeting the Auckland Region water demand. This significant risk can only be mitigated by providing more treatment capacity elsewhere to provide backup for Ardmore.

• The Huia Aqueduct – which is located upstream of the Huia WTP. Failure of this infrastructure will result in loss of full plant capacity to run the plant. The loss in water supply would need to be made up by providing more treatment capacity elsewhere.

The water take from the Waikato River reduces the exposure to these and other water supply risks. This is because the Waikato River supply is not reliant on storage limitations, has its own dedicated water treatment plant, and offers greater flexibility of supply.

In addition to the above pressure points, a single pipeline carries all water from the Waikato WTP before joining the metropolitan network near Papakura (as indicated in Figure 1). Failure of this infrastructure will result in loss of the Waikato water supply, which would need to be made up by providing more treatment elsewhere. Growing reliance on the Waikato River as a key water source for the Watercare metropolitan water supply will mean that a second water supply pipeline will become more cost effective in future.

In that sense, as well as providing for future growth in Auckland, the Waikato River provides resilience and additional security of supply for the metropolitan water supply network.

2.3 Levels of Service

Watercare’s “Statement of Intent” (“SOI”) sets out its public expression of activities, intentions, objectives and legislative expression to its shareholder, the Auckland Council. Central to implementing the SOI, is the company’s “Asset Management Plan” (“AMP”) which sets out the tactical plan for achieving its strategic goals.

The AMP sets out several principles applicable to the management of the Watercare water network systems that define the levels of service provided. These include:

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 11 • The metropolitan water supply dams will be operated to a 1:100-year event (with a 15% residual storage at the end of the drought event) with additional water sources planned to meet the medium growth demand. This means that based on hydrological records, the total lake storage should, on average, be drawn down to 15% once in 100 years.

• Water treatment plant expansions will be implemented to meet a three-day peak demand in conjunction with regional treated water storage.

• Metropolitan water treatment plant resilience will be managed to enable an outage of a single water treatment plant, excluding the Ardmore Water Treatment Plant, without a reduction in water demand.

• Water demand management will be implemented to achieve the average day consumption should the Ardmore plant be limited to the minimum production of 140ML/day. Further restrictions will be implemented if the Ardmore plant is out of service and contingency reservoir storage cannot be maintained.

• Increasing 24-hour treated water reservoir storage to improve system resilience as demand increases.

• In conjunction with water treatment and treated water reservoir storage capacity, the overall water transmission system will provide, wherever possible, redundancy against a transmission asset failure.

Maintaining these Levels of Service is a key driver for Watercare’s investment in water supply infrastructure.

2.4 Water Use Measurement

Watercare uses universal metering to measure water use by all legal connections on the Auckland metropolitan water supply network. All water meters are read at least every second month and water consumption for alternative months is estimated.

Watercare also measures water at all sources, treatment plants and bulk supply points around the city.

Water metering assists in providing the vast amount of data and information which is required to manage and operate Auckland’s sophisticated water supply system. Suitable water use statistics contribute to promoting the wise and efficient use of available water, planning new water source development, optimising network design and operation, and managing revenues and costs.

2.4.1 Maintenance and Asset Management Procedures

Watercare maintains a comprehensive AMP to manage the company’s infrastructure cost-effectively to achieve long term strategic goals.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 12 The AMP sets out in detail the asset management procedures applicable to the Auckland Metropolitan Water Supply System and includes detail on the following:

• Operations and maintenance strategies to ensure that water and wastewater systems are operated to ensure that the expected levels of service and that compliance with regulatory and resource consent conditions are achieved in a cost-effective manner;

• Asset renewal strategy, including asset replacement and rehabilitation programmes to monitor the condition and performance of assets to plan for their replacement;

• Significant water strategic programmes required to meet Auckland’s future growth, including source augmentation, water treatment upgrades and water transmission initiatives, grouped by geographic area for the Southern, North-west, Central, North Shore, Hibiscus Coast, and non-metropolitan water supplies;

• Wastewater strategic programmes, outlining the significant programmes required to meet Auckland’s future growth, including regional and sub-regional connectivity, wastewater treatment upgrades and wastewater transmission upgrades.

• Financial projections that set out funding strategies and price path calculation methodology for major strategic projects and programmes, the planned operational and capital expenditure required to deliver reliable water and wastewater services across the Auckland region and how that will be funded.

Watercare takes an enterprise-wide approach to managing risks and opportunities through a formal enterprise risk management framework and by supporting processes which align with AS/NZS ISO 31000:2018 (Risk Management – Principles and Guidelines). Risks are analysed, prioritised for treatment, and then appropriate risk mitigation measures are applied.

The Watercare asset management system, as outlined in the AMP, is illustrated in Figure 2.

Watercare assets with a high criticality and / or which would have severe consequences if the asset failed, are placed on planned maintenance schedules. Non-critical assets with minor consequences if the asset failed, are repaired or replaced when they fail. This “unplanned” maintenance approach is the least whole-of-life-cost maintenance strategy for non-critical assets. Watercare balances maintenance budgets between planned and unplanned maintenance activities to reduce overall maintenance costs.

To account for both planned and unplanned maintenance, flexibility in source availability is needed to ensure supply to customers is maintained and to enable consent limits to be met.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 13

Figure 2: The Watercare Asset Management Approach

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 14 3. AUCKLAND METROPOLITAN WATER DEMAND ASSESSMENT

WRP Requirement:

2) A comprehensive assessment of existing demand and future demand for water with regard to an assessment of reasonable population growth within the planning horizon to meet the following:

a) reasonable domestic needs;

b) public health needs in accordance with requirements under any Act of Parliament or regulation;

c) reasonable community needs (e.g. for public amenities);

d) reasonable commercial, rural supply and industrial needs;

e) an assessment as to how each of the assessments required by clauses a) to d) above is predicted to vary over time;

3.1 Overview

Secure and reliable water services are critical to the economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being of Auckland’s people and communities, and are a basic human right. It is also a crucial element in the Auckland Council’s long-term vision for Auckland to thrive and succeed over the next 30 years as set out in the Auckland Plan 2050. Secure water supplies are also essential for northern Waikato communities where access to other water sources can be limited.

Auckland’s employment diversity, market size and business clustering are unmatched by other centres, making it well placed to attract the high-value economic activities, skilled migrants and international investment required to improve the living standards of all New Zealanders.

Auckland is New Zealand’s commercial centre, leading the finance, insurance, transport and logistics, and business services industries. It is the largest centre for manufacturing, with growing clusters in the marine, advanced materials, and food and beverage sectors.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 15 3.2 Current Water Supply Situation

As outlined in Chapter 2, Watercare currently supplies Auckland with some 164,000,000 cubic metres of water per year). Key associated statistics are summarised in Table 36 below.

Table 3: Water supply and demand statistics

Parameter Quantity

Average daily water demand (2020) 440,000 m3/day

Maximum 3-day peak water demand (2020) 568,000 m3/day

Gross per capita demand 272 litres/person/day

Assumed post-2025 gross per capita demand 253 litres/person/day

Maximum anticipated peak water demand (2050) 740,000 – 780,000 m3/day

Average anticipated daily water demand (2050) 600,000 m3/day

3.2.1 Legislative Requirements

Legislation prescribes how the water and wastewater networks are managed, to ensure that public health and the environment is protected. Table 4 lists several Acts of Parliament that affect the delivery of the water and wastewater services and provides a summary of the specific requirements under these Acts.

Table 4: Relevant Legislation

Legislation Requirement

Local Government Act 2002 • Obligation to maintain public water services unless that service supplies water to 200 or fewer persons. • Obligation for council to adopt a significance policy setting out (among other requirements) a list of assets council considers to be ‘strategic assets’. Strategic assets are those assets vital for delivery of council’s services to the community. Therefore, council has determined the water and wastewater schemes to be ‘strategic assets’. • Undertake assessments of water and sanitary services • Not use the water services assets as security, or divest ownership to a non-local government organisation, lose control of, sell, or otherwise dispose of the significant

6 Watercare Services Limited, Asset Management Plan 2018 – 2038

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 16 Legislation Requirement infrastructure for providing water services • Not restrict or stop water supply to a property unless all criteria under the Act are met.

Local Government Act 1974 • Obligation to provide fire hydrants in the public water supply networks

Local Government (Auckland • Local activities must be identified in the Long Term Plan Council) Act 2009 (LTP) • Manage water and wastewater operations efficiently to keep costs to customers (collectively) at a minimum while maintaining effective management and maintenance of the long-term integrity of its assets • Must not pay any dividend or distribute any surplus in any way, directly or indirectly, to any owner or shareholder • Give written notice for road opening (unless for emergency work) • Must have regard for public safety in relation to its structures

Health Act 1956 • Improve, promote, and protect public health • Provide adequate supply and monitoring

Health and Safety at Work Act • The main purpose of this Act is to provide for a balanced 2015 framework to secure the health and safety of workers and workplaces

Health (Drinking Water) • Develop and implement Water Safety Plans Amendment Act 2007 • Take all practicable steps to comply with the Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand • Building Act 1991 • Enforce the provisions of the Building Code in relation to safe and adequate water supplies

Resource Management Act 1991 • Promote sustainable management of natural and physical resources • That the taking of water and the discharge of wastewater to the natural environment are undertaken in compliance with resource consent conditions

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 17 Legislation Requirement

Civil Defence Emergency • Requires lifeline utilities to ensure they are able to Management Act 2002 function to the fullest possible extent, and have plans in place, to cope during an emergency • Participate in/provide information for Civil Defence Emergency Management strategy and plans

3.2.2 Water Users

Watercare provides water services through more than 439,000 service connections. The majority of water usage is by residential customers using around 75% of the total volume of water delivered.

Industrial use represents approximately 10% of the total daily water consumption across Auckland. Large industrial users typically include process industries, manufacturing and food and beverage producers.

Commercial and institutional demand represents around 15% of the total water delivered by Watercare. Commercial and institutional customers are highly varied, from multi-storey commercial premises in the city to small local shops in the suburbs. Institutional users include hospitals, schools, correctional facilities, fire service, public sanitary facilities, municipal swimming pools, parks and gardens.

On the outskirts of the metropolitan area there are a number of rural and agricultural users that are supplied by Watercare directly from the metropolitan water supply system. These customers represent less than 0.5% of the total water supplied, with the majority of use for horticulture. Many other large agricultural organisations have their own water supplies and do not rely on Watercare’s supply system.

The remainder of the water use is through non-revenue water including operational, fire-fighting and illegal use.

Non-revenue water use aggregates a range of different aspects and, in effect, is the difference between the total water supplied from a treatment plant and the water for which payment is received from customers. These numbers are low by New Zealand standards and compare well with overseas best practice.

The proportion of the total demand that is utilised by the different uses in the future cannot be estimated with any certainty. However, because population is the category that uses the most water, and because growth in the other sectors also reflects increases in population, population is seen as being the most appropriate tool for predicting demand moving forward.

More information on water use, including a breakdown in per capita demand, is in Chapter 6; however a brief description of per capita demand is included below to provide some additional context to Auckland’s current water supply situation.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 18 3.2.3 Gross Per Capita Consumption (PCC)

Gross per capita consumption (“PCC”) is the total water supplied divided by the total connected population. Gross PCC in Auckland was 270.7 litres/person/day in 2018-19.7 It has been as high as 425 litres/person/day during the 1980s and has declined steadily since 1990 when specific water conservation strategies began – commencing with the introduction of universal metering and now including a more user pays system of charging, leakage reduction programmes and public education initiatives. The economic recession of 2008-2009 also contributed to a drop in PCC during these two years. The reduction in gross PCC compared with population growth is illustrated in Figure 3.

Of note is that current per capita performance is the same as occurred during the 1994 drought, when consumption was being heavily constrained to preserve the water storage lakes. The fact that the current use of water per person has been reduced to what in 1994 was seen as being a situation requiring severe water restrictions is a sign of water efficiency.

Watercare is not being complacent with regards to current levels of PCC, and, as is outlined in Chapter 7 of this WMP, Watercare has targeted further per capita reductions in water use of 15% (from the 2004 level of 298 litres/person/day) by 2025, approximately half of which has already been achieved. This 2025 target for PCC amounts to a further reduction from the current level of 272 litres/person/day to 253 litres/person/day. Following 2025 a new target will be set.

7 Watercare Annual Report 2019, Becoming Future Fit.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 19

Figure 3: Gross per capita consumption vs population growth from 2006 to 2017.

More detail on the per capita water usage of Watercare’s supply network relative to other domestic and international metropolitan centres is provided in Chapter 9.

3.3 Future Water Needs

3.3.1 Planning Period

Watercare’s’ assets are designed to have a 50 – 100 year serviceable life. On that basis, it would be appropriate to secure water availability for that same planning horizon. However, that is a very long timeframe with respect to resource consents. For resource consent purposes, a 35 year planning period is consistent with the resource consent duration allowed by section 123 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”). This is also a planning horizon used in the Auckland Plan.

3.3.2 Population Growth

Auckland’s population currently stands at approximately 1,700,000 people, with approximately 1,550,000 connected to Watercare’s metropolitan water supply network.

That Auckland’s population will continue to grow is beyond dispute – the only question is at what rate.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 20 The Demographics trend report prepared for the Auckland Plan 20508 identifies projected population growth in Auckland through to 2048, based on a medium growth scenario, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Projected total population in Auckland, at five year intervals (2018 to 2048)

Under the medium growth scenario there would be nearly 2,500,000 people by 2050, with more than 2.2 million people connected to the metropolitan supply network.

Statistics NZ also releases population projections, with the most recent9 projection for the Auckland Region indicating a population of more than 2.3 million by 2043 for a medium growth scenario.

Irrespective of the population projection used, it is clear that the population serviced by the Watercare network will continue to grow significantly and that significant additional water sources are necessary in order to service the demand requirements.

Watercare is required to manage its operations efficiently “with a view to keeping the overall costs of water supply and wastewater services to its customers (collectively) at the minimum levels consistent with the effective conduct of its undertakings and the maintenance of the long-term integrity of its assets”10. Its historic approach has been to base its planning on the medium growth scenario whilst paying close attention to growth trends. Should higher growth take place, Watercare will bring forward the implementation of alternative strategies to ensure water demands are met.

8 Auckland Plan 2050 Evidence report: Demographic trends for Auckland: Data sources and findings, June 2018. 9 Subnational Population Projections: 2013(base)–2043 update, 22 February 2017. 10 Section 57(1)(a), Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 21 It is also important that allowance for contingencies be built into the calculations of Auckland’s future water supply needs. Some of those contingencies are foreseeable, and some not.

For example, planned (and unplanned) maintenance serves to reduce water availability. While maintenance is generally scheduled in “off peak” times when water shortages are less likely, this cannot be guaranteed.

Furthermore, the possibility of a major longer-term interruption to supply (e.g., from earthquake or storm damage to key infrastructure) cannot be ruled out.

For these reasons, it is normal practice to include a contingency figure when making projections.

Watercare has reviewed the planned and unplanned events that reduce the reliability of supply and quantified the risk of these events using an established international methodology11. The resultant reduction in supply is called “outage” and has been estimated at 24.8 ML/d for average daily water demand and 41.7 ML/d for peak demand.

Watercare has also investigated an appropriate buffer that a prudent water company should allow between supply and demand to cater for specified uncertainties (except those due to outages) in the overall supply demand balance. This is referred to as “headroom” and was also calculated using an established international methodology12. For example, the factors used in the headroom calculation include the following:

• Degradation of source water quality.

• Accuracy of supply side data (hydrological records etc.).

• Uncertainty of the effects of climate change on yield.

• Accuracy of demand data (for example metering data).

• Demand forecast variation.

• Uncertainty of the effects of climate change on demand.

The resulting headroom calculation will vary over time, with peak headroom allowance in 2020 estimated at approximately 12.8 ML/day rising through to about 62.6 ML/day in 2050. Similarly, estimated annual drought headroom ranges from approximately 8ML/day in 2020 through to 48.8 ML/day in 2050. This needs to be accounted for in future water demand estimates.

It is noted that meeting peak demand cannot practicably be achieved simply by modifying the existing treatment plants and conveyance infrastructure to enable a greater instantaneous volume to be sourced from each existing source. Doing so would require replacing a substantial amount of the existing infrastructure and would be prohibitively expensive. It would also reduce the sustainable

11 For example, UK Water Industry Research. (2009). Estimating the Water Savings for Baseline Water Efficiency Activities. London: UK Water Industry Research Limited. 12 For example, UKWIR 2002, “An Improved Methodology for Assessing Headroom”. 02/WR/13/2.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 22 yield of any affected storage reservoir, which, in turn, would increase the average volume required from other sources such as the Waikato River.

Whilst population growth is the most important component in any assessment of future water needs, there are numerous other variables that can have a profound effect on those assessments. These include:

• Economic conditions.

• The relative proportion of residential, industrial, commercial, municipal, and other uses, and how fast these sectors grow.

• How much per capita demand can be reduced by water conservation initiatives and other public education measures.

• How outages, headroom and other contingencies are applied.

The discussion below includes comments on these and a number of related matters.

3.3.3 Other Factors

Watercare acknowledges that there is always uncertainty when using projections for future planning purposes and tend to under-estimate what will happen in practice, including for example (but not limited to):

• The planning assumptions used for population growth will affect the water volume required. For example, under a high growth scenario, an additional 200,000 m3/day (approximately) would be required by 2050 to meet demand than that required under a medium growth scenario.

• If a high growth scenario occurs in practice, then the volume required to meet demand in 2050 would only achieve the peak demand through to 2036 and average demand through to 2042.

• It needs to be acknowledged that the “high” population growth projections are not “upper bound” or “highest possible” scenarios and that other population growth scenarios could eventuate.

• Despite Watercare’s programme to meet the 15% demand reduction target outlined in Chapter 7, reducing water use is not entirely within Watercare’s control. Auckland’s per capita use is already amongst the lowest in New Zealand and the effects of the economic environment are difficult to quantify. Should economic conditions improve, it is not unreasonable to expect PCC to increase. Should there be no further reductions in PCC, Auckland would require an additional 40,000 m3/day and 54,000 m3/day under the medium growth scenario for average and peak demand, respectively.

• Outage and headroom estimates need to be provided for but are only estimates. Given that headroom is a quantification of uncertainty, if headroom is projected to 2050, then close to an

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 23 additional 49,000 m3/day is required to meet average demand and 63,000 m3/day to meet peak demand.

• Three day peak day demand is lower than daily peak day demand. If the daily peak day demand is used, peak day demand in 2050 would be at least 25,000 m3/day higher.

As can be seen from the examples above, there are numerous factors that could result in Auckland having a significantly higher water demand than estimated at any time. Nevertheless, Watercare has chosen to use conservative growth projections.

In addition, a distinction needs to be made between the time when a financial commitment to a capital expenditure project is made (as set out in the AMP) and when it is prudent to secure access to the natural resources necessary to facilitate that investment. It does not include consentability assessments or the need to secure strategic consents prior to any design work progressing.

The AMP is a funding document that includes Watercare’s anticipated capital expenditure projects over the next 20 years. It is a forecasting tool and Watercare regularly (at least every 3 years) adjusts project timeframes depending on the company’s overall requirements and changing circumstances. Put simply, Watercare considers that it is prudent to be identifying demand requirements on an ongoing basis and to obtaining consent when appropriate for the next source of water needed by Auckland so as to ensure security of supply.

3.3.4 Requirement for Water from the Waikato River

Of necessity, the water supply system must satisfy both peak and average demand. The attraction of the Waikato River source over “water storage lake” sources is that its availability is, in practical terms, comparatively drought resilient. Whereas water storage lakes will reduce during periods of extended dry weather when inflows decline, the Waikato Regional Plan establishes an environmental (minimum) flow in the lower Waikato River of approximately 167 m3/s13 (90% of Q5, WRP Table 3-5) at the Watercare intake location. The taking of water at any time between May and September (inclusive) and between October and April (inclusive) when the river flow exceeds the median flow will assist with meeting demand while also enabling water to be retained in dam storage for use during dry periods.

Based on estimates in 2020, additional water from the Waikato River will be needed by 2025 (and potentially earlier), although the exact date and rate of annual increase in demand cannot be predicted with absolute certainty. Annual population growth (medium scenario) will increase the peak demand for water of at least 10,000 m3/day each year.

Watercare is seeking to add resilience to Auckland’s water supply and will seek new allocations of water on a staged basis well in advance of when demand requires an additional water supply to ensure that demand is met consistently and when required.

13 At the Watercare intake site, as determined by catchment scaling of the Rangiriri flows.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 24 Watercare seek allocations that provide certainty for all concerned and which is considered to provide a reasonable, rather than absolute, level of future-proofing. This recognises that high population growth year on year may not occur, and hence any allocation of a quantity of water to supply that population now may be perceived as being pre-emptive, rather than necessary but that reasonable allocations are necessary to provide for demand security. Watercare will seek appropriate allocations of water that provide for 35 years of medium population growth, or approximately 20 years of high population growth but will continue to update its estimated demand requirements on an ongoing basis.

3.4 Auckland Plan

The Auckland Plan 2050 is a long-term spatial plan to ensure Auckland grows in a way that will meet the opportunities and challenges of the future. It is required by legislation to contribute to Auckland’s social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being. The specific requirements of the plan are set out in sections 79 and 80 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.

The Auckland Plan sets a strategic direction for Auckland and its communities that integrates social, economic, environmental, and cultural objective and outlines a high-level development strategy to achieve that direction and objectives. The spatial plan must identify the existing and future location and mix of critical infrastructure, services, and investment within Auckland, including services relating to water supply. The plan sets high level direction for Auckland but does not contain a detailed set of actions.

The Auckland Plan recognises the Waikato River as an integral part of the network for supply of water to Auckland and that additions to the Waikato Water Treatment Plant will be required during the planning period to 2050. It also recognises that the Watercare Asset Management Plan plays a critical role in setting the framework for a safe and resilient Auckland water supply. The Auckland Plan therefore contributes to the water management strategy followed by Watercare for meeting future water demand.

3.5 Summary

Auckland’s population will continue to grow, as will its need for a secure supply of water. Watercare has determined that the Waikato River is its preferred water source for additional supply and that based on population growth and prudent management of infrastructure, there is a reasonable expectation that provision for municipal water supply demand can be sourced from the Waikato River.

Watercare will continue to assess what allocation of water from the Waikato River will be sufficient to ensure both reliability of water supply to Auckland and that future opportunities for water allocation to others are not foreclosed upon. It will also continue to assess alternative options for the supply of water to meet the demand for water from the Watercare network but recognises that

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 25 in the short to medium term, the Waikato River will continue to be the preferred water source to meet growth in demand.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 26 4. WATER PRICING PROCEDURES

WRP Requirement:

3) Any existing or proposed water pricing procedures and any linkages with wastewater pricing or management.

All legal connections to the water supply network are metered, all water meters are read at least every second month and water consumption for alternative months is estimated. In combination with metering Watercare utilises pricing structures as a means of providing financial incentives for people and businesses to reduce their consumption of water, while ensuring that its obligations under section 57 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 are met.14

Universal water metering and volumetric charging for water use has been found from research and experience worldwide to be an effective means of significantly reducing water use. Water use reduction occurs where:

• Water charges are transparent and water users tend to elect not to undertake certain water use activities which have a low value for them.

• Water users are likely to deal with leaks and water losses in order to avoid unnecessary water charges.

• In the longer term, some users find it economic to replace old appliances and technologies with modern water efficient equipment.

Water metering allows regular monitoring of individual properties. Significant increases in water use are readily identified enabling a response to identify and repair the potential leak.

All consumers throughout the Auckland metropolitan area are charged according to the volume of water used, with charges being updated on an annual basis. A domestic and non-domestic volumetric rate of $1.555 (including GST) per 1000 litres consumed is applicable throughout the region, effective for the period 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020.

As well as charging for the water supplied to properties, Watercare also charges for the wastewater leaving the property, with GST inclusive fixed charges ranging from $225 (low, domestic users) through to $85,698 (high industry use) and volumetric rates ranging from $2.704 through to $5.060 (depending on the type of use) per 1000 litres. This provides a further incentive to minimise water use.

The charging regime is reviewed annually and updated as necessary.

14 For example, section 57(1)(a) of the Act requires Watercare to manage “its operations efficiently with a view to keeping the overall costs of water supply and waste-water services to its customers (collectively) at the minimum levels consistent with the effective conduct of its undertakings and the maintenance of the long-term integrity of its assets”.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 27 5. MANAGING RETICULATION NETWORKS TO MINIMISE WATER LOSSES

WRP Requirement:

4) How water reticulation networks are planned and managed to minimise their water losses as far as practicable.

5.1 Overview

Watercare actively monitors and manages the water reticulation network for the Auckland water supply to minimise water losses. The general approach and current initiatives of that active management are summarised below. Watercare has a regional leakage management strategy, which is included within its overall water efficiency strategy included as Appendix One.

5.2 General Approach

The following provides a brief summary of the strategy set out in Appendix One.

Strategy four in the Watercare Water Efficiency Strategy seeks to reduce leakage in the water with an overall water efficiency target gain of eight to 14 million litres per day by 2025.

Reducing leakage in the water network will require significant investment in new approaches to monitor, identify and reduce losses across the network. The following initiatives have been adopted to directly reduce the volume of water lost from the Watercare networks:

• Establishing district metering areas and pressure management. These network areas are made up of approximately 3000 to 5000 properties and are usually bounded by closed valves so they can be monitored and managed as separate areas. Such areas are used in most countries around the world and they have been extensively proven to assist in reducing leakage in a water supply network. The areas can be monitored regularly to identify any changes in usage that could be attributed to water losses. Leaks will then be found and fixed in the network to prevent further losses from occurring in the network.

• Finding and fixing leaks more efficiently through an app for customers. Watercare strongly encourages customers to report any suspected water leaks in the network so that they can be fixed as soon as practicable. To help make it easier to report leaks, Watercare is planning to launch a new leak reporting app that will enable anyone to simply report a leak when they see it.

• Finding leaks through acoustic sounding. When water flows through a pipe and there is an underground leak in the pipe, then the pipe will start to make a noise. This is generally a low- volume noise that will not be audible to anyone walking along a road, but electronic acoustic leak detection devices can be used for leak identification. Watercare targets acoustic leak

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 28 detection activities to areas where leaks are expected to be highest and aim to cover 20 per cent of the network every year.

• Using smart meters. Smart meters record the water use at a property and automatically send that information to Watercare. They can also provide customers with information about their water use to help quickly identify leaks on properties by analysing changes in day-to-day water use.

Watercare’s current target for real losses (leakage) is that real losses should be less than or equal to 13 per cent of the water supplied, reducing to less than or equal to 12 per cent of the water supplied by 2040. In addition, Watercare also reports real losses in terms of litres per connection per day (L/c/d), with current performance at just over 126L/c/d. The Watercare target is to reduce this to 101L/c/d by 2025, with real losses limited to a total of 50MLD (the figure is 60MLD currently) leading to an overall reduction in non-revenue water of 10MLD by 2025.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 29 6. PATTERNS OF WATER USE

WRP Requirement:

5) A description of patterns of water use practices and/or behaviour in all sectors of use (and distribution) with the objective of maximising water use efficiency and reducing water use, as far as practicable.

6.1 Overview

By getting a better understanding of water use practices and/or behaviours, and the factors which influence those practices and behaviours, opportunities for improving water efficiency can be identified and monitored for their effectiveness. A broad range of work has been done to better understand the patterns of water use practices and behaviours in all sectors. The data used in preparation of this section will be updated as part of reviewing the Auckland water efficiency strategy, scheduled for completion in late 2020.

6.2 Water Supplied

This section provides an overview of how water is used in Auckland, how population has increased and the volumes of water supplied to meet Aucklanders’ needs. As can be seen in Figure 5, the Watercare network of water supply sources, water treatment plant infrastructure and water use throughout the network is complex and involves a wide range of components. This necessitates management of the network in a conjunctive manner and means that at any source, treatment plant or use location can have implications beyond a particular water source. It is important to note that the matters addressed in this WMP do not relate solely to any particular water source within the network, and that each source must be considered as an integral part of the broader system for maintaining supply to Auckland and North Waikato.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 30 Figure 5: Watercare Metropolitan Network Water Balance 2019

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 31 6.2.1 Customer Base

Watercare supplies water to a wide customer base including residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and agricultural users. The majority of water is used by Watercare’s residential customers, although there is also a substantial demand from the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors, grouped under “non-residential”. The most recent published assessment (2016) of the breakdown between residential, non-residential, bulk and no revenue demand is provided in Figure 6, although recent evaluations indicate that the breakdown remains similar to that identified in 2016.

Figure 6: Typical volume consumption by customer type (2015-16)

Water losses are also included in Figure 6, which is leakage through the water supply network.

In Papakura, Watercare provides bulk services to Veolia Water that manages the local network and retails services to the local community.

6.2.2 Volume of Water Supplied

Up to the end of 2019, Watercare supplied metropolitan Auckland with approximately 440,000 m3/day of water. Water demand has a strong correlation to rainfall and temperature and as Auckland is a city with a growing population with more than 156,000 people moving into the region, this has resulted in significant year on year demand increases, as indicated in Figure 7 for the period 2010 – 2020.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 32

Figure 7: Monthly Average Demand for Financial Years 2010 to 2020

6.3 Peak and Average Demand Monthly average demand is shown in Figure 7 while peak demand is shown in Figure 8. It illustrates that total demand and summer peak demand has grown significantly over the period 2010 – 2020, while winter (July) demand has also shown a steady increase, due to the increasing population serviced.

Figure 8: Monthly Peak Demand for Financial Years 2010 to 2020

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 33 Watercare needs to develop and maintain water resources and treatment capacity to meet this peak demand, although these sources and plants may not be fully utilised for the remainder of the year.

Providing sufficient water to meet peak demand is one of the main drivers for Watercare’s water resource needs. Consequently, efficient demand management for Auckland should have an impact on water demand all year round including reduced peak water demand. This is the only way to delay the need for new water sources. Demand management initiatives that would only reduce average demand and not reduce peak demand will be of lower interest.

6.4 Overview of Per Capita Consumption

6.4.1 Overview

Based on PCC calculations, it is clear that within the next decade, Auckland’s current water sources will be insufficient to supply the region’s growing population. An additional water source – plus treatment and transmission capability – will need to be brought on stream. After an exhaustive examination of over 80 options, Watercare has determined that the most viable solution for future- proofing Auckland’s water supply is to duplicate the Waikato Water Treatment Plant and potentially install a second pipeline to draw additional water from the Waikato River.

Despite changes in population, the demand for water has not increased proportionately due reduction achieved in gross PCC, from over 400 litres/person/day forty years ago to approximately 270 litres/person/day in 2020. The change in PCC over the period 1990 to 2013 is illustrated in Figure 9, with the red line showing the change in PCC.

Figure 9: Auckland’s historical water use (1980-2019)

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 34 Figure 9 shows that significant events, such as the 1994 drought and the recession in 2008/09, and programmes such as demand management measures including the introduction of universal metering can influence and change water use.

The calculation of gross PCC for Auckland is based on the metropolitan supply area, i.e. those customers who are connected to the main metropolitan supply. There are areas outside of the metropolitan area that Watercare supplies, such as Helensville, Waiuku and Warkworth. The gross PCC target is based on the consumption of customers connected to the metropolitan network.

Figure 10 shows how gross PCC has been reducing since 2004 and remains close to the target pathway of a 15% reduction on 2004 levels by 2025. Gross PCC is influenced by several factors, including population estimates, residential and non-residential consumption, climate, Watercare’s own demand for water and leakage.

Gross PCC is still following a decreasing trend but is expected to stabilise between 270 litres/person/day and 280 litres/person/day if no further demand management initiative is taken.

Figure 10: Auckland’s demand management savings pathway

6.4.2 Gross and Residential Per Capita Consumption

Gross PCC is the total water supplied divided by the total connected population. Residential PCC is the total residential water consumption divided by the total connected population.

Gross PCC is often used in New Zealand as a KPI for water supply. To gain a more thorough understanding of water use and then efficiently act on it, it is important to assess the breakdown of

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 35 demand across different water users. Residential PCC is particularly important, as this indicates how much water households are using. Water is also supplied to industry, commercial and institutional users. These sectors have very different dynamics from residential water users.

Residential PCC has reduced from approximately 167 L/p/d in 2012 to about 160 in 2014, 2015 and 2016. Variations in annual residential usage are impacted by water efficiency and by the weather over the summer, with water usage increasing during a drier or hotter summer in comparison with a normal year. The changes between 2012 and 2016 are shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Residential Per Capita Consumption for 2012-2019 The residential PCC has not shown the same trend in reduction as gross PCC and limited data suggests that the change in gross PCC is not always linked to a reduction in residential consumption.

Non-residential water use accounts for approximately 25 per cent of water use in Auckland. The vast majority of Watercare non-residential customers (approximately 85 per cent) use less than 2000 litres of water per day, with a small number of large users in Auckland (less than 1.5 per cent) using more than 15,000 litres of water per day. There is a regional difference, with more of the large non- residential customers being located in central Auckland and Manukau. Approximately 42 per cent of annual non-residential water use is by 80 non-residential customers.

A breakdown of water use volumes across businesses and organisations in 2016 is provided in Figure 12. A similar breakdown can be expected for 2020.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 36

Figure 12: Breakdown of water use across businesses and organisations in 2016.

6.4.3 Influence of Pricing on Per Capita Consumption

All water supplied in the Auckland Region is metered, with the price of water being the same for both residential and non-residential customers within the requirements of section 57 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. Water is currently charged volumetrically at a rate of $1.555 per 1,000 litres (GST inclusive, 2019-20 prices). The water used in Auckland reduced significantly following the introduction of metering and this has been a key component of managing demand to date. Charges are reviewed annually and, for example, have increased every year from a rate of $1.343 per 1,000 litres (GST inclusive) for the year ended June 2014.

Watercare experience is that the introduction of volumetric charging in Auckland significantly reduced demand. However, increases in price since volumetric charging was introduced appear to have caused limited reductions in demand.

6.4.4 Influence of the Economy on Per Capita Consumption

There are several factors which influence water demand, including recessions or growth in business demand. Such factors are difficult to predict on an annual basis but are balanced out in overall long term growth predictions.

6.4.5 Influence of Climate on Per Capita Consumption

Summer rainfall tends to influence gross PCC and overall water demand. When adjacent years are compared, gross PCC is slightly lower in wet years and higher in dry years. This is illustrated in Figure 8, where peak demand in the summer of 2020 (a significantly dry year, being one of the driest summer periods since records began) was almost 30% higher than that in 2012, one of the wettest years on record.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 37 6.4.6 Improving Our Understanding of Per Capita Consumption in Auckland

Watercare continues to monitor and review consumption data to identify trends and uses this information to inform its approach to demand management. Growth investment, for water planning and construction, is based on PCC data. As indicated in the Auckland water efficiency strategy (2017 to 2020) attached as Appendix One, trends in usage are integral to informing strategies for driving efficient water use in Auckland.

6.5 Residential Consumption

Watercare commissioned BRANZ to research water use in Auckland homes in 2008. A summary of the breakdown of water use in an Auckland home is illustrated in Figure 13. In 2014, Watercare engaged BRANZ again to understand changes in water use since undertaking the 2008 study. A similar sample of households was targeted, this time using surveys and a prediction tool as opposed to high- resolution meters. Six years of billed water use was analysed to enable the seasonality of water use to be fully taken into account. The average billed water use per person showed a slight reduction of six per cent between 2008 and 2013 for the participating households but a similar breakdown of use within households was apparent.

Figure 13: Breakdown of water use in an Auckland home. As outlined in Appendix One, the key strategy for residential water efficiency is to achieve water efficiency gains of three to five million litres per day by 2025. The initiatives being taken to achieve these gains include:

• Implementing “Be Waterwise”, a toolkit for household water efficiency including information material, ways to engage and tools available to Aucklanders. Parts of the programme are delivered in partnership with EcoMatters Environment Trust, which offers a wide range of community-based environmental initiatives in Auckland including sustainable living

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 38 programmes and projects in the areas of waste minimisation, permaculture, energy efficiency, air quality, water conservation, stream restoration, weed management, composting, and edible gardening.

• Encouraging showerhead retrofits, recognising that nearly one-third of the water use in a home is in the shower. Heating water is also a large proportion of a home energy bill. By reducing hot water use, households improve their water and energy efficiency. Watercare assists customers who would most benefit to replace their existing showerhead with a modern low flow one.

• Encouraging rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling, recognising that of all water used in the home, 30 per cent is for outdoor use or toilet flushing. This water should be safe to use but does not need to be drinking water quality and could be rainwater harvested onsite. Watercare can provide technical design guidance for installation of rainwater tanks or greywater reuse systems, noting that the volumetric charging for water in Auckland is a financial incentive to install rainwater tanks and greywater reuse systems because reducing water use leads to a direct reduction in the Watercare bill customers receive.

• Watercare is working with developers to encourage them to include water-efficient fixtures and fittings as part of new developments. Under a certification programme, new houses (or renovated houses) that meet determined water efficiency criteria could be eligible for some form of incentive. Developers could also use this certification to market their homes as being water efficient.

More details of these initiatives are provided in Appendix One.

6.6 Non-residential Consumption

Figure 14 shows the trends in total water use by customer category from 2012 to 2016. This excludes approximately 65 per cent of non-residential accounts with low water usage. It is apparent that total water usage in most categories is trending upward, with notable exceptions being the industry category, which has decreased, and the beverage category, which has fluctuated from year to year. This aligns with the growth observed in Auckland over the same time period. It also shows that the categories use the most water overall are food manufacturing, industry, and beverage manufacturing, followed by the retail, education (schools with sports fields), and sports and recreation facilities categories.

The target for non-residential water efficiency programme is to achieve water efficiency gains of three to seven million litres per day by 2025.

Key initiatives in seeking to achieve these efficiency gains include:

• Ongoing review of the infrastructure growth charge, which is a contribution towards the capital investment in bulk infrastructure to provide services to either new or existing customers who increase their demand.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 39

Figure 14: Total annual water usage per non-residential 2012 to 2016 (excluding minor commercial uses)

• Watercare engages with many non-residential customers through its website and publications and working on a one-to-one basis with large customers to clearly demonstrate how to make water efficiency improvements. This includes analysing water use, checking for leaks and suggesting changes to processes to make savings. The programmes include baseline assessments of annual water consumption at selected sites, installing smart meters at some sites to enable detailed understanding of water use, implementing water management software to help improve water efficiency and monitoring of customer’s water consumption for an agreed period of time, including regular progress meetings.

• Watercare runs a successful education programme for primary and intermediate schools in Auckland, currently focusing on water quality, wastewater and stormwater but will also have a greater focus on water efficiency, by including a water efficiency and sustainability focus as part of the existing programme and developing a wider benchmarking programme for all schools in the Auckland region. This approach is expected to reduce the water wasted and help to educate young people about water efficiency and sustainability.

• Watercare works with community sports clubs through the Project Litefoot Trust, which is a charitable trust offering a free service that saves money for community sports clubs by helping them become more efficient with electricity, water and waste management. The programme is led by 10 of New Zealand’s top sportspeople, working with two community sports clubs to

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 40 create the blueprint for water efficiency in sports clubs that will become the blueprint for other clubs to aspire towards.

More details of these initiatives are provided in Appendix One.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 41 7. WATER SAVING TARGETS

WRP Requirement:

6) Water saving targets for the full range of demand conditions including demand saving targets for council owned facilities, domestic demand targets and demand saving targets for commercial and industrial customers.

7.1 Water Savings Target

Watercare has set a water saving target for Auckland of reducing the 2004 gross PCC by 15% by 2025. This equates to a gross PCC of 253 litres/person/day.

7.2 Background

The water savings target set out above originates in the Three Waters Strategic Plan (2008), a collaborative document of the former local councils of Auckland, and Watercare15.

The water savings target is now a key performance measure used in establishing the Auckland water efficiency strategy for 2017 to 2020, included as Appendix One.

7.3 Savings Required

The Auckland Water Efficiency Strategy seeks to save 21 million litres of water per day by 2025, which is a reduction of 15 per cent over 2004 water use. The efficiency strategy sets out four overall strategies with target water efficiency gains for each:

• Strategy one: Municipal water efficiency programme, with target water efficiency gains by 2025 of one million litres per day;

• Strategy two: Residential water efficiency programme, with target water efficiency gains by 2025 of three to five million litres per day;

• Strategy three: Non-residential water efficiency programme, with target water efficiency gains by 2025 of three to seven million litres per day; and

• Strategy four: Reducing leakage in the water network, with target water efficiency gains by 2025 of eight to 14 million litres per day.

These are described in more detail in the Water Efficiency Strategy included as Appendix One, along with the programmes of work being implemented to achieve the targets.

15 Gross per capita consumption is the overall water use in Auckland divided by the number of inhabitants connected to Watercare’s water supply. 2004 gross per capita consumption was 298 litres per person per day (L/p/d).

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 42 8. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR WATER SAVINGS TARGETS

WRP Requirement:

7. Key performance indicators for each of the water saving targets.

As outlined in Chapter 7, Watercare has adopted an overall water savings target of reducing 2004 gross PCC by 15% by 2025.

In respect of the overall water savings target, Watercare will review and publish the following key performance indicators on an annual basis:

 Gross PCC and progress against the 2025 reduction target.

 An estimate of residential PCC.

 Commentary on any trends as they emerge.

 Benchmarking these results both nationally and internationally.

The percentage of real water loss from Watercare’s networked reticulation system and the average consumption of drinking water per day per resident are identified as performance indicators in the Watercare SOI. Performance against those indicators is reported annually in the Watercare Annual Report.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 43 9. AUDITING AND BENCHMARKING PROCEDURES

WRP Requirement:

8) Any external auditing and benchmarking procedures that have been adopted.

9.1 Overview

Watercare periodically benchmarks the PCC, against that of other metropolitan centres in New Zealand, and internationally. Watercare uses these benchmarking exercises to understand the relative performance of Auckland water use, and to identify areas where Auckland’s performance could be improved.

An indication of recent benchmarking is outlined in the Water Efficiency Strategy in Appendix One. As those results show, Auckland’s PCC compares very favourably when compared with other comparable domestic and international metropolitan centres, for example as shown in Figure 15. In 2019, the Auckland PCC was approximately 156 litres/person/day, comparing with Melbourne Water (2019) at 161 litres/person/day, Sydney (2018) at 210 litres/person/day, VCS Denmark (2108) at 105 litres/person/day and Aarhus (2017) at 104 litres/person/day.

Figure 15: Auckland residential PCC benchmarked against similar cities (medium and large, over 95 per cent of population metered)

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 44 Comparison of gross PCC figures is complex, as the figure includes industrial, commercial and other uses which are not consistent between cities and reporting dates differ.

This benchmark is an indication of how well Aucklanders are doing, which is influenced by measures in place in Auckland like metering, pricing and demand management initiatives. However, climate and other factors have an impact on the quantity of water used in different cities. Therefore, it is important to treat any comparisons of PCC with caution.

9.1.1 New Zealand Benchmarking

a) Water New Zealand

The Water New Zealand 2018/2019 National Performance Review benchmarks financial and non- financial performance measures, one of which is residential water consumption. The average residential PCC several local authorities participating in the review is shown in Figure 2. This figure shows that the average Auckland residential consumption compares well with other major centres in New Zealand and is one of the lowest per capita consumption levels recorded in New Zealand.

Figure 16: Average Residential Water Consumption in New Zealand

b) Auditor General

As noted above, it is difficult to draw conclusions from comparisons of gross PCC as it includes a wide range of demand and external influencing factors. Residential PCC, although harder to measure, provides more insight about water use. This is calculated by dividing the total residential

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 45 consumption by the total connected population. The Water New Zealand 2018/2019 National Performance Review provides a comparison of residential consumption across New Zealand.

The Auditor General of New Zealand maintains an overview of water management in New Zealand and in February published a statement on water management in New Zealand. In September 2018, the Auditor General reported to Parliament an audit of three District Councils and one City Council to understand the challenges they face in supplying drinking water to their communities. While recent focus has been on the quality of drinking water, it is important that communities also have confidence that councils are working to ensure that the supply of drinking water is reliable and sustainable.

While these recent audits have not involved Watercare, Watercare maintains a close watch on the Auditor Generals reporting to assess whether adjustments are required to its water management activities. Based on the recent audit reports, Watercare’s approach to managing its water network and water supply assets is consistent with industry best practice and aligns with the expectations identified in the Auditor Generals overview.

9.1.2 International Benchmarking

The International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities (“IBNET”) is the world’s largest database for water and sanitation utilities performance data. It is administered by the World Bank and data is drawn from across the world. IBNET can be used to compare data from a range of New Zealand water service providers with over 1400 utilities from around the world.

Using IBNET, the present Watercare water consumption (non-residential and residential) and non- revenue water rates are compared against the whole IBNET database in Figure 17 and Figure 18 respectively.

These figures show that the Watercare water consumption data and non-revenue water statistics compare favourably with international utility results. Water consumption is close to average internationally, while non-revenue data is comparable to the best 10% of performance internationally.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 46

Figure 17: Water Consumption IBNET Comparison

Figure 18: Non-Revenue Water IBNET Comparison

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 47 10. DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN

WRP Requirement:

9) A drought management plan that includes:

b) targets for the water savings expected to be achieved via the restriction of activities identified in a) above, which shall align as closely as possible to the restrictions for SW-B users provided for in Standard 3.3.4.27

c) public and commercial user education programmes

d) steps taken to reduce consumption when demand is approaching the maximum take volume specified under the relevant resource consent

e) enforcement procedures.

10.1 Overview

The Auckland Metropolitan Drought Management Plan (“AMDMP”) recognises that Auckland’s water supply system provides water from integrated storage and run-of-river sources for Watercare’s Auckland metropolitan area and for that reason it does not relate to flows in particular rivers or streams but responds to the threats resulting from shortages in the sources contributing to overall supply. The AMDMP is therefore based around ensuring that water supply is maintained for essential and other services, while providing environmental protection for the various sources contributing to the overall supply.

In particular, the AMDMP is implemented when the storage levels in the storage dams in the Waitākere and Hūnua Ranges drop below designated trigger levels. This will not necessarily coincide with water shortage conditions in the Waikato River. When the trigger levels are reached, a series of measures will be implemented to reduce use, progressively becoming more stringent as the severity of the drought increases.

The AMDMP is included in Appendix Two.

10.2 Background

A drought is considered to be a shortage of rain that has caused, or threatens to cause, a deficiency in supplies that may lead to an imbalance between supply and demand. These conditions are generally associated with a shortage of rainfall leading to low river flows and/or low replenishment

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 48 of surface water reservoirs. Each drought is different in duration and severity and the area over which its effects are felt.

10.2.1 Auckland’s Drought Management

As stated in Section 2.3, Watercare has adopted a 1 in 100 year drought security standard having a 15% residual capacity in the storage lakes during normal demand. This means that based on hydrological records, the total lake storage will be drawn down to 15%, or the equivalent of approximately 5 weeks demand, once in 100 years on average over the long term. This will happen in the case where no restrictions are implemented, and normal operational abstraction decisions are made. However, this does not negate the need to have restrictions during droughts and the AMDMP provides the triggers for water restrictions well before this level is reached.

For the Auckland Metropolitan Region, only the abstraction from the Waikato River is assessed as to be reliable enough to be described as independent of short term climate variability. However, this source is insufficient to be the sole source of water for Auckland due to constraints from consented maximum take and infrastructure on site. The water supply dams, on the other hand, can become unable to supply any water during a severe enough event. Therefore it is important that those sources that are at higher risk from climate variability are managed prudently so that there is sufficient water to ensure that there are no significant risks of adverse public health effects, due to the lack of water for basic sanitary requirements in an event that is worse than 1 in 100 year drought. Restrictions are put in place to prevent supply failure and to ensure water is still available for basic human requirements, even during the most extreme probable event.

10.2.2 Trigger for Water Restrictions

As Watercare is not solely dependent upon the Waikato River and Watercare’s stored water sources are more susceptible to drought conditions, the key driver for determining droughts, and therefore triggering the AMDMP, is the total system storage provided by the water supply dams. Total system storage is influenced by the Waikato River abstraction insofar as this source enables water in the dams to be preserved for later use.

The current drought triggers used are shown in Figure 19.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 49

Figure 19: Drought response trigger levels (2020)

10.3 Steps to be Taken for Drought Management

Watercare has adopted sequential plan of action for drought management, as summarised in Table 5.

Table 5: Sequential plan of action for drought management

Trigger Action

• Alert public to the imminent water shortages and possible need for restrictions in the future. • Promote “voluntary restrictions” via media advertising campaigns to inform Voluntary consumers about water conservation programs. savings trigger • Monitor storage volume response and perform regular forecasting of storage level. volume projections. • Monitor flows daily and increase frequency of monitoring demands for high consumers.

• Implement Stage 1 Restrictions. • Introduce advertising campaign using all appropriate forms of media. Stage 1 trigger • Continue to monitor storage volume response and perform regular forecasting level. of storage volume projections. • Investigate arrangements to bring available bores into service.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 50 Trigger Action • Inform customers about possible pressure reductions and problems this may entail. • Identify and plan for implementation of alternative emergency options. • Start to engage with Council to reduce Environmental Releases from reservoirs.

• Implement Stage 2 Restrictions. • Continue media advertising. Stage 2 trigger • Continue to monitor storage volume response and perform regular forecasting level. of storage volume projections. • Highlight, where feasible, unusually high use on customers’ bills. • Lower the water supply system pressures, where feasible, to reduce water use.

• Implement Stage 3 Restrictions. • Continue media advertising. • Continue to monitor storage volume response and perform regular forecasting Stage 3 trigger of storage volume projections. level. • Bring into service alternative emergency options e.g. rivers, Three Kings reservoir. • Bring any available bore pumping infrastructure into service.

Implement • Implement other emergency supply options. other • Continue media advertising. emergency supply • Continue to monitor storage volume response and perform regular forecasting options. of storage volume projections.

The detailed drought management plan is presented in Appendix Two and is not repeated here. This includes targets for the water savings expected, user education programmes and the steps to be taken to reduce consumption when drought conditions exist.

10.4 Targets for the Water Savings Expected to be Achieved

Watercare has identified the following water savings targets for the different trigger levels in Table 9 above, these are:

• Stage 1 trigger level – 5% savings.

• Stage 2 trigger level – 10% savings.

• Stage 3 trigger level – 15% savings.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 51 Whilst these savings may seem relatively small, Auckland’s gross PCC and peaking factors are low and there is limited discretionary use. Therefore, the implementation of restrictions will not result in large reductions in water demand.

10.5 Drought 2020

At the time of preparation of this WMP (May 2020), Auckland is in the grips of a severe drought. Since the start of 2020, the region has received significantly less rainfall than normal, which is having a big impact on the network water supply. In mid-April, the total volume of water stored in the Watercare storage dams dropped below 50 per cent for the first time in more than 25 years. However, New Zealand is also facing a COVID-19 pandemic and given the evolving pandemic situation necessitating significant washing requirements and other changes to the pattern of water use during lockdown periods, restrictions have not been practical.

The seriousness of the current situation is illustrated in weather forecasts which indicate that Auckland will experience some bursts of rain, but significant rainfall will remain scarce. With much less rainfall than usually expected for this time of year, the region’s water supply will remain under strain. The storage dams in the Hūnua and Waitākere Ranges rely on rainfall to replenish water stores which has not been happening on a regular basis over the past few months, with total water storage continuing to decline over the past five weeks as indicated in Table 6. The storage level less than 50% compares to the historical average of approximately 76% for this time of year.

Table 6: Dam Storage, April – May 2020

Date Total dam storage (%) Rainfall in catchments (mm)

Mon 6 April 51.89 0

Mon 13 April 50.24 33.5

Mon 20 April 48.84 0.5

Mon 27 April 47.08 0.5

Mon 4 May 46.29 80.5

An indication of rainfall in 2020 in the Hūnua storage dam catchments (Upper Mangatawhiri indicator site) is shown in Figure 20.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 52

Figure 20: Hūnua rainfall 2020, Upper Mangatawhiri

Watercare has not been complacent during this period and has requested voluntary savings of water across the board in Auckland while ensuring that people keep washing their hands to combat COVID- 19. This includes implementing a public awareness campaign requesting that water is used wisely, and wastage is reduced. For domestic users, this includes:

• Reference to https://www.waterforlife.org.nz/water-is-precious, a website promoting water savings and identifying practical options for savings;

• Keeping showers short (for example, if everyone kept showers to four minutes or less the water saving would amount to 80 million litres per day);

• Run washing machines and dishwashers only when they are full;

• Not washing cars;

• Not water blasting around the home; and

• Not hosing lawns and gardens.

As the storage dam levels continue to drop, Watercare has been maximising production elsewhere to reduce the demand on the dams. This includes working to return two former water sources (Hayes Creek Dam in Papakura and a bore in Pukekohe) to supply water and maximising production

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 53 at the Waikato and Onehunga WTP’s. For example, production at the Waikato WTP has been in excess of 98% of the allowable maximum (150,000 m3/day16) for a significant period of time.

While some savings have been achieved, a trigger point has been reached and Watercare is now considering introducing mandatory water restrictions across Auckland. Given the evolving COVID-19 situation, public health requirements have meant that restrictions have not been practical, but if sufficient rain does not arrive soon restrictions are inevitable.

Currently, there are no mandatory water restrictions in Auckland but a public awareness and programme and calls for voluntary savings are continuing. Watercare will let water users know in advance if this situation changes. Mandatory water restrictions will be introduced by the Auckland Council when required, while Watercare will enforce the restrictions. The restrictions will apply to all properties connected to Auckland's metropolitan water supply network. The Auckland Council will consider a recommendation to implement restrictions on 7 May 2020.

10.6 Public and Commercial User Education Programmes

The primary purpose of the public and commercial user education programmes is to give consumers ownership of the situation and the appropriate solutions so that they can contribute to achieving the desired savings. Savings through imposing restrictions will only work if the community is aware of them and implement them.

10.7 Steps Taken to Reduce Consumption When Demand is Approaching the Maximum Take Volume Specified Under Watercare’s Waikato River Abstraction Consents

The Waikato River is one of several sources for Auckland and supplies a significant proportion of Auckland’s total demand at any one time. The volume abstracted from the Waikato River also varies throughout the year and can be used to supply demand directly and to enable water to be stored in the storage lakes for later use.

Because the Auckland water supply is operated conjunctively, utilising multiple sources, total demand far exceeds the volume which could be supplied solely from the Waikato River. In that respect, clause (9)(d) of Section 8.1.2.2 of the Regional Plan which requires this Drought Management Plan include steps taken to reduce consumption when demand is approaching the maximum take volume is not strictly relevant to the proposed take, and no such steps are taken.

10.8 Enforcement Procedures

With the establishment of the Auckland Council under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, Council retains the sole ability to pass bylaws in respect to water supply. Traditionally drought

16 Because of the lack of rain, the Waikato River flow has also been below the median flow, preventing the abstraction of the quantity of water allowable when the river flow exceeds the median.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 54 events are managed through passing bylaws that restrict the use of water and a state of drought can also be enacted under the Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Act 2002, which recognises the importance of lifeline utilities, such as water, to the well-being of society. As explained above, stage 1 and above restrictions set out in the AMDMP can be imposed by Auckland Council under clause 12 of the Council’s Water Supply and Wastewater Network Bylaw 2015, if the Council (on the advice of Watercare) determines that its ability to maintain an adequate supply of drinking water is or maybe at risk (because of drought, emergency or any other reason.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 55 11. ACTIONS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES

RPV6 Requirement:

10. Actions, performance measures and a timeline for implementing actions. The actions and performance measures identified will depend on the circumstances of each applicant.

Watercare has investigated several different options to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the use of water within the Auckland water supply network. The present water efficiency strategy is set out in detail in the Auckland water efficiency strategy included as Appendix Two and is not repeated here.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 56 12. CONSULTATION

WRP Requirement:

11) Any consultation undertaken with key stakeholders and outcomes of such consultation.

Watercare is a Council-Controlled Organisation owned by Auckland Council and its various reports such as the SOI, annual report, asset management plan, water efficiency strategy and drought management plan are publicly available and open to public review. Watercare consults widely regarding its work programmes and strategies and water efficiency strategy and drought management plan have been prepared on the basis of full participation and support of the public.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 57 13. WATER CONSERVATION AND DEMAND MANAGEMENT REVIEW

WRP Requirement:

12) Details of an appropriate water conservation and demand management plan review process.

The water conservation and demand management measures contained in this WMP are kept under ongoing review as part of reporting against the performance measures set out in its SOI.

The target to reduce Auckland’s average rate of consumption by 15 per cent by 2025 compared with 2004 will be reviewed closer to 2025 to ensure that a realistic target is adopted for the period beyond 2025. The review will be comprehensive and will include the matters outlined in this WMP and the initiatives identified in the water efficiency strategy.

The AMDMP will be reviewed and updated every 24 months or as required, and after any event that requires all or parts of the drought management plan to be used. It will also be reviewed and updated every time the incident management plan is reviewed or updated.

The WMP will be updated as necessary to incorporate changes in demand predictions, efficiency gains and drought management requirements.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 58 14. ANTICIPATED INCREASES IN WATER DEMAND

RPV6 Requirement:

13) Identification of any anticipated increases in water demand over the term of the consent and ability to stage water take volumes to more closely reflect demand requirements over time.

Chapter 3 of this WMP outlines in detail the anticipated increases in water demand over the period to 2050.

As identified in Chapter 2 of this WMP, raw water sources for the Auckland water supply include ten storage dams located in the Hūnua Ranges southeast of Auckland and the Waitākere Ranges west of Auckland, together with direct abstractions from the Waikato River and groundwater at Onehunga.

These individual sources are operated conjunctively, meaning that they are operated as a single system in order to optimise the use of water, and ensure that the capacity of overall supply can be maintained, even during prolonged periods of drought. It means, for example, that when rainfall derived inflow to the storage dams decreases, use of the Waikato source is increased to preserve storage. When the storage dams are near capacity and inflows are high, water from the dams is used preferentially ahead of Waikato River water due to higher pumping costs from the Waikato River.

The Waikato River take is a critical component of Watercare’s conjunctive use system, ensuring that the storage available within the overall system can be used effectively and efficiently. Water take volumes are managed to closely reflect demand and storage requirements over time, while providing security for future water supply.

The allocation of water for the Waikato take is based on demand requirements over a long period. Such periods are necessary to ensure that appropriate infrastructure can be planned and implemented in a cost effective and timely manner to meet demand requirements while ensuring a secure supply outlook. While providing for population growth, it is difficult to predict with certainty the timing over which that population growth (or resultant water demand) will occur. It is therefore necessary to make allowance for a long term planned approach, rather than providing for an absolute level of future-proofing. However, the high degree of certainty that the allocation of water from the Waikato River will be required on an ongoing basis makes it imperative from supply management perspective that there is certainty the full allocation can be called upon as and when it is required.

Given the high degree of certainty that water will be required over the period to 2050, and given the importance having certainty that an appropriate allocation is locked in as a concrete component of Auckland’s water supply mix in the short to medium term, there is considered to be no resource management reason why attempting to stage water volumes to reflect demand requirements in a more fine grained manner would be beneficial or necessary. Rather it would be an arbitrary

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 59 exercise, which would introduce undesirable uncertainty and complexity into the process of planning how Auckland’s future domestic and municipal supply needs are to be met.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 60 15. ABILITY TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF WATER USE BY EXISTING INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL USERS TO MEET THE PROJECTED INCREASE IN WATER DEMAND

RPV6 Requirement:

14) Ability to reduce the amount of water used by existing industrial and agricultural users, as a result of improvements in the efficiency of the use of water, in order to meet any increase in water demand over the term of the consent

As outlined in the water efficiency strategy in Appendix One, industrial uses account for part of the non-residential water use in the Watercare network. These uses are predominantly small volumes of water, with almost 85% of the non-residential water use being for volumes of less than 2,000 litres per day. Industrial uses include a range of activities such as beverage manufacture, concrete manufacture, food manufacture and abattoirs which can be expected as typical in a city such as Auckland.

Agricultural uses are also small in relation to the overall metropolitan water supply, representing approximately 0.33% of the total volume.

The water efficiency strategy identifies measures adopted to encourage efficient use of water which apply across all classes of water use. The range of water uses supplied through the Watercare network is what can typically be expected for a municipal water supply servicing a metropolitan area like Auckland. Because of that, a comprehensive water efficiency strategy addressing all water use activities such as that set out in Appendix One is the preferred approach to drive improvements in the efficiency of the use of water in Auckland.

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 61 16. LARGE INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND AGRICULTURAL USERS

RPV6 Requirement:

Non-residential uses of water in the Watercare network are shown in Figure 14. This includes all significant industrial, commercial and agricultural uses of water. As noted earlier in this WMP, almost 85% of non-residential use of water is for volumes less than 2,000 litres per day.

Figure 21 shows the average annual water usage per account for twenty-thousand continuous non- residential accounts for the years 2012 to 2016 (these exclude the “beverage” account class). As can be seen in Figure 21, typical usage for many activity classes identified in the figure is below 15,000 litres per day, with relatively few accounts exceeding 15,000 litres per day. Each of these uses is typical of a large metropolitan area like Auckland and can be expected to occur within any metropolitan water supply network in New Zealand and around the world.

Figure 21: Average annual water usage 2012 to 2016

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 62

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 63 17. FUTURE DOMESTIC AND MUNICIPAL SUPPLY NEEDS REQUIRED TO MEET GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT THAT IS PROVIDED FOR IN PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

RPV6 Requirement:

16) Identification of future domestic or municipal supply take needs over and above authorised domestic or municipal supply takes required to meet growth and development that is provided for in planning instruments promulgated under the Resource Management Act 1991 or relevant documents promulgated under the Local Government Act 2002, such as Long Term Plans, growth strategies or spatial plans (or similar).

The projected future needs shall be identified in terms of:

a) location of take; and

b) volume of take (including any seasonal variations); and

c) the date at which the water is likely to be required.

Chapter 3 of this WMP outlines in detail the projected future needs of Watercare’s water supply network. That analysis includes consideration of the water required to meet growth and development that is provided for in planning instruments promulgated under the RMA with a particular focus on the Auckland Plan and the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

Auckland Water Management Plan | May 2020 Page | 64

APPENDIX ONE

Auckland Water Efficiency Strategy 2017 to 2020

Auckland water efficiency strategy 2017 to 2020 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Contents Page

Foreword 1

Executive summary 2

Water supply in Auckland 4

Water use in Auckland 9

Residential water use 11

Non-residential water use 13

Auckland water efficiency target 16

Strategy one: Municipal water efficiency programme 17

Initiative one: Watercare’s operations 17

Initiative two: Auckland Council community facilities 18

Initiative three: Auckland Council community initiatives 19

Initiative four: Panuku Development Auckland’s water-efficient buildings 20

Initiative five: Auckland Transport 22

Strategy two: Residential water efficiency programme 23

Initiative one: Be Waterwise, the complete toolkit for household water efficiency 25

Initiative two: Showerhead retrofit 30

Initiative three: Rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling 31

Initiative four: Water efficiency scheme for new builds 32

Strategy three: Non-residential water efficiency programme 34

Initiative one: Infrastructure growth charge review 34

Initiative two: Key account customer programme 36

Initiative three: Working with schools 38

Initiative four: Working with community sports clubs with Project Litefoot Trust 39

Strategy four: Reducing leakage in the water network 41

Initiative one: Establishing district meter areas and pressure management 42

Initiative two: Leak detection app 43

Initiative three: Acoustic sounding to find leaks 44

Initiative four: Smart meters 44

Appendices 45

Appendix A: Water efficiency programme of work 46

Appendix B: 10-year non-revenue water programme of work 48 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Foreword

More directly than for most organisations, the sustainability of Watercare’s activities is dependent on the health of the natural environment.

While we are fortunate that water is not scarce in New Zealand like it is in some parts of the world, it is also a treasure to respect and manage wisely for the people of Auckland now and into the future. Over the next 35 years, the Auckland population that is serviced by the water system is expected to dramatically increase.

As a result, Watercare needs to invest in new water sources and infrastructure to meet demand. At the same time it will become even more important for Aucklanders to be mindful of water efficiency and minimising waste. One of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals is to “ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all”. Watercare’s 2017 water efficiency strategy – in which we encourage our customers and stakeholders to be efficient with their water use – is our collective contribution to a more sustainable Auckland.

The strategy outlines Watercare’s plans – and the steps our customers can take – to reduce the pressure on Auckland’s water supply. In line with our Asset Management Plan, our aim is to improve water efficiency over time, which will in turn help to delay investment in new water sources, treatment and network infrastructure.

I am pleased to introduce this important piece of work. I am confident that, together, our efforts to minimise water waste will gather momentum, and we will be successful in protecting and enhancing Auckland’s water supply now and for future generations.

Raveen Jaduram Watercare Chief Executive

1 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Executive summary

Over the next 35 years, the Auckland population serviced by the metropolitan water system is expected to increase by 800,000 from 1.41 million to 2.2 million, based on Auckland Council’s medium growth projection. This will create significant additional demand for water – and that means investment will be needed for new water sources, water treatment capacity and networks. As the water and wastewater services supplier for Auckland, Watercare plans for this increasing need for water supply and lays out the required new water sources and infrastructure projects in the Asset Management Plan. At the same time, we work on reducing water demand through our water efficiency programme.

In 2008, Watercare collaborated with the former local councils of Auckland on the Three Waters Strategic Plan. This set a target to reduce Auckland’s average rate of consumption1 by 15 per cent by 2025 compared with 2004. This aimed at deferring the next water source required for Auckland by 10 years. To date, Auckland has succeeded in pushing out the next source by five years. The water efficiency gains planned from 2017 to 2025 will achieve the remaining five. Deferring the next water source puts less pressure on Auckland’s waterways and saves $92 million of interest cost associated with avoided infrastructure. This is true environmental and social sustainability, contributing to a healthier natural environment and a more affordable Auckland.

Our water efficiency activities of the past three years were presented in the 2013–2016 Auckland Regional Water Demand Management Plan. They included a combination of outreach programmes, volumetric charging for water and wastewater, metering and reducing losses from our network. We estimate that over the past three years, Auckland and Aucklanders have made water efficiency gains of approximately five million litres of water per day. This is a significant step and represents about one fifth of the total savings required by 2025.

To meet the target we need to go further. This water efficiency strategy enhances our existing programmes and identifies a number of new initiatives. The three years ahead represent a step change for water efficiency at Watercare. We enter a time of strong partnerships with the council, the community and organisations driven by resource efficiency. We also acknowledge the wider picture, such as the impact water use has on energy use and liveability in Auckland. Every dollar a household saves on water results in at least eight saved on energy if that water had required heating.2 Water efficiency is very much in the interest of our customers and we want to acknowledge this with entirely new programmes such as showerhead retrofits and water efficiency schemes for new housing developments. We also want to lead by example and have worked on a strategy to reduce leakage in our network further than required by our regulatory target.

The programme for the next three years comprises four strategies and the key initiatives in the table.

1 Or gross per capita consumption (PCC). This is the amount of water supplied divided by the number of people connected to the water network and includes residential and non-residential water consumption as well as leakage and bulk supply. It is different from residential per capita consumption, which is the average water use of Aucklanders in their homes.

2 Source: Be Waterwise for businesses and organisations, available at www.watercare.co.nz

2 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Strategy Key initiatives

1. Municipal water • Watercare will benchmark and reduce its internal water use and integrate efficiency programme water efficiency requirements as part of our contracts

• Auckland Council will work towards a 30 per cent reduction in water use by 2040 across all its facilities and work with Watercare to develop an optimised approach to irrigation of its parks, reserves and gardens

• Panuku Development Auckland will promote green buildings in its developments and measure water efficiency outcomes

• Auckland Transport will proactively monitor its water use across its facilities and projects, and utilise resources from Watercare to promote residential water efficiency programmes to its staff.

2. Residential • The Be Waterwise water efficiency brand and home show stand will be water efficiency enhanced. We will continue to support and promote the successful water audit programme service in partnership with EcoMatters Environmental Trust

• A showerhead retrofit scheme will be piloted and implemented, which will involve partnering with other organisations and addressing energy and water efficiency simultaneously

• More information on rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling will be developed

• A water efficiency scheme for new builds will be developed and implemented to promote water-efficient fixtures and fittings in new developments.

3. Non-residential water • The Infrastructure Growth Charges will be monitored to track increases in efficiency programme non-residential consumption

• A key account customer programme will be enhanced to work directly with our largest users

• Our school programme is to continue with a water efficiency message, a customised water efficiency service and benchmarking of school water usage to promote efficient use

• Water efficiency in community sports clubswill be addressed with the Project Litefoot Trust, creating the blueprint for water efficiency at Manukau Rugby Club.

4. Network leakage • Establish district meter areas and actively manage pressure reduction programme • Maintain an active programme of leak detection and repair

• Use technology improvements to enhance the leak detection programme

• Review current programmes and adopt a portfolio of key performance indicators (KPIs) for best-practice leakage management

• Install smart meters, prioritising new subdivisions and communities not connected to the metropolitan network.

3 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Water supply in Auckland

The water Aucklanders drink every day comes from dams in the Hunua and Waitākere ranges, an aquifer in Onehunga, and the Waikato River. The dams in the Hunua Ranges provide most of our water, currently meeting 60 per cent of Auckland’s water needs.

Figure 1 Water supply in Auckland – treatment plants and water sources, with daily contribution per source in 2016/17.

4 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Fifteen water treatment plants supply drinking water to the Auckland region and each plant is designed to deal with the characteristics of the water it receives. Continuous monitoring is in place to meet the Ministry of Health’s Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand and achieve an Aa grade in the public health grading process.

Because of the wide variety of sources that water comes from, a broad range of treatment processes needs to be used depending on the quality of the water. Water from dams in the Hunua and Waitākere ranges comes from catchment areas that largely comprise native bush and are protected from farming and industry. This means the water is of a high quality naturally and needs less complex treatment.

Water from the Hunua dams is treated at the Ardmore Water Treatment Plant, which uses conventional treatment processes – water conditioning, solids removal, sand filtration, fluoride addition, pH correction and disinfection.

In contrast, water from the Waikato River travels through a number of different environments on its journey to the water treatment plant at Tuakau and needs more treatment. The Waikato Water Treatment Plant uses additional processes including membrane ultra-filtration and activated carbon.

Once treated, water is sent around the region in an 8900 kilometre-long network of pipes. If all our water and wastewater pipes were placed end to end, they would reach Tokyo.

Almost all of the water that Watercare treats – over 98 per cent – feeds into the metropolitan network for Auckland and Waikato communities. This metropolitan network extends from Pokeno in the south to Waiwera in the north.

Some rural communities have a local source and are not connected to the metropolitan network. They are termed non-metropolitan areas. For example, people living in Waiuku receive water that is sourced from an aquifer and this water is treated and distributed via the town’s local network.

Watercare Services Limited (Watercare) is the water and wastewater service provider for Auckland. We own and operate the water treatment plants and the distribution network. Everything we do is intrinsically linked to the natural environment. We are committed to playing a pivotal role in enhancing the natural environment and improving the quality of life for all Aucklanders.

Watercare is a council-controlled organisation (CCO), wholly owned by Auckland Council. We do not operate to make a profit and we are prohibited by law from paying a dividend to the council. We receive no funding from local or central government.

Planning for growth To calculate Auckland’s water use, an average rate of consumption is multiplied by Auckland Council’s population growth projections. This average rate is called gross per capita consumption (PCC).3 It is expressed in litres per person per day but is not to be confused with how much water an Aucklander uses a day. The latter is called residential per capita consumption and currently stands at 160 litres per person per day (L/p/d). Gross PCC includes residential and non-residential consumption as well as leakage in the network and bulk supply, and currently stands at 272 L/p/d.

Growth investment, for water planning and construction, is based on PCC data. From these PCC calculations it is clear that, within the next decade, Auckland’s current water sources will be insufficient to supply the region’s growing population. An additional water source – plus treatment and transmission capability – will need to be brought on stream. After an exhaustive examination of over 80 options, Watercare has determined that the most viable solution for future-proofing Auckland’s water supply is to duplicate the Waikato Water Treatment Plant and potentially install a second pipeline to draw additional water from the Waikato River.

3 Gross per capita consumption (PCC) is the amount of water supplied divided by the number of people connected to the water network. Gross PCC is influenced by many factors, in particular the balance between commercial and industrial demand and the number of people that live in Auckland. In other words, changes in gross PCC might have more to do with which industries choose to operate from Auckland, rather than water efficiency. As a result, we believe targets based on volumetric water use could provide better water efficiency indicators. So while we continue to use PCC in this report, options for an alternate measure will be investigated.

5 Auckland water efficiency strategy

If all of us in Auckland were to use less water in our households and businesses, the need for new infrastructure could be delayed. So while we plan for growth, Watercare is also strengthening its focus on reducing water demand.

Deferring the need for the next water source Back in 2004, Auckland’s total water supply was 350 million litres per day (that equates to a gross PCC of 298 L/p/d). If water demand had continued at that rate, the new Waikato River4 water source would have been needed in 2021. In 2008, Watercare, in collaboration with Auckland’s former local councils, set a water efficiency target for the Auckland region – reduce the daily rate of consumption per person from 298 litres in 2004 to 253 litres in 2025. To date, Aucklanders have been successful in deferring the need for the next water source by five years.

Figure two shows how Auckland’s population has increased over the past years, but the gross PCC has reduced.

125

120

Population 115

110

105 2006 = 100

Index 100

Gross per capita consumption 90

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Population Gross per capita consumption

Figure 2 Gross per capita consumption vs population growth from 2006 to 2017.

4 The new Waikato Water Treatment Plant is in Watercare’s Asset Management Plan and the company is currently seeking resource consent to increase the water take from 150 to 350 million litres per day from the Waikato River.

6 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Figure 3 shows that gross PCC has reduced significantly since the target was established in2008 . Over the past five years the reduction has been more modest and gross PCC has stabilised at between270 and 280 L/p/d.

320

310

300

290

280

270

260 Gross PCC (litres/person/day) 250

240

230

220 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Target gross PCC Actual gross PCC Target gross PCC +/-2.5% Figure 3 Gross per capita consumption 2004 to 2025.

The remaining water efficiency gains planned from2017 to 2025 aim at deferring the next water source by another five years. In addition to putting less pressure on waterways, this equates to savings of $92 million in interest costs associated with not having to build new infrastructure for 10 years.

Water efficiency – looking ahead The way to push out the new Waikato Water Treatment Plant upgrade to 2031 is for all of us to be more efficient with the water we are using. Water efficiency is about reducing the amount of water waste or unnecessary use. Waste or unnecessary use could be from old appliances using a lot more water than newer ones, leaks in water pipes, behaviours such as watering a lawn while it is raining. For Aucklanders, being more water efficient leads to a more sustainable and affordable lifestyle. Since we charge for water and wastewater volumetrically, every reduction Aucklanders make to their water use leads to dollar savings for them.

Water use over the past three years has changed and these changes reflect evolutions of society and the impact of actions taken over this period, which were flagged in our2013–2016 Auckland Regional Water Demand Management Plan. Over the past three years, water efficiency in Auckland has led to approximately five million litres per day of the total savings required by 2025. Auckland’s growth means that overall water use has not decreased. Recent trends suggest that both gross and residential PCC may be stabilising. Another step change is required to drive demand down to meet the water efficiency target, which we are implementing from 2017 onwards.

7 Auckland water efficiency strategy

800

750

700

650

600

550 Future water source in application process (new Waikato River Water Treatment Plant) 500 Consented future Auckland water supply 450

Water abstraction – million litres per day (ML/d) 400 Current Auckland water supply

350

300 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

2021: year a new water source would 2031: year a new have been needed source is needed (if gross PCC had (water efficiency remained at 2004 target achieved) levels)

Historical water production Forecast abstraction of water when achieving 2025 gross PCC target Abstraction of water if gross PCC had remained at 2004 levels Abstraction of water if gross PCC stays at current levels Water efficiency gains already achieved Water efficiency gains yet to achieve

Figure 4 Water supply vs demand in Auckland – the impact of water efficiency on the timing of new water sources.

This document discusses our achievements to date and our proposed approach to achieve the water efficiency target. Beyond 2025 and the current water efficiency target, Watercare is investigating the potential of the next steps for water efficiency, such as considering the reuse of treated wastewater.

8 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Water use in Auckland

Watercare provides water to households, businesses and other organisations across Auckland. Over half of the water we supply (54 per cent) is used by residential households. The remainder is supplied to non-residential customers (25 per cent) and bulk agreements (five per cent). The bulk agreements are water provided to Veolia Water (which is in charge of the water network in Papakura) and the Waikato District Council, which uses the water to supply some of the growing communities in north Waikato. The final 16 per cent is identified as ‘non-revenue water’. Non-revenue water is the difference between the water supplied to the network and the volume sold. There are a number of types of non-revenue water such as water used for fire-fighting, cleaning of water mains, burst water mains, illegal connections, meter under-reading and leakage in the network.

The percentage distribution between these categories has remained reasonably constant over the past five years. The breakdown for June 2015/16 is shown as Figure 5.

16%

Residential demand Non-residential demand Bulk supply (Papakura/Waikato) Non-revenue water

25%

54% Figure 5 Breakdown of water use in Auckland in 2015/16.

How we compare Most major water utilities have developed plans and programmes to help their customers use water more efficiently. Sometimes this is to use resources more sustainably, or to respond to an extended drought (for example, the millennial drought in Australia).

Examples include:

• New York’s approach to reduce overall demand by five per cent

• Sydney Water and Watercare both have a target to reduce gross PCC in comparison with a baseline level

• Water companies in England and Wales target reduction in water use per household over a five-year regulatory period.

9 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Cities have a different mix of residential and non-residential water users, so overall water efficiency targets cannot be compared. Residential water use per person is more comparable and reflects the cultural attitude to water efficiency between different countries or locations.

All water connections in Auckland, unlike most parts of New Zealand, are metered. That means customers know how much water they use – it also provides Watercare with comprehensive water use data.

Figure 6 compares Auckland’s residential PCC5 with other fully metered utilities. Aucklanders have the lowest residential PCC in New Zealand, according to the 2016 Water New Zealand performance review.

250

200

150 Auckland 2015/16

100 Residential PCC (litres/person/day)

Whangarei Tauranga Nelson Kapiti Coast City West South East Yarra Valley Western VCS Aarhus Water, Water Ltd, Water, Water, Sydney Denmark Vand A/S SWDE Melbourne Melbourne Melbourne Victoria Water Odense Aarhus Wallonia

New Zealand Australia Denmark Belgium

Figure 6 Auckland residential PCC benchmarked against similar cities (medium and large, over 95 per cent of population metered).6

Internationally, consumption compares well with similar Australian utilities but tends to be higher than cities in Europe. We believe this is a combination of a higher water efficiency awareness, denser housing and lower network pressure in some European cities. The UK has not been included in the graph as there is currently no data available from UK water utilities that are fully metered.

5 Residential per capita consumption is the amount of water metered from household customers divided by the number of people connected to the water network.

6 Data from 2013 to 2016, being the most recent available.

10 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Residential water use

Household use shows a reduction from approximately 167 L/p/d in 2012 to about 160 in 2014, 2015 and 2016. Variations in annual residential usage are impacted by water efficiency and by the weather over the summer. Water usage increases during a drier or hotter summer in comparison with a normal year.

180

170

160

150

140

130

120 Metropolitan residential PCC (litres/person/day) Figure 7 110 Metropolitan residential per capita consumption between 2012 and 2016. 100 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

In 2008, Watercare engaged BRANZ, an independent research organisation, to determine how water is typically used in 50 Auckland homes. BRANZ used high-resolution meters. A summary of the results is shown in Figure 8. This helps us to understand where water efficiency efforts could make the biggest difference.

2% Bathtub 1% 3% Dishwasher Leaks 12% 27% Outdoor Shower

14% Taps 23% 18% Washing Machine Toilet

Figure 8 Breakdown of water use in an Auckland home (Auckland water use study, BRANZ 2008).

11 Auckland water efficiency strategy

The largest use of water indoors is people showering, followed by washing machine use and toilet flushing. These are areas where water efficiency initiatives could have the greatest benefit. This water efficiency strategy focuses on approaches that could reduce water use in these areas, all year round.

In 2014, Watercare engaged BRANZ again to understand changes in water use since undertaking the 2008 study. A similar sample of households was targeted, this time using surveys and a prediction tool as opposed to high- resolution meters. Six years of billed water use was analysed to enable the seasonality of water use to be fully taken into account. The average billed water use per person showed a slight reduction of six per cent between 2008 and 2013 for the participating households.

12 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Non-residential water use

Non-residential water use accounts for approximately 25 per cent of water use in Auckland. The vast majority of our non-residential customers (approximately 85 per cent) use less than 2000 litres of water per day. A small number of large users in Auckland (less than 1.5 per cent) use more than 15,000 per day. There is a regional difference, with more of the large non-residential customers being located in central Auckland and Manukau.

1.1% 0.4% 5.5% Number of businesses and organisations in the following usage categories: 8.2% Under 2000 litres per day 2000 to 5000 litres per day 5000 to 15,000 litres per day 15,000 to 25,000 litres per day Over 25,000 litres per day

Figure 9 Breakdown of water use across businesses and organisations in 2016. 84.8%

We can drill into the water usage of the 80 customers that use the most water – these are Watercare’s key account customers. Collectively, this includes 3200 accounts (held by those 80 customers) and represents 42 per cent of annual non-residential water usage. (Note: Auckland Council organisations – some of Watercare’s largest accounts – have developed water efficiency strategies that are presented in the next section of this document.)

110

100

80 42.1 70

Water usage (million litres per day) 30 58.7

0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Figure 10 Non-residential water use between Key customer accounts Other non-residential customer accounts 2012 and 2016.

13 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Currently, Watercare has 21 categories for non-residential customers.

Figure 11 shows the trends in total water use by customer category over the past five years. This excludes the ‘commercial’ category, a ‘catch-all’ category that represents approximately 65 per cent of non-residential accounts with low water usage.7 Total water usage in most categories is trending upward, with notable exceptions being the industry category, which has decreased, and the beverage category, which has fluctuated from year to year. This aligns with the growth observed in Auckland over the same time period. It also shows that the categories use the most water overall are food manufacturing, industry, and beverage manufacturing, followed by the retail, education (schools with sports fields), and sports and recreation facilities categories.

2 Total water usage (million litres per day) 1

0 Pool Abattoir Laundry Industry Bulk Supply Accommodation Food Manufacturing Material Manufacture Beverage Manufacturer Concrete Manufacturing Hospital / Medical Clinic Agriculture & Horticulture School with Playing Fields Sports/Recreation Facility Community Facility/Church Education Training No Field Retail Shop/Cafe/Restaurant Warehouse/Postal/Transport

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Figure 11 Total annual water usage per non-residential account class 2012 to 2016 (excludes ‘commercial’ account class).

We can contrast the figures above with the same figures representing a subset of accounts that have been active during a five-year period. This looks at the water efficiency in the category as opposed to its growth. Figure 12 shows average usage by the same accounts over five years. Looking at this information, we can see increases and decreases in water use within the same set of accounts.

Categories that show clear increases in water usage per account, most likely equating to increased production, are beverages, food manufacturing, industry, concrete manufacturing and material manufacturing. Categories with the most apparent decreases in water usage are agriculture/horticulture, and hospital/medical clinics.

7 Categorisation will be revisited as part of Watercare’s strategic transformation programme to allow a better breakdown of this 65 per cent of non-residential accounts.

14 Auckland water efficiency strategy

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000 Average water usage (litres/account/day) 5000

0 21 61 12 15

197 318 625 197 339 135 262 609 872 215 184 441

1806 13,604 Pool Abattoir Laundry Industry Bulk Supply Commercial Accommodation Food Manufacturing Material Manufacture Hospital/Medical Clinic Concrete Manufacturing Agriculture & Horticulture School with Playing Fields Sports/Recreation Facility Education Training No Field Community Facility/Church Warehouse/Postal/Transport Retail Shop/Cafe/Restaurant Retail 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 123 Number of accounts

Figure 12 Twenty-thousand continuous non-residential accounts – average annual water usage per account 2012 to 2016 (excludes ‘beverage’ account class).8

8 The nine continuous accounts of the beverage category are not represented on the graph given the extremely high usage per account, which would dwarf the other categories. Average usage in the continuous accounts of this category is around 220,000 litres per day.

15 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Auckland water efficiency targets

Save 21 million litres per day by 2025 A reduction of 15 per cent9 2 0 2 5

Strategy one: Municipal water efficiency programme Target water efficiency gains by2025 – one million litres per day

Strategy two: Residential water efficiency programme Target water efficiency gains by2025 – three to five million litres per day

Strategy three: Non-residential water efficiency programme Target water efficiency gains by2025 – three to seven million litres per day

Strategy four: Reducing leakage in the water network Target water efficiency gains by2025 – eight to 14 million litres per day

9 Watercare, in collaboration with Auckland’s former councils, set a water efficiency target for the Auckland region – reduce the daily rate of consumption per person from 298 litres in 2004 to 253 litres in 2025. The objective of this 15 per cent reduction was to defer the need for the next water source for 10 years.

16 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Strategy one: Municipal water efficiency programme

Target water efficiency gains by2025 – one million litres per day

Overview Auckland Council and its family of council -controlled organisations (CCOs) – including Watercare, Panuku Development Auckland and Auckland Transport – are committed to achieving Auckland’s vision of becoming the world’s most liveable city.

Sustainability principles are at the core of this vision, which includes energy and resource efficiency. Auckland has joined other cities at the forefront of a global transformation to a sustainable, energy resilient, low carbon future. In 2015 Auckland was admitted to the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group – a strategic global network of 90 leading cities working together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks.

To encourage positive change, Auckland’s council organisations are taking a leadership role by using water efficiently within their own facilities and operations.

This section sets out what Watercare and other CCOs are doing to reduce water use, and our plan for future improvements in water efficiency.

Initiative one: Watercare’s operations

Watercare’s business is intrinsically linked to the natural environment and significantly impacts the communities in which it operates. Integrating sustainability into everything we do is key to our role as a trusted community partner.

In 2015, we adopted being ‘Fully Sustainable’ as one of our four strategic priorities. Minimising environmental impact is already core to our business operations. Moving to a position of leadership in environmental sustainability has boosted a number of forward-thinking programmes that have been in the works for a while. These include the ambitious target of achieving energy neutrality by 2025 at our two largest wastewater treatment plants, Mangere and Rosedale. This will reduce our energy use by 37 gigawatt hours every year and would be a world first for a plant the size of Mangere.

In the next three years we have plans to continue our progress towards being a fully sustainable organisation. In terms of water efficiency, we plan to:

• Measure our water use in construction and operation across the organisation and through our supply chain

• Benchmark our water use in our office buildings

• Review our design standards to make sure that new water and wastewater treatment plants are as efficient as possible in their use of water

• Review our contracts with our suppliers to make sure they are thinking of water efficiency when they design, build and operate our facilities.

Treated wastewater reuse Our wastewater treatment plants continue to reuse treated wastewater within the treatment processes and elsewhere on site. Treated wastewater is used for washdown, clarifiers, biofilter irrigation, as the carrier water for chemicals, and as cooling water for engines and heat exchangers.

17 Auckland water efficiency strategy

At our two largest wastewater treatment plants, Mangere and Rosedale, the volumes of treated effluent that we reused for the year 2015/16 were:

• Mangere Wastewater Treatment Plant – 21.6 million litres per day

• Rosedale Wastewater Treatment Plant – 1.95 million litres per day.

This volume of water reused is the equivalent of the water consumption of over 150,000 Aucklanders.

At some Watercare sites, treated effluent is used to irrigate the surrounding land. This depends on the location and specific consent requirements.

Our resource consents include a requirement to consider other beneficial reuse options for wastewater, which is in line with our constant search for wastewater reuse opportunities. Where we are constructing new infrastructure we try to change our designs to make it easier to reuse wastewater in the future. For example, we could install treated wastewater pipes with outlets that would allow treated wastewater to be used in industrial processes for our non- residential customers in the future.

In Huapai, we have constructed a wastewater system to meet demands of forecast growth. While we wait for that growth to eventuate, the pipes must be flushed regularly to avoid septicity and odours. Instead of using drinking water for this flushing, we have switched to treated wastewater trucked a short distance from the Denehurst Wastewater Treatment Plant to Huapai.

Case study – technology solutions

We are committed to adopting new technologies where they deliver efficient outcomes for us. One of our current initiatives is to test and prove how ozone treatment can be used in place of traditional chlorination when we are flushing our watermains. The ozone treatment process would result in reduced outage periods, a quicker service for connecting new supplies and lower operational water use. Other international water utilities use this process; for example Sydney Water.

We have submitted this more water-efficient process to the Ministry of Health for its approval and plan to update our Disinfection Code of Practice once the process has been tested, proven and signed off.

Initiative two: Auckland Council community facilities

Auckland Council operates many facilities involving significant water use: leisure centres, sports fields, public facilities and buildings. The council is committed to achieving a net 30 per cent reduction in water use by 2030 for its facilities – that is, reduce water consumption by 1.5 million litres per day compared with its 2016/17 total use.

Prior to establishing this target, the council worked with Watercare to centralise all water and wastewater invoices into one utility management system to be able to compare usage and receive alerts in case of high water use. This system will now be updated to benchmark water consumption per asset class using a water usage index such as the number of kilolitres used per square metre per year. This information will then be made available to staff and contractors monthly to track performance.

The council has recently let new Auckland-wide facilities maintenance contracts that require contractors to meet water efficiency targets. The contracts include incentives and penalties to make sure that the targets are met. Irrigation contracts specify that moisture readings have to be taken throughout the year and maximum irrigation volumes are set.

18 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Some examples of how contractors and the council may achieve the water efficiency targets range from small to large changes, including:

• Constructing AstroTurf or hybrid turf sports fields instead of grass pitches if relevant

• Replacing existing water fittings with new water-efficient devices

• Looking for and fixing leaks

• Switching to foaming soap, which could lead to a 15 per cent reduction in water use associated with hand washing.

The council is working with Watercare on the Auckland irrigation app. This will help its contractors achieve the targets it has set them. Watercare plans to make this app available to all its customers to help them use water efficiently in the garden.

Initiative three: Auckland Council community initiatives

Auckland Council is committed to helping communities become more sustainable. It runs initiatives that are focused on making the homes we live in warmer, healthier and more energy efficient. Some of these programmes help minimise water use at home through practical changes.

Watercare works alongside the council to deliver initiatives that help Aucklanders to live in a more sustainable way. Over the next three years we intend to strengthen these ties.

We will work with the council low carbon living team to galvanise all Aucklanders to make changes to their daily lifestyle choices to achieve the council’s target of reducing 40 per cent of Auckland’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2040.

Services provided to the community by the council include:

The Eco-Design Advisory Service: Auckland Council eco-design advisors offer free, expert advice on a range of topics and are advocates for creating healthier buildings, improving households’ use of energy, water and materials, minimising waste, and reducing environmental damage from building projects. An eco design advisor can come to a home, building site or office. Water-related advice includes information on WELS10 rated fittings, rainwater collection tanks, low flow showerheads and greywater system setup.

Healthy Rentals Programme: Landlords in several Local Board areas around Auckland can transform their rental properties into healthy, energy efficient homes. The Local Board offers a free, independent healthy home assessment, plus potential assistance including low flow showerheads and flow restricting devices. The team educates tenants about taking shorter showers, fixing leaks and using a shower instead of a bath to reduce water use.

Energy-Efficient Communities Project: This is a collaborative project between Entrust, Auckland Council and Vector to help home-owners in Papakura and Takanini save on energy bills, create warmer, healthier homes, create awareness of energy efficiency and reduce peak load pressure on energy infrastructure. The project consists of:

• Home health checks

• Installation of renewable and efficient energy solutions

• Education within schools and community organisations.

Home-owners can be offered low flow showerheads and flow restricting devices, along with education about how to use water wisely.

10 Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme.

19 Auckland water efficiency strategy

The council is running the project as a pilot between March and December 2017. Following this pilot, the council will look at scaling and replicating the programme in other areas of Auckland.

Retrofit your home scheme: This scheme improves the quality of housing for Aucklanders by giving better access to home insulation, clean heating, rainwater tank installation and water-efficient devices.

Ratepayers can apply for up to $5000 (including GST) to make their home warmer, drier and more sustainable. This is paid back through their rates over nine years. This cost-neutral programme has been running for five years, retrofitting over11,000 homes in Auckland.

Initiative four: Panuku Development Auckland’s water-efficient buildings

Panuku Development Auckland is investigating the ability to implement green building initiatives for all new developments they are working on, in a cost-effective way.

One of four major regeneration areas currently overseen by Panuku, Wynyard Quarter, is fast becoming a sought- after place by Aucklanders to work, live and socialise in. It is an exemplar project that has been developed on key sustainability principles and an overarching vision by Panuku to create a resilient place which minimises environmental impacts, conserves natural resources, is built sustainably and responds to climate change.

This vision was outlined in a set of sustainability standards for the Wynyard Quarter. These defined the need for high-performance buildings that were energy efficient, water efficient, used renewable energy and were close to sustainable transport modes. All buildings built or renovated within the Wynyard Quarter development are required to meet these sustainability standards.

Panuku uses a number of rating tools to ensure sustainable building design and construction in the Wynyard Quarter. These include Green Star, a tool by the New Zealand Green Building Council to support stakeholders in the property and construction sectors to design, construct and operate projects in a more sustainable, efficient and productive way. Water use is a specific category to which Green Star points can be assigned. Panuku also uses the Homestar tool, which rates the health, comfort, efficiency and sustainability of New Zealand’s residential homes on a scale of one to 10.

Wynyard Central, a luxury apartment development located in the Wynyard Quarter, has set a high benchmark with all residences achieving a minimum seven Homestar rating. By comparison, a typical new home built to minimum Building Code requirements would rate around three or four on the Homestar scale. Wynyard Central became the first large-scale multi-unit residential development to achieve a Homestar Design rating for sustainability and energy efficiency.

As more and more commercial and residential buildings are tenanted, Panuku is able to monitor and track progress against its key sustainability targets. Panuku tracks sustainability data and makes it available through the online platform called the Wynyard Quarter Smart Website, www.wynyard-quarter.co.nz/wqsmart. The website analyses sustainability data from the precinct and presents this in an interactive and innovative way so people can see real- time information on building performance.

20 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Image 1 Lysaght Building, Wynyard Quarter.

Water efficiency is an important part of this wider sustainability story at the Wynyard Quarter. All new buildings and refurbishments must have water-efficient fixtures and appliances. All new buildings need to be able to collect rainwater for reuse in toilet flushing, laundry and irrigation. Any landscaping or irrigation must be designed to have low water demand or use drip irrigation systems. Specific targets are set for residential and commercial developments in Wynyard Quarter, including volumes of use and also minimum WELS ratings for fixtures and fittings as outlined below:

Residential Non-residential

120 litres/person/day 350 litres/m2/year

Fixtures and appliance rating minimums: Fixtures and appliance rating minimums:

• 3-star WELS showerhead • 3-star WELS showerhead

• 4-star WELS toilet tapware • 4-star WELS toilet tapware

• 5-star WELS dishwasher and washing machine • 5-star WELS dishwasher and washing machine Waterless or very low water use urinals and water

21 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Initiative five: Auckland Transport

In 2017, Auckland Transport will publish its Sustainability Policy. To help it decide where it can make the most difference to the environment and communities, Auckland Transport has just completed a study investigating its largest environmental impacts. This shows that water use does not have an impact as great as carbon emissions, energy use or the effect of roads and rail on streams and other waterways.

Auckland Transport has been improving its understanding of water use in its own buildings, including railway and bus stations. This information could be used to benchmark levels of water efficiency between locations, and with other offices and public facilities.

The construction of roads and railway lines is an area where Auckland Transport has not measured its water use yet. Water is used during construction for dust suppression and truck wheel washing. Auckland Transport is hoping to carry out an exercise to calculate the size of this ‘water footprint’. This will follow on from the City Rail Link water footprint calculation.

Case study – City Rail Link water footprint

For the City Rail Link (CRL) project, Auckland Transport applied the Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia (ISCA) tool to embed sustainability into the design and construction of the first two contract packages, Contract 1 Britomart Works (C1) and Contract 2 Albert Street tunnels and a stormwater diversion (C2). As part of this work the CRL team developed a water footprint for the predicted construction and operational water use. Based on efficiencies in the design, predicted water use at Britomart is expected to reduce by over 50 per cent with a further four megalitres of water use avoided during the construction phase for C1. With the Albert Street works, construction efficiencies for 2C result in a predicted 30 per cent reduction in water use, and efficiencies associated with the design are predicted to achieve40 per cent reductions.

CRL has been awarded a ‘Leading’ Infrastructure Sustainability Design rating by ISCA, the highest possible achievement in the IS scheme for the design and construction for both C1 and C2.

The CRL is now delivered by City Rail Link Limited, a Crown Entity separate from Auckland Transport.

22 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Strategy two: Residential water efficiency programme

Target water efficiency gains by2025 – three to five million litres per day

More than half of the water we supply to Auckland is used in households. Connecting with Aucklanders and helping them to reduce their water use at home is at the heart of our water efficiency strategy.

Over the past three years, we have developed several ways to engage with households wanting to reduce water wastage with the Be Waterwise programme. This involves information on our website, water audits provided free of charge to households and meeting Aucklanders on our stand shared with the EcoMatters Environment Trust at home shows throughout the year. We have also increased our communication on residential water efficiency thanks to the Tapped In quarterly newsletter, which regularly features case studies and advice on the matter. These publications and subsequent articles in local newspapers have resulted in an increased number of customer calls enquiring about our water audit service.

TappedIn SUMMER 2015

Staying waterwise this summer Sally Smith Education in schools As the weather warms up and we spend more time outdoors, demand for water inevitably increases. “I always turn the tap off when I brush my teeth because I know it saves about four litres of water every time. That’s eight Aucklanders are already the most efficient water users in the country yet there are still a lot of things litres per-person, per day! Imagine the savings you’d make if you can do to cut down on unnecessary water usage; it’s not about going without but using water everyone in your household made this a habit.” wisely and minimising wastage of the precious resource. Some Watercare employees reveal the clever tips they use at home to reduce their water usage and Roseline Klein bills during the summer months… Sustainability “I bought a front-loading washing machine with a five-star water rating because it uses as little as 53 litres per wash. Tuan Hawke That’s about 150 litres less than older top-loading machines.” Water “We collect the water from our dehumidifier and, instead of tipping it out, Chris Garton use it to water our indoor plants.” Wastewater “I keep a jug of water in the fridge. It saves wasting water waiting for the tap to run cold to get a glass to drink.”

Anin Nama Water and wastewater operations “I regularly look at the water usage data in my water bills for any abnormal usage. If there is a big increase, I know there could be a leak somewhere on my property that needs fixing.” Swathy Gudipoodi Finance “I put on full loads of washing whenever possible to save water and energy.”

More information on how you can be more water-efficient in your home, business or organisation can be found in our Barry Chappell Kay Pillay Rebecca Davies Be Waterwise booklets. Human resources Customer services Planning Visit www.watercare.co.nz “I always use a bucket of water when I wash my car and “I only water my garden in the morning or evening. “I love jumping in the sea or lake straight after and search for save the hose for a quick spray to finish. Commercial car The sun isn’t as hot at those times so I can minimise a run. It feels great and is more refreshing than ‘Be Waterwise’. washes are another great option as the wash water is the amount of water lost through evaporation.” a shower.” captured and treated, and won’t pollute the environment. Some newer car washes even recycle and reuse the water.”

Figure 13 Insert from 2015/16 summer edition of Tapped In, Watercare’s customer newsletter.

Beyond our Be Waterwise services – available free of charge to Aucklanders who are proactive about their water efficiency – we aim to engage all Aucklanders, sustainably minded or not. To do this, all water supplied by Watercare in the Auckland region is metered. Water is charged volumetrically at a rate of $1.48 per 1000 litres (GST inclusive, 2017/18 prices).

23 Auckland water efficiency strategy

The water used in Auckland reduced significantly following the introduction of metering. Volumetric charging of water has been a key component of managing demand to date. As of July 2012, a unified residential wastewater tariff was put in place, including a volumetric component. This is best practice for sustainability. Volumetric charging allows customers to appreciate the value of water and wastewater services as well as spot leaks more easily. A reduction in use leads to customers making monetary savings across both the water and wastewater services. This is a clear financial incentive for water efficiency, whether the household cares about sustainability or not.

The bills Aucklanders receive from us also help them compare their usage month by month and understand how their usage compares with average household usage in Auckland.

Figure 14 Examples of information displayed on the water bill.

Over the next three years, we will enhance these existing initiatives and will go further in our contribution to residential water efficiency through partnerships with other organisations, a showerhead retrofit programme and a scheme to promote water-efficient fittings and fixtures in new housing developments.

24 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Initiative one: Be Waterwise, the complete toolkit for household water efficiency

Be Waterwise is the branding Watercare created in 2013 when developing our new water efficiency offering to residential customers. The programme is made up of information material, ways to engage and tools available to Aucklanders.

Parts of the programme are delivered in partnership with EcoMatters Environment Trust. EcoMatters’ mission is to connect people with the environment they live in. To do that, it offers a wide range of community-based environmental initiatives in Auckland including sustainable living programmes and projects in the areas of waste minimisation, permaculture, energy efficiency, air quality, water conservation, stream restoration, weed management, composting, and edible gardening. Watercare has had an ongoing partnership with EcoMatters for six years.

Information – Be Waterwise for households The Be Waterwise booklet outlines the benefits of being water efficient and the many ways that a household can save water. This booklet is available online on the Watercare website and also in hard copies, and is used to engage with Aucklanders at the events we attend. More than 2000 copies of this booklet have been distributed since its creation.

Bewaterwise

Water is essential to life. Every day, we use it for drinking, bathing, cleaning, cooking and gardening. It is vital for many industries, a key ingredient for agriculture, and an essential element in many of our leisure activities. If you live in Auckland, you enjoy high-quality water provided by Watercare. We also collect your wastewater, treat it and dispose of it safely in order to protect our region’s beaches and harbours. We care for the environment and, with your help, we will continue to ensure the best use of our precious water resources. There are many benefits to using water wisely. It’s good for the environment and your wallet. Not only that, many people gain a sense of satisfaction from living a sustainable lifestyle. This booklet provides a wide range of tips and ideas to help you save water in the home and outdoors.

Figure 15 Cover from the Be Waterwise for households booklet.

Page 1 Watercare Services Limited Be waterwise

25 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Out and about Being present at events to meet Aucklanders face to face is a great way to have conversations with our customers. Staff are drawn from across Watercare to help ensure all teams know what is top of mind for Aucklanders. We stand side by side with the EcoMatters team to answer questions and provide information and water-saving devices to customers attending events such as the Auckland Home Show and Go Green Expo. Over the past three years we have attended 21 events and spoken face to face with more than 5700 customers.

Image 2 EcoMatters and Watercare staff attending the Go Green Expo in Auckland.

Image 3 Watercare network engineer Maria Eliza explaining low-flow showerheads.

26 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Image 4 Watercare operations engineer Alex Walker answers questions on rainwater tanks.

In the next three years, we will enhance the displays used at events to better engage and respond to questions received from customers.

The Water Advice Line – water audits free of charge A new water advice line was launched in 2013 to help households reduce their water use. Once they contact Watercare mentioning a higher-than-usual bill, households get the opportunity to have an audit of their water use done by EcoMatters, either over the phone or through a home visit. The information enables a tailored water- saving recommendations report to be shared with the household. It highlights the water and dollar savings achievable through behavioural changes, maintenance or changes in appliances. If desired, regular reports on the household’s water usage over a 12-month period are provided to monitor progress and so assess the benefits of the programme.

These water audits have resulted in a total reduction in water use of about 15 per cent per household involved, with up to 45 per cent in some homes. In 2015/16, three hundred households used the service.

EcoMatters has been implementing process changes to help more households more cost effectively. Over the next three years, we want to promote this service more actively to Aucklanders who would not be aware of it.

27 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Figure 16 Location of the households serviced by the Water Advice Line.

Figure 17 Excerpt from EcoMatters 2015/16 annual report.

28 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Case Study – Helping Shelley’s family change its ways with water (source: Tapped In newsletter)

Supporting households in hardship This year, the Water Advice Line has been made available to the Water Utility Consumer Assistance Trust. This charitable trust receives funding from Watercare and provides financial support to Aucklanders who are struggling to manage their water and wastewater costs. Since water and wastewater are charged volumetrically in Auckland, this water efficiency support is a way for these households to reduce their cost of living.

29 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Promoting leak detection and fixing A leak on a property can waste thousands of litres of water at considerable cost to the household. If a water bill unexpectedly increases but water use patterns have not changed, it could mean there is a leak at the property.

We offer a leak allowance in an effort to encourage the timely repair of leaks and water efficiency.

Allowances are given on a discretionary basis only. Aucklanders can apply for the allowance if they have received an unusually high water bill because of a water leak and would like to receive a partial credit. If the application is accepted, the allowance will appear as a credit on the next bill. It is the property owner's responsibility to remedy leaks and pay for the cost of any repairs as a result.

From May to November 2016 alone, more than 630,000 litres of leaks were fixed by Aucklanders on their properties.

We also have procedures in place to check meter readings for customers who identify sudden increases in water use. We will continue to proactively support our customers to reduce leakage in this way.

Initiative two: Showerhead retrofit

Nearly one-third of the water we use at home is in the shower. Heating water is also a large proportion of a home energy bill. By reducing hot water use, households improve their water and energy efficiency. We plan to help customers who would most benefit to replace their existing showerhead with a modern low flow one.

Modern lowflow showerheads use about nine litres of water per minute11 and can go as low as three or five litres per minute. This compares with an average shower flow rate of13 litres per minute. This means households could save 40 per cent of the water they currently use in the shower. Modern and well-designed low flow showerheads provide an experience that is as good as, or better than, older high flow showers.

We have carried out some calculations to estimate how much money Aucklanders might save if they installed a low flow showerhead. For an average home, this could be about 37$ per year on their water and wastewater charges. The saving on hot water heating is even more significant – more than 100$ each year. In the past year, we did market research to identify all types of low flow showerheads available in New Zealand. We made this database available to interested parties and will use it in further projects.

Our work with EcoMatters will help us to identify the types of properties that would be eligible for a low flow showerhead. EcoMatters’ sustainability advisors believe that 40 per cent of the homes they visit would benefit. We will work closely with EcoMatters and suppliers to confirm the types of properties that would be eligible and design a showerhead retrofit programme. In some cases other options may be more relevant and cost effective, such as flow restrictors to be inserted in the shower hose.

Putting in place a programme like this is new for Watercare. We plan to pilot different approaches so we can be sure of getting the best water savings outcomes. This could be a joint approach with energy retailers or the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA).

11 Recommendation by the New Zealand Green Building Council.

30 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Case study – Watercare staff and managers lead by example

In November 2016, Watercare organised ‘Energy week’, a week of energy efficiency related activities for staff to engage in the topic and find out more about the energy efficiency vision of the organisation. We partnered with Methven and gave away 20 Satinjet water-efficient showerheads to staff taking part in a draw, with the option of nine or five litres per minute. Watercare’s general managers chose to lead by example by retrofitting water-efficient showerheads in their own bathrooms. For each showerhead bought by a general manager, Methven donated one to Watercare for the retrofit of the gym’s showers at Watercare House in Newmarket. This resulted in at least 18 per cent reduction in water use from the showers and received strong support from staff.

Initiative three: Rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling

Of all water used in the home, 30 per cent is for outdoor use or toilet flushing. This water should be safe to use but does not need to be drinking water quality. It could be rainwater harvested onsite. Auckland benefits from regular rainfall most of the year and we are often asked for information about rainwater tanks. Where a public water supply is available, Auckland Council advises not to use rainwater for drinking water connections such as in kitchens and bathrooms.

Greywater is the wastewater from the bath, the shower, the bathroom sink and the washing machine. Recycling and reusing greywater onsite can significantly reduce the amount of freshwater used in homes. Greywater reuse systems work by collecting and treating a portion of the household’s wastewater (for example, from sinks, showers and baths). This water is treated to a standard that is suitable for toilet flushing or irrigation in the home. The advantage of greywater systems is that there should always be water available, but the treatment system needs maintenance to make sure there is no public health risk.

Our customers ask us for technical design guidance and whether we provide a subsidy if rainwater tanks or greywater reuse systems are installed. The volumetric charging for water in Auckland is a financial incentive to install rainwater tanks and greywater reuse systems because reducing water use leads to a direct reduction in the Watercare bill customers receive.

Over the past three years we have delivered two projects that provide more answers to our customers about rainwater tanks.

Information to customers – Be Waterwise and home shows We included rainwater tanks and greywater reuse systems in our Be Waterwise for households booklet. The information we have provided gives advice about different-sized rainwater tanks for different types of water use and some of the practical considerations to take into account when installing a tank.

Greywater reuse systems are still rare in Auckland and a building consent is required. This is because there are safety issues when using this water, as harmful bacteria can build up if the system is not properly maintained by the household. In our booklet we suggest you get in touch with the eco design advisor team at Auckland Council for help with designing a greywater reuse system.

At the home shows and green shows we attend with EcoMatters, we always have a rain barrel on display and a free draw to give away two of them, including installation. This is a successful display triggering many entries at each event.

We aim to develop further our information on rainwater tanks since this is a very popular topic for Aucklanders.

31 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Rainwater tanks as a source of water for Auckland In 2016, Watercare carried out a detailed study to understand the potential benefits of a wide-scale uptake of rainwater tanks for Auckland’s water supply. The aim of this study was to investigate whether or not rainwater tanks could provide the additional water required to meet demand in 2050 (called ‘deficit’), based on Watercare’s two levels of service. These levels of service require us to provide water in a drought with a likelihood of occurring once in a century and to restrict water use no more than once every 20 years.

The work modelled a range of scenarios including the implementation of a programme installing large rainwater tanks on a widespread basis throughout Auckland. This work found that rainwater tanks can provide a significant contribution to household water supplies during a normal rainfall year, but during a drought this benefit reduces so other sources would still be required to meet demand.

Outputs demonstrated that the most favourable scenario would result in tanks supplying up to 16 per cent of the 2050 deficit at the drought level of service and35 per cent at the peak level of service. The capital cost of implementing such a programme would be four times that of a source able to supply 100 per cent of the forecast demand at both levels of service. The aim of the study was to start quantifying the impact of rainwater tanks – water supply benefits being only one of the benefits they provide.

Initiative four: Water efficiency scheme for new builds

Aucklanders each use about 160 litres of water per day in their homes. Currently, 54 per cent of the water supplied by Watercare is used by residential customers. With the strong forecast growth in housing, there is an opportunity to develop water-efficient housing that enables people to use less water.

Water usage in the home is influenced by a combination of the water efficiency of appliances and fixtures and individual behaviour. For some types of appliances (like washing machines), there is a large variation in water efficiency. Typically, consumer choice is influenced more by price than water efficiency. In addition, the volume of water used in households is affected by behaviour such as the length of showers and the number of loads of washing per week.

There are well-established programmes that provide consumers information on water efficiency. The New Zealand Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme (WELS) applies to six product classes: washing machines, dishwashers, toilets, showers, taps, and urinals. Each product label displays a star rating out of six – the more stars, the greater the water efficiency.

Another very useful tool is the Homestar programme. It was introduced by the New Zealand Green Building Council in 2010 to certify the health, efficiency and sustainability of homes. The certification includes water efficiency. The fourth version of Homestar was released in July 2017. The new guidelines have changed the way water efficiency is assessed, prioritising water-efficient appliances over alternative water supply (rainwater tanks) and requiring alternative supply to meet a specific share of the household’s needs. With this change, the programme does lead to reliable reductions in water use all year round, including peak times. As a result, Watercare decided to support these changes by becoming a sponsor of Homestar 4 and intends to work in collaboration with the New Zealand Green Building Council.

To make the most significant changes to water efficiency in a home, aspects beyond the Homestar scope such as washing machines (one of the highest users of water in a home), leak management, behaviours or greywater recycling would need to be considered too.

32 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Watercare will work with developers to encourage them to include water-efficient fixtures and fittings as part of new developments. Under a certification programme, new houses (or renovated houses) that meet the determined water efficiency criteria would receive a ‘blue tick’12 certification and be eligible for some form of incentive (to be defined). Developers will be able to use this certification to market their homes as being water efficient.

There are similar schemes for promoting water efficiency in other parts of the world. In Australia some states promote water efficiency by requiring fixtures and fittings linked to the WELS scheme. In the UK, the Building Regulations require a minimum standard of 125 litres per person per day (internal use).

12 Working title

33 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Strategy three: Non-residential water efficiency programme

Target water efficiency gains by2025 – three to seven million litres per day

Overview

About 25 per cent of the water we supply is to non-residential customers. There is a huge range of non-residential customers, from small shops to large office blocks, hospitals and industrial and manufacturing companies. There is potential for improving water efficiency across the whole sector, but different approaches may be needed, depending on the type of business or organisation.

A section of our website is designed to help small and large businesses make changes to reduce water use. This includes guidance on gathering information, understanding the current level of water efficiency, identifying areas of improvement and then implementing a water efficiency programme. In the past three years, we have started to run water efficiency pilots with some of our largest water users or organisations committed to sustainability. In the next three years, we will build water efficiency services targeted to different segments of our non-residential customer base.

Initiative one: Infrastructure growth charge review

The infrastructure growth charge (IGC) is a contribution towards the capital investment we have made in bulk infrastructure to provide services to either new or existing customers who increase their demand on our services.

The IGC means the cost of increasing the capacity of our bulk infrastructure is paid for by those who increase demand on the system now, rather than by other existing customers or future generations. Bulk infrastructure refers to treatment plants as well as large pump stations and transmission pipes.

Without the IGC, we would need to recover a greater proportion of our growth-related capital investment costs through our user charges. This means it would cost all customers a lot more for their water and wastewater services.

The IGC is applied whenever a property owner or developer adds extra demand on our networks. Typically, in the non- residential space this occurs when:

• a new non-residential property connects to our networks

• an existing non-residential property increases (or expects to increase) its water use.

The IGC is a one-off charge, unless the user intends to use more water or connect more dwellings to our network. For example, if a factory increases its water use beyond the level agreed when connecting to the Watercare network, it will need to pay an IGC to cover the increased demand the factory puts on our infrastructure (even if no new connection is needed).

In the past two years, we have started working with some of our non-residential customers who were largely exceeding their agreed water usage. Instead of charging them an additional IGC straight away, we have worked with them to see whether they could reduce their usage and avoid paying another IGC. It has proven to be an efficient incentive for water efficiency, with water use reducing by80 per cent in some places. Examples include installing a water recycling process avoiding $1.2 million additional IGC at a manufacturing facility or operating a swimming pool’s filtration and backwash system more efficiently to avoid $640,000a payment.

34 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Case study – Water waste gets out of control

This medical supply manufacturer was using up to six times the volume of water agreed in 2014. This means they were putting a lot more pressure on the water infrastructure than initially anticipated, by requiring a lot more water than planned.

We contacted them to highlight the situation and offered our help to improve their water efficiency.

They identified a faulty valve and changed some of their processes, bringing their water use just underneath the IGC level for the first time in over a year.

We have acknowledged their effort and will not charge them the $500,000 of IGC they should have paid had they not become more efficient. Water efficiency is a journey and it sometimes takes time to make water efficiency a part of an organisation’s DNA. We will continue to accompany them in this journey.

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

Litres per day 30,000

20,000

10,000

0 Apr 15 Aug 15 Dec 15 Apr 16 Aug 16 Dec 16 Apr 17

Water demand Agreed volume

Figure 18 Water use at a customer property vs infrastructure growth charge agreed usage.

35 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Initiative two: Key account customer programme

We engage with many of our non-residential customers through our website and publications. We work on a one-to-one basis with our large customers to clearly demonstrate how to make water efficiency improvements. This includes analysing water use, checking for leaks and suggesting changes to processes to make savings.

On pages 14 and 15 presented how water is used by different non-residential sectors in Auckland. We identified some groups of customers who are increasing their water use: for example, accommodation providers (hotels and guest houses) have increased consumption every year over the past five years. We aim to work with companies in such industries to identify approaches they can take to reduce water use.

The programmes we will structure will include the following elements:

• Baseline – Analyse annual water consumption at a selection of the company’s sites through Watercare’s summary reports and the company’s knowledge of their processes

• Smart meters – Install smart meters at these sites to enable detailed understanding of water use. Smart meters record water use data at a five- or15 -minute interval, creating a usage profile for each site.

• Water management software – Implement a water management software called One2five®. This is a process where Watercare facilitates a meeting with key members of the customer’s team. We go through a series of questions to help the discussion on how to improve water efficiency. The software produces a rating on how the company is doing and prioritises five critical actions for water efficiency. The software can be run again after a year as a tool for continuous improvement.

• Progress meetings – Monitoring of the customer’s water consumption for an agreed period of time, including regular progress meetings.

Case study – Finding and fixing underground water leaks can generate huge savings

NZ Bakels manufactures and distributes a wide range of bakery ingredients to industrial bakeries and to the craft and food service sectors. The company has a manufacturing facility in Penrose, Auckland employing, 75 staff.

Typically, manufacturing and food processing industries consume the largest proportion of water among non-domestic customers. NZ Bakels’ average water consumption was historically 86,000 litres per day, which the company considered normal for its business. However, periodically the water usage was disproportionately high despite no significant change in the operations. In the previous five years, the business had dealt with the issue of underground leaks four times, each time identifying and repairing the leaks individually. Watercare highlighted that there could be a structural issue with NZ Bakels’ pipe.

When the same problem occurred again, the company hired a specialised service to detect and repair the leak. But this time, the company decided to replace the old underground watermain with an overhead stainless steel watermain.

When the connection was changed over to the newly installed watermain, the company immediately saw a 50 per cent saving in water consumption, which is a lot more than they expected. They realised then that old leaks had gone unnoticed for so long that they had become part of what the company thought was its baseline water use.

36 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Case study – How Unitec managed to reduce its water and wastewater costs by a third

Unitec Institute of Technology is the largest institute of technology in Auckland, with more than 23,000 students across three campuses in Mt Albert, Henderson and Albany. Energy and water performance audits of their facilities drove home the need for a formalised process where conservation targets were set and performance against these targets was measured. This process also made Unitec realise the need for a Water Management Plan, since water costs are a significant variable cost for Unitec.

Unitec formed a water efficiency working group, which brought together staff and students from the engineering and plumbing faculty and Watercare to understand Unitec’s consumption and costs as well as industry best practices in water conservation. Watercare provided detailed reports on Unitec’s water use and advice on initiatives for saving water such as wastewater audits, checking leaks and meters, choice of appliances, data logging to provide time-of-use data, greywater recycling and rainwater harvesting.

Unitec has adopted a two-pronged strategy. The facilities team changed the ground management strategy to xeriscaping (selecting plants that required little or no irrigation), focusing mainly on native species and mulching heavily with composted garden waste to reduce water loss over the summer months.

The other significant change was an upgrade to the plumbing infrastructure. The Unitec campus was formerly the old Carrington Hospital and the infrastructure is quite dated. The facilities team decided to upgrade leaky pipes strategically. Instead of patching over leaking sections, whole stretches of pipes were replaced to prevent leaks and ensure lower maintenance costs in the longer term.

Students who were pursuing certificates in plumbing conducted water audits of all Unitec kitchens, bathrooms and laboratories. In two weeks, students completed audits across all three campuses and spotted significant areas for improvement, including one urinal which was using an estimated$9000 worth of water a year. This also helped to underscore to students (future plumbers and drainlayers) the importance of factoring water conservation into their work.

Housing NZ water efficiency programme Housing New Zealand (HNZ) manages more than 27,000 properties in Auckland. The demand for water from HNZ properties is typically higher than other properties. We have developed a programme of work to detect leaks and reduce water use in HNZ’s Auckland properties. This scheme began in 2012.

Water meters are read monthly and any homes with high water use or with a change to a previous month are identified. This information is provided to HNZ, which then investigates the property for leaks.

In the future we expect to extend this to the implementation of smart meters across all of HNZ’s properties in Auckland. This should enable HNZ to quickly identify properties with leaks and where there is abnormally high water use.

37 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Initiative three: Working with schools

Watercare runs a successful education programme for primary and intermediate schools in Auckland. The programme currently focuses on water quality, wastewater and stormwater. We plan to add to this successful initiative to provide a greater focus on water efficiency, by:

• Including a water efficiency and sustainability focus as part of the existing programme

• Developing a wider benchmarking programme for all schools in the Auckland region.

The benchmarking programme will focus on enabling schools to develop their own water footprint, followed by tools to help reduce water use. This is expected to focus on:

• Reducing water wasted from toilets, urinals and taps

• Reducing losses from swimming pools

• Optimising irrigation of playing fields

• Identifying and reducing leaks.

This proactive approach to work with schools should reduce the water wasted and help to educate young people about water efficiency and sustainability.

Image 5 Watercare education co-ordinator Sally Smith teaching Auckland school students about water.

38 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Initiative four: Working with community sports clubs with Project Litefoot Trust

Project Litefoot is a charitable trust offering a free service that saves money for community sports clubs by helping them become more efficient with electricity, water and waste management. The programme is led by10 of New Zealand’s top sportspeople, including former All Black Conrad Smith, Olympic medallists Sarah Walker, Barbara Kendall, Caroline and Georgina Evers-Swindell and former Black Caps skipper Brendon McCullum. Since 2008, they have been making changes in their own lives to reduce environmental impact and since 2011 Litefoot has helped community sports clubs to follow the lead of these heroes.

Watercare has partnered with Litefoot to work on two community sports clubs to create the blueprint for water efficiency in sports clubs and show that grassroots sport and the environment are both winners when water efficiency is improved. Two clubs, the Te Atatu Football Club and the Manukau Rovers Rugby Club, have had a smart meter monitoring their consumption to help Litefoot understand the usage profile, the ‘water story’. Following on from that, potential efficiency gains were identified.

Litefoot and Watercare then met potential partners and suppliers, which resulted in Laser Plumbing, Delabie, Mico, Caroma and Methven joining the initiative to create a best-practice model for water management. Major retrofits were made at the Manukau Rovers in June 2017. Our idea is that these clubs will become the blueprint for other clubs to aspire towards and build a business case for water efficiency in sports clubs.

160,000

148,166.9

140,000 Leaks Boot Station 120,000 Water Bottles Sensor Urinals 73,523.9 Dish Rinser 100,000 Bar Taps Push Urinal Toilets 80,000 Bathroom Taps Litres of water 4546.8 Showers 3312.0 60,000 7760.7

5173.1 39,108.5 0.0 40,000 2762.4

828.0 45,057.6 3880.4 2771.3 20,000

20,073.6

0 Actual water use Potential water use Figure 19 Potential water efficiency improvements identified at a community sports club over a season.

39 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Manukau Rovers Rugby Club has received a major water infrastructure upgrade!

What did we do?

Like many sports clubs in NZ, Manukau Rovers was suffering from the setbacks of inefficient water infrastructure. To help your club save water and money, LiteClub teamed up with partners Caroma, Laser, McDonald Industries (Delabie), Methven, Mico and Watercare to install modern water saving showers, taps, and toilets.

By saving money on water bills and heating water, your club can now concentrate on spending money on what matters most - sport.

www.liteclub.org

In partnership with...

Conrad Smith

Figure 20 Poster used at the Manukau Rovers Rugby Club to inform players about the upgrade, featuring Litefoot ambassador and former All Black Conrad Smith.

40 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Strategy four: Reducing leakage in the water network

Target water efficiency gains by2025 – eight to 14 million litres per day

Overview

In 2017, Watercare established a ‘non-revenue’ water strategy. Non-revenue water is water that is supplied from our network but cannot be billed for some reason. There are a number of types of non-revenue water such as water used for firefighting, cleaning of watermains, burst watermains and illegal connections. However, one of the components is leakage from water pipes, or ‘real losses’.

Reducing leakage in the water network will require significant investment in new approaches to monitor, identify and reduce losses across our network. Of the planned activities in our non-revenue water strategy, the following actions will directly reduce the volume of water lost from our networks:

• Establish district metering areas (DMAs) and pressure management

• Find and fix leaks more efficiently through an app for customers

• Find leaks through acoustic sounding

• Use smart meters.

Watercare’s current target for real losses is that real losses should be less than or equal to 13 per cent of the water supplied, reducing to less than or equal to 12 per cent of the water supplied by 2040. However, international standards organisations and regulators have established that measuring leakage as a percentage of water supplied is of limited use.

Through the non-revenue water strategy, we are moving towards a portfolio of KPIs for leakage, to both drive continuous improvement and allow comparison with other water utilities. In addition to the regulatory percentage target, we will report real losses in terms of litres per connection per day (L/c/d). Our current performance is just over 126 L/c/d. Our target is to reduce this to 101 L/c/d by 2025, with real losses limited to a total of 50 million litres per day. This would lead to an overall reduction in non-revenue water of 10 million litres per day by 2025.

The portfolio of KPIs we are putting in place is as follows:

• Real losses as a percentage of water supplied – to be used for regulatory reporting only

• Real losses as L/c/d – to be used as Watercare’s primary reporting tool

• Real losses in terms of the infrastructure leakage index – internal benchmarking, with the understanding that the benefits of this will only be clear when pressure management is in place

• The total volume of non-revenue water – an internal Watercare benchmark.

41 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Initiative one: Establishing district metered areas and pressure management

We are implementing some changes in our network to help us better manage the network, identify problems and improve customer service. The biggest change will be the introduction of district metered areas (DMAs). These network areas are made up of approximately 3000 to 5000 properties and are usually bounded by closed valves so they can be monitored and managed as separate areas. These areas are used in most countries around the world and they have been extensively proven to assist in reducing leakage in a water supply network.

We will be monitoring these new areas more regularly to identify any changes in usage that could be attributed to water losses. Leaks will then be found and fixed in the network to prevent further losses from occurring in the network.

Water treatment DMA boundary Transmission main Distribution main Local supply reservoir DMA meter Main input meter Sector meter Closed valve

Figure 21 District metering zones in a water supply network.

Where average pressure in our network is much higher than it needs to be, we will consider if we can reduce the pressure without lowering the level of service we provide to our customers. This most commonly happens at the bottom of a steep hill, or near a reservoir. Reducing the system pressure requires careful planning and installation of pressure-reducing valves in our network.

The effect that pressure management has on leakage can be explained by likening our pipes to a garden hose with a hole in it. If the garden tap is turned up fully, the water coming out of the hole may cause a mini fountain. As the tap is turned down, the size of the fountain and the flow of water reduces. If the pipes in our network have any small cracks or holes in them, then reducing the average pressure in these areas will reduce the volume of water lost from the pipe.

42 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Reservoir on hill Normal pressure

Higher pressure Excessive pressure

Watermain Normal pressure Pressure control point

Figure 22 Pressure in a water supply network.

Initiative two: Leak detection app

Due to the size of our network, it is impossible for our staff to check every road and street for any visible signs of leaks. That is why we strongly encourage our customers to report any suspected water leaks in our network so that we can come and fix them as soon as we can. To help make it easier to report leaks we will be launching a new leak reporting app. This will mean anyone can simply report a leak when they see it. We aim to reduce the time we take to repair the leaks reported to us, meaning less water will be lost from our pipes.

Image 6 Example of a leak.

43 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Initiative three: Acoustic sounding to find leaks

When water flows through a pipe it shouldn’t make any noise. If there is an underground leak in the pipe, then the pipe will start to make a noise. This is generally a low-volume noise that will not be audible to anyone walking along a road. Historically, listening sticks were used to try and pinpoint where the leak was occurring. These devices have been improved and it is possible to use electronic acoustic leak detection to improve the accuracy of leak identification.

Image 7 Watercare’s maintenance services team detecting a leak at Auckland’s North Shore Hospital.

We will be targeting our acoustic leak detection activities to areas where we expect leaks to be highest. We will aim to cover 20 per cent of our network every year.

Initiative four: Smart meters

Smart meters are electronic devices that record the water use at a property and automatically send that information back to us. They often also offer the option to provide the customer with information about their water use in a much more detailed way than the mechanical meters currently in place. This technology helps to quickly identify leaks on properties by analysing changes in day-to-day water use. Mechanical meters under 10 years old can be retrofitted with a data logger. Plugged to the existing mechanical meter, this device sends the same information as a smart meter.

Our plan is to install smart meters on all new homes in new subdivisions and across all of the communities that are not connected to the metropolitan network.

Recently we completed a smart metering trial in Waiuku. During this trial we installed 3305 data loggers onto the mechanical water meters. In the process, we also replaced 2149 mechanical water meters that were older than 10 years. All loggers record water use in 15-minute intervals and send the reads to our data storage house once a day. Our billing services team proactively calls Waiuku customers who we have identified as having a leak on their property based on the smart reads. This reduction in leakage from customer pipes, along with several leaks and illegal connections that were corrected, resulted in a 22 per cent reduction in the volume of water needed to supply Waiuku.

The full 10-year non-revenue water programme of work is included in the Appendix B.

44 Auckland water efficiency strategy

Appendices

45 Appendices

Appendix A: Water efficiency programme of work 3 Review our contracts with suppliers to make sure that they are thinking of water efficiency when they design, build and operate our facilities Roll out the irrigation app Year • • 2 Implement new design standards to make sure that new water and wastewater treatment plants are efficient in their use of water Develop and trial a web-based tool for Auckland Council and schools to help them irrigate efficiently Develop web-based platform to help customers audit water use in their homes Implement showerhead retrofit programme with EcoMatters and/or other partners Continue to leverage sustainability messaging from other organi sations Install smart meters to all of the communities that are not con nected metropolitan network Review smart metering and data use to find fix leaks Measure benefits associated with smart meters Work with developers to achieve accreditation Monitor water use in ‘Blue Tick’ developments Year • • • • • • • • • •

1 Measure our water use in construction and operation across our business and through supply chain Benchmark water use in our operations Technical analysis to develop guidance about irrigation for sports and school applications Continue to communicate with our customers directly via water b ill, website and call centre Continue to work with and support organisations such as EcoMatt ers, including attending events Continue to proactively support reducing customer-side leakage Create a water efficiency page on the Watercare website, including mobile friendly platform Work with EcoMatters to identify types of properties that would be eligible for low flow showerheads Identify other organisations promoting sustainable lifestyles and identify how we can partner with them and integrate water- saving messages across different organisations Specify smart metres for new Specify smart metres for new developments and require developers to install them Set up our data management and finance systems for the collection of and billing from smart meter data Determine how the ‘Blue Tick’ scheme will be applied Confirm the details of Blue Tick scheme Engage with developers to promote the scheme Year • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Watercare Communications and other initiatives Smart metering Blue Tick efficiency programme R e s i d e n t i a l w a t e r

. Council water efficiency Strategy 1 programme 2.

46 Appendices

Appendix A: Water efficiency programme of workcontinued 3 Utilise DMA monitoring information to find and fix leaks in specific DMAs Develop active acoustic leak detection programme to cover a percentage of the network per year Implement leak/fault report reporting application Year • • • 2 Use information from smart meters in HNZ Auckland properties to repair leaks and implement/advise on sustainable water use Negotiate IGCs and water reduction measures with our applicable customers Review benchmarking and promote successful practices Implement water-efficient irrigation using the web-based tool Year • • • • 1 Install smart meters in HNZ Auckland properties Identify scale of growth in commercial demand and where additional IGC charges are equitable Develop our existing primary and intermediate school programme by including a water efficiency and sustainability focus as part of the existing programme Developing a benchmarking programme for all schools in the Auckland region Develop a plan to separate the network into DMAs Identify DMAs that would be most suitable for pressure management as part of the DMA design Commence pressure management trial in a high-pressure area Implement DMAs as part of new developments Continue with current find and fix method Investigate repair times and identify any potential efficiencies Continue with current acoustic leak detection Develop specification and investigate tools for new leak/fault r eporting application/ mobile platform Investigate where new technology can reduce the cost of loss ma nagement Year • • • • • • • • • • • • • - Housing New Zea land (HNZ) Infrastructure Growth Charges (IGCs) Schools District metered areas (DMAs) Losses efficiency programme N o n - r e s i d e n t i a l w a t e r Reducing leakage

Strategy 3. 4.

47 Appendices

Appendix B: 10-year non-revenue water programme of work

48 Appendices

Appendix B: 10-year non-revenue water programme of work continued

49 www.watercare.co.nz An Auckland Council Organisation

APPENDIX TWO

Auckland Drought Management Plan

Auckland Metropolitan Drought Management Plan

February 2020

Auckland Drought Management Plan

V1.1 Updated Figure 1 Drought response trigger Roseline Klein 23/04/2020 levels with current water demand for Head of water value increased accuracy (no signatures required) Executive Summary

For Watercare, a hydrological drought declared in Auckland qualifies as an incident. It is to be managed following Watercare’s Incident Management Plan (IMP). This Drought Management Plan (DMP) complements the IMP by providing the approach and restrictions for Watercare to trigger in case of a drought, leading to the need to conserve water resources and work with customers effectively towards this outcome. Auckland Council retains the legislative powers to impose bylaws necessary to enact restrictions on water use and trigger the implementation of the plan. This DMP focuses primarily on Watercare’s Auckland metropolitan area. The metropolitan area covers most of the region, sourcing its water from the Waitakere ranges and Hunua ranges dams, the Onehunga aquifer and the Waikato river. Non-metropolitan areas that use groundwater or springs for their water supply are not included in this DMP because they have been assessed and found to be independent of short-term climate variability. Those sources provide water to Helensville, Warkworth, Snells-Algies, Muriwai, Bombay and Waiuku. Watercare’s current run of river takes in the Rodney region, mainly the Hoteo river supplying Wellsford, are not typically restricted during periods of low river flow. However, trigger points and actions have been developed to ensure supply in extreme events or during the enactment of regulatory constraints. These are documented in separate DMPs for those supplies. Reviews of practices and principles internationally and nationally were used to identify appropriate restrictions for Auckland which, if implemented individually or together could deliver meaningful savings to conserve water resources. Three levels of water restrictions have been defined for the following categories: • Residential, commercial and public lawns and gardens (including garden centres) • Playing fields (e.g. golf courses, hockey turfs, bowling greens) • Fountains and water features • Hard surfaces • Vehicle and boat washing • Building and window washing • Swimming pools, spas, and recreation • Tanker supplies • Construction and renovation • Large users - Industrial and commercial customers • Agricultural and horticultural users Overall savings estimates are: • Level 1 restrictions: winter 0-3%, summer 5-10% • Level 2 restrictions: winter 3-5%, summer 10-16% • Level 3 restrictions: winter 12-25%, summer 24-30%

The response to a hydrological drought within Watercare involves Operations (definition of a drought for the Auckland Metropolitan region), Customer (options available to mitigate the impacts of the drought) and Communications (communication of the mitigation options). This document is subject to ongoing reviews to determine the most efficient way to response to droughts. 2

Auckland Drought Management Plan

Table of Contents DOCUMENT CONTROL 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 1. GLOSSARY 4 2. DROUGHTS AND TRIGGER LEVELS 6 2.1 AUCKLAND’S DROUGHT MANAGEMENT STANDARDS ...... 6 2.2 TARGET TRIGGER LEVELS ...... 6 3. INCIDENT MANAGEMENT 8 3.1 INCIDENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (IMP) ...... 8 3.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE DMP ...... 9 3.3 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY ...... 10 3.4 LEGAL POWERS TO INVOKE THE DMP ...... 10 3.5 PLAN REVIEW AND UPDATES ...... 11 4. WATER SAVINGS AND RESTRICTIONS 11 4.1 RATIONALE FOR RESTRICTIONS ...... 11 4.2 EXEMPTIONS ...... 12 4.3 RESTRICTIONS IN THREE LEVELS ...... 14 5. CUSTOMER SEGMENTATION 17 5.1 HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS (HEALTH AND SAFETY) ...... 17 5.2 WATER SAVINGS ...... 17 6. COMMUNICATIONS 20 7. RECOVERY, CLOSE-OUT AND REVIEW 21 APPENDIX 1: AUGMENTATION OF WATER SUPPLIES 23

Table of Figures

FIGURE 1: DROUGHT RESPONSE TRIGGER LEVELS ...... 7

Table of Tables Table 1: Definition of Terms ...... 4 Table 2: Phases of Drought Management...... 8 Table 3: Sequential Plan of Action for Drought Management ...... 10 Table 4: Assessment of Trigger Level Response and Success ...... 21 Table 5: Assessment of Impact of Restrictions ...... 22

Auckland Drought Management Plan

1. Glossary The following table provides explanations of terms and abbreviations used specifically in this Drought Management Plan. Please also refer to the definition of terms section in the Incident Management Plan (IMP) for other common terms used in this document. The IMP can be found on the Watercare Intranet.

Table 1: Definition of Terms

Critical Customers Customers, such as dialysis patients, who rely on water availability more than most.

Key and strategic Strategic customers, such as hospitals, retirement villages and schools, Customers who rely on water availability. Key customers are our highest use customers.

Hydrological drought A shortage in rainfall that has caused or threatens to cause a deficiency in water supply that may lead to an imbalance between supply and demand. This is not to be confused with an agricultural drought, declared when the soil moisture availability to plants has dropped to such a level that it adversely affects the crop yield.

Incident Management The IMP has been designed to assist Watercare Services Limited Plan (IMP) (Watercare) respond to any event, which has potential to negatively impact achievement of Watercare’s operational and strategic objectives. This Incident Management Plan (IMP) sets out responsibilities and give guidance for matters to consider in an Incident. This plan helps avoid confusion and wasted effort and is designed to guide management in the planning of responses.

Incident management The IMT will be responsible for managing the response, recovery and team (IMT) resumption phases of Level 2 and 3 incidents. Core responsibilities include: • Taking actions to assume control of any situation • Providing leadership during incidents • Evaluating the extent and impact of the incident • Determining priorities within the organisation • Directing recovery activities • Managing resources including materials, equipment, staff and funding • Coordinating and maintaining internal and external communications • Restoring functions as quickly as possible to minimise loss or damage The roles and responsibility of the IMT are listed at Appendix 4 of the Incident Management Plan. The IMT will be scaled to address the size and complexity of the incident.

Integrated Source ISMM is the tool used by the Watercare to support weekly source Management Model abstraction decision making, along with long term planning. This model is (ISMM) designed to ensure that Watercare operates at the lowest possible cost

Auckland Drought Management Plan

while maintaining agreed security of supply.

Mains water Mains water is water supplied to customers directly through a metered connection to the public water reticulation system, or supplied indirectly by tankered water taken from reticulation

Recycled water Recycled water, sometimes referred to as grey water, refers to water first used for other purposes in the laundry, kitchen or bathroom but not including toilet water. In commercial activities, recycled water also includes water used in processes such as cooling that is not contaminated by sewage or other substances likely to cause a public health risk.

Security of Supply The metropolitan water supply system is operated to meet demand during a drought with a 1% probability of occurring (a 1:100 year drought) with 15% residual TSS without demand restrictions being implemented.

Standpipe Collection Water is supplied to residential customers by collection from designated hydrants.

Total system storage The quantity of water available in the metropolitan dam sources expressed (TSS) in percentage

Voluntary and For the purposes of this document, voluntary water savings measures are Mandatory water those measures that consumers are encouraged to take to conserve the conservation water resource prior to the implementation of restrictions. measures Mandatory measures vary according to the imposition of Stage 1 to 3 restrictions as set out in this DMP. All restrictions are mandatory and all consumers are expected to comply with those restrictions. Council may use local bylaws to “underline” the mandatory nature of, and to enforce compliance with, the restrictions imposed at any particular stage.

Auckland Drought Management Plan

2. Droughts and trigger levels

2.1 Auckland’s Drought Management Standards A drought is considered to be a shortage of rain that has caused, or threatens to cause, a deficiency in water supplies that may lead to an imbalance between supply and demand. A shortage of rainfall will typically lead to low river flows, low replenishment of surface water reservoirs and slower recharge to groundwater resources. Each drought is different in duration, severity and the area over which its effects are felt. It is not considered appropriate to plan for a drought based solely on historic events since this assumes that future droughts will be a repetition of previous droughts. The Auckland Metropolitan Region has adopted a 1:100 year drought security standard having a 15% residual capacity in the storage lakes during normal demand. This means that based on hydrological records, the total lake storage will be drawn down to 15% once in 100 years on average over the long term. This will happen in the case where no restrictions are implemented and normal operational abstraction decisions are made. However, this does not negate the need to have a DMP and restrictions on water use during droughts to ensure supply during conditions worse than the design standard. Auckland’s Metropolitan water supply lakes have a total combined capacity that equates to approximately 220 days of usage as of 2019. This relatively small storage capacity relates to the historic reliability of rainfall in the storage catchments. Factors such as climate change, the effects of El Niño/La Niña events, and positive Southern Annular Mode, can affect Auckland’s climate, resulting in more severe droughts than those that ‘normal operations’ can sustain. For the Metropolitan region, only the abstraction from the Waikato River has been assessed as reliable enough to be described as independent of short-term climate variability. However, this source is not the sole source of water for Auckland due to constraints from consented maximum take, potential low river flow restrictions, and infrastructure on site. Therefore it is important that sources that are affected by climate variability be managed prudently, to ensure that there are no significant risks of adverse public health effects, due to the lack of water for basic sanitary requirements in an event that is worse than 1:100 year drought. Watercare utilises the Integrated Source Management Model (ISMM) to make abstraction decisions from the various sources that make up Watercare’s conjunctive supply system for the Auckland Metropolitan Area. In respect to cost, ISMM optimises the abstraction decisions by balancing the risk of shortfall for the cheaper stored water sources against the cost of more expensive non-storage sources. ISMM does this by assigning a value to risk. For normal operations this is calibrated to ensure that Watercare meets its drought standard of 1 in 100 years to 15% residual storage. The abstraction guidance is reviewed weekly to adjust for operational constraints, source water quality and climate conditions. For example, if there are on-going periods of below average rainfall, but total system storage (TSS) is above average due to a wet winter, it may be decided to proactively reduce the risk profile and use more non-storage sources. During a drought, the frequency of monitoring of TSS and reporting increases so that appropriate management decisions can be made in a timely manner.

2.2 Target Trigger Levels Watercare has a drought warning system in place for its bulk water storage system as shown in Figure 1. below. The combined total system storage level for its metropolitan supply lakes is routinely monitored on a weekly basis against the trigger levels and potential shortfall risk, as calculated by ISMM.

Auckland Drought Management Plan

Figure 1: Drought Response Trigger Levels

Trigger levels for Watercare have been developed based on total system storage for the Auckland metropolitan region. These levels are based on the reduction in demand required to ensure there is no system failure due to shortage of water. A number of assumptions were made in the calculation of these trigger levels. These include: • Increased dry weather demand, including increase demand for tankered water for non-reticulated domestic use • The Waikato Water Treatment Plant follows historic reliability of 90% • Abstraction from the Waikato River is restricted by 15% during low river flows in line with Waikato Regional Council Regional Plan Variation during summer/autumn historic low flow periods • Onehunga dry summer availability of 12,000m3/d (based on 2010 & 2013 experience) • 2-6 weeks lead time to achieve savings • Current maximum outputs of storage lakes & WTPs These trigger levels cannot be over-prescriptive, as the decision as to whether or not to introduce various measures depends on the hydrological situation and weather forecast at the time, as well as the potential implications that the hydrological situation may have on the supply-demand balance.

Auckland Drought Management Plan

The notional savings required at each trigger level are summarised in the table below.

Table 2: Phases of Drought Management

Phases of Drought Management

Phase Risk of Shortfall Restrictions Savings required*

Commence IMP Not significant Operational 0%

Commence voluntary Minor Voluntary 0% to 5% Savings

Stage 1 trigger Minor Mild 5%

Stage 2 trigger Medium Medium 10%

Stage 3 trigger Major High 15%

15% Residual Storage Extreme Critical >20%

* expressed as % of projected monthly demand, in summer

The consequences of not achieving the desired savings during a water crisis are that: • The water supply could run out, resulting in significant risks of adverse public health effects, such as those caused by the lack of water for basic sanitary requirements. • Many businesses could cease to operate, creating adverse economic effects for the community and individual workers. This plan is not intended to cover localised areas within the Auckland region where demand requires management following an incident to the local reticulation, but this does not preclude the procedures contained within this plan being used to manage localised events, or any regional event that requires a significant reduction in water supply consumption other than drought.

3. Incident management

3.1 Incident Management Plan (IMP) This document has been designed to assist Watercare Services Limited (Watercare) respond to any event, which has potential to negatively impact achievement of Watercare’s operational and strategic objectives including the management of water shortages and droughts. A drought is considered to be a ‘non-normal” situation and will follow the process outlined within the IMP for escalation of an event. It is assumed that the readers of this DMP are familiar with the IMP. A drought response can be categorised into phases of seriousness, each requiring actions to be taken that will ensure reductions in water use by the community. Reductions in use will be effected through the voluntary or mandatory savings detailed in this plan, once certain trigger levels have been reached. Mandatory savings are classified into three stages. A Level 2 incident will be declared by Watercare once system storage has reached the first alert level (Commence IMP). At this point Watercare will increase situational monitoring and forecasting which may indicate that the event is worsening, a communications campaign for voluntary savings is to be under taken. 8

Auckland Drought Management Plan

If drought conditions persist, the drought response will increase to mandatory restrictions; these restrictions will be staged in 3 levels. The ability to enact the necessary by-laws required for mandatory restrictions rests with the Auckland Council, with Watercare to recommend the necessary restrictions. At this point a level 3 incident will be declared in line with the IMP. As each stage of restrictions is reached, planning is to be underway in preparation of reaching the next level of restrictions. The decision to move from voluntary management to mandatory management is not a step which should be taken Iightly. No mandatory measure will achieve the required savings unless the public support the measure. The risk of losing the good will and support of the public, by the imposition of mandatory measures, should be carefully considered. Therefore, mandatory measures will only be introduced if it has not been possible to achieve the required level of savings by voluntary means.

3.2 Objectives of the DMP The purpose of this plan is to ensure a timely, customer centric and effective short-term response to the occurrence of water shortages, with the aim of minimising the impacts (social, economic, and environmental) of such shortages. There are two components involved in securing an adequate water supply in times of drought: • The provision of an adequate supply system to satisfy current and future demands over a range of climatic conditions ensuring that the risk of shortfalls in supply are within 'acceptable' levels. • The specification of actions required when shortfalls in water supply occur as a result of drought. The first component represents long term planning actions that determine the level of infrastructure development required to satisfy specified standards of supply. The second component relates to management actions that are required to minimize the impacts of shortfalls in supply; the purpose of this plan. The DMP complements the long-term planning process where the short term response needs to be based on a good understanding of the longer term security of supply (i.e. knowledge of the likely frequency and severity of drought restrictions). DMP objectives include: • Provide timely warning of any water shortages which might occur during future drought events and to be prepared to deal with such shortages when they occur. • Develop and implement an appropriate action plan to respond to water shortages. • Identify all the necessary steps that need to be taken through a drought, including identifying clear trigger variables to instigate actions. • Provide a basis for regular reviews of the plan as the system develops and information becomes available. • Give direction for reviewing the plan during and following a drought; where its performance can be evaluated. • Provide clear indicators to ensure that a reliable assessment of drought status is available. • Ensure that a minimum supply is always provided (Note: AS/NZS 3500 stipulates adequate water to hygienically flush the bowl, but doesn’t give a definitive quantity). The World Health Organisation recommends 70 litres per person per day to maintain sanitary requirements in the short to medium term. • Ensure that the incident management team is aware of the stage of the drought and how severe the drought is likely to be. • Ensure that the incident management team maintains information on current levels and patterns of demand and continually assess customer expectations in relation to desirable levels of service.

Auckland Drought Management Plan

3.3 Implementation Strategy The DMP will be implemented through the following steps:

Table 3: Sequential Plan of Action for Drought Management

Sequential Plan of Action for Drought Management

Trigger Action

Voluntary savings • Alert public to the imminent water shortages and possible need for restrictions in the future. trigger level • Promote “voluntary restrictions” via media advertising campaigns to inform consumers about water conservation programs. • Monitor storage volume response and perform regular forecasting of storage volume projections.

• Monitor flows daily and increase frequency of monitoring demands for high consumers.

Stage 1 trigger level • Implement Stage 1 Restrictions • Introduce advertising campaign using all appropriate forms of media. • Continue to monitor storage volume response and perform regular forecasting of storage volume projections. • Investigate arrangements to bring available bores into service. • Inform customers about possible pressure reductions and problems this may entail. • Identify and plan for implementation of alternative emergency options e.g. rivers, Three Kings reservoir. • Start to engage with Council to reduce Environmental Releases from reservoirs.

Stage 2 trigger level • Implement Stage 2 Restrictions • Continue media advertising. • Continue to monitor storage volume response and perform regular forecasting of storage volume projections. • Highlight, where feasible, unusually high use on customers’ bills. • Lower the water supply system pressures, where feasible, to reduce water use.

Stage 3 trigger level • Implement Stage 3 Restrictions • Continue media advertising. • Continue to monitor storage volume response and perform regular forecasting of storage volume projections. • Bring into service alternative emergency options e.g. rivers, Three Kings reservoir. • Bring any available bore pumping infrastructure into service.

Implement other • Implement other emergency supply options. emergency supply • Continue media advertising. options. • Continue to monitor storage volume response and perform regular forecasting of storage volume projections.

This DMP has been prepared on the basis of full participation and support of the public.

3.4 Legal powers to invoke the DMP With the establishment of the Auckland Council under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, Council retains the sole ability to pass bylaws in respect to water supply. Traditionally drought events are managed through passing bylaws that restrict the use of water and a state of drought can also be enacted under the Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Act 2002, which recognises the importance of lifeline utilities, such as water, to the well-being of society. 10

Auckland Drought Management Plan

3.5 Plan review and updates This DMP shall be reviewed and updated every 24 months or as required, and after any event that requires all or parts of the DMP to be used. The DMP shall also be reviewed and updated every time the IMP is reviewed or updated. Watercare’s Water resources manager shall ensure that both the controlled hard copy document and the controlled intranet copy are updated upon approval of additions and alterations.

4. Water savings and restrictions

4.1 Rationale for restrictions Residential, commercial and public lawns and gardens including garden centres • These are external uses that are visible and can therefore be monitored (by the public, Watercare, aerial imagery etc), are non-essential, and high water use activities. Includes garden centres. Playing fields (e.g. golf courses, hockey turfs, bowling greens) • These are external uses that are visible and can therefore be monitored, contain non-essential components of use and are high water use activities. 7pm to 7am watering is proposed to minimise losses and to minimise the visibility of the activity. • Sportfields provide a public good and there are health and safety concerns for people and animals (horse racing, polo) related to playing on hard surfaces. The intention is to maintain these benefits as long as possible. Applies equally to public and private sports facilities. Fountains and water features • These are external uses that are visible and can therefore be monitored, contain non-essential components of use and can be high water use activities. • Turning off public fountains adds visibility and consistency to water conservation messages. • Maintain environmental protection to ecosystems throughout a drought when they are stressed. Hard surfaces • These are external uses that are visible and can therefore be monitored, are non-essential uses and are high water use activities. Note that high pressure water blasters are typically highly water efficient. Vehicle and boat washing • These are external uses that are visible and can therefore be monitored, contain non-essential components of use and are high water use activities. Covers all form of vehicle (planes, trains, cars, buses, scooters, trailers, boats). • Boat motor flushing is permitted at levels 1 and 2, to enable recreational use consistent with the restrictions on playing field watering. Watercare should seek to make non-potable sources available as soon as possible. • Some car wash facilities do not use recycling systems. Whilst there will be a commercial impact on these operators, these rules will encourage them to invest in recycling systems, with a long term water reduction benefit. Note that there may be a financial impact on valet cleaning businesses from Level 2. Building and window washing

Auckland Drought Management Plan

• These are external uses that are visible and can therefore be monitored, are largely non-essential uses and can be high water use activities. Swimming pools, spas, and recreation • These are uses that are recorded on Council files and can therefore be monitored, contain non- essential components of use and can be high water use activities. • Many utilities permit filling of paddling and temporary pools. These are high water use activities, and Aucklanders have access to free or cheap municipal pools and the sea so it is proposed that these activities are not permitted. Tanker supplies • Customers receiving water from tankers are subject to the same restrictions as Watercare’s customers. • Tankers provide water for essential uses and need to continue to supply. • The Warkworth and Waiuku supplies are drought resistant and may continue to support communities outside Auckland subject to limitations on Watercare’s infrastructure. Construction and renovation • Whilst non-potable supplies may be available there may be limited tankers available to provide this. • Construction may be interrupted in Level 3 restrictions due to limitations placed on industrial customers (large users). Large users - Industrial and commercial customers • Rota cuts are not normally seen within a suite of water restrictions. They are normally seen as an emergency measure. However, there is precedent in the Waikato, where industrial users are required to restrict their water takes (compared to a consented volume) before other municipal users. • Auckland may move through each band of restriction rapidly. Beyond Level 3 will be city-wide rota cuts, pressure reduction (with associated boil water notices) and/or the use of stand pipes to distribute water. Rota cuts of industrial users are considered preferable than a city-wide state of emergency. • We have insufficient data to determine a threshold for large users for this restriction and more work on this is required by Watercare. Note, users will not know that they are affected. Watercare will need to contact them. Agricultural and horticultural users • These water uses are not well understood in Auckland. Efficient irrigation can be permitted for levels 1 and 2, but irrigators should be encouraged to permanently switch to other sources.

4.2 Exemptions Residential, commercial and public lawns and gardens including garden centres • New turf exemption (typical in UK and Australia) designed to minimise the impact on commercial growers, landscape firms and erosion of soil. For Level 1 and 2 restrictions new turf may be watered with a sprinkler for one week after it is delivered in accordance with a new turf watering plan [Watercare needs to develop this with the industry]. • Exemptions for medical reasons (people unable to operate a trigger nozzle) • Exemptions for garden centres in Level 3, watering with a watering can allowed. Playing fields (e.g. golf courses, hockey turfs, bowling greens) • Watering to enable international sporting events to proceed will be permitted subject to an approved water use plan.

Auckland Drought Management Plan

Fountains and water features • Exemptions for medical reasons (people unable to operate a trigger nozzle). Hard surfaces • Graffiti removal permitted in Levels 1 and 2 to protect small businesses, property and community wellbeing. Vehicle and boat washing • Graffiti removal permitted in Levels 1 and 2 to protect property and community wellbeing. Building and window washing • Water efficient cleaning devices (window cleaning systems, for example) are exempt at Level 1, to protect small businesses. • Graffiti removal permitted in Levels 1 and 2 to protect small businesses, property and community wellbeing. Swimming pools, spas, and recreation • All municipal pools for Levels 1 and 2, to ensure community well-being. Existing indoor municipal and commercial pools for Level 3. Existing pools used for human or animal medical treatments. • Certification by a Chartered Professional Engineer that a pool needs to be filled for structural or health and safety reasons. Tanker supplies • Water supply to areas outside of Auckland may be permitted by Watercare from stated tanker filling stations. Construction and renovation • Where the proposed methods for water restrictions result in health and safety or environmental impacts. Large users - Industrial and commercial customers • Hospitals and schools. • Domestic users (within apartment buildings with a single metered account, for example). • Users who can demonstrate via a detailed water use plan that they will save more water than they would on the proposed rota cut schedule. Agricultural and horticultural users • Domestic use on agricultural and horticultural premises. • Water use for animal drinking water. Some use for animal husbandry and wellbeing may also be exempt subject to an efficient water use plan.

4.3 Restrictions in three levels

Level of Residential, Playing fields (e.g. Fountains and Hard surfaces Vehicle and boat Building and Swimming pools, Tanker supplies Construction and Large users - Agricultural and restriction commercial and golf courses, water features washing window washing spas, and recreation renovation Industrial and horticultural public lawns and hockey turfs, commercial users gardens (including bowling greens) customers garden centres) Level 1 - Watering - Watering of A hand held hose, Cleaning of - May be washed - Cleaning only - Top up of existing - Tankers supplying - Replace potable - Replace potable - Replace potable permitted only as sports fields and bucket or watering hardstanding using a bucket and permitted with a pool or spa to replace the wider Auckland water with non- water with non- water with non- Expected required using a playing fields can may be used (paths, roads, hand held hose for bucket and hose water lost is region only (refer potable sources potable sources potable sources savings: hand held hose including artificial to fill or top up patios, decks rinsing, a high with a trigger authorised using a exemptions) are wherever wherever wherever with a trigger turf is permitted fountains or water etc.) or outdoor pressure cleaning nozzle for rinsing, hand held hosepipe, permitted to fill practicable. practicable. possible. winter 0- nozzle, watering only as required, features if the artificial unit, or at a or a high pressure bucket or watering from the Watercare 3% - No unattended - Subject to the - Irrigation can or bucket, or using a hand held fountain or water surfaces is not commercial car or cleaning unit. can only. system. hosepipes in site at same restrictions watering summer 5- an irrigation hose with a trigger feature permitted boat wash facility - Graffiti removal - Fill of new or - Customers any time. on use as all other permitted only as 10% system with an nozzle, watering recirculates water; except spot using a water permitted. renovated pool or spa receiving water - Potable water may customers. required using a automated can or bucket, or ponds or lakes cleaning for recycling system. pool (volume >500l) from tankers are only be used to hand held hose weather an irrigation supporting aquatic health and - Boat motor allowed only if subject to the same supress dust if no with a trigger adjustment, rain system automated fauna or birdlife; safety or flushing is permanent cover to restrictions as other alternative nozzle, watering sensor or soil with a weather and new ponds or biosecurity permitted only if a reduce evaporation. Watercare’s source is available can or bucket, or moisture sensor. adjustment, rain lakes. purposes with a non-potable water - Paddling or customers. and in any case only an irrigation - New turf may be sensor or soil high pressure source is not temporary pools by means of a hand- system with an watered for one moisture sensor. water blaster or available. (holding less than held hose with a automated week after it is - Limited to water from a 2,000l) may not be trigger nozzle, weather delivered. between 7pm and bucket. filled. watering can or a adjustment, rain 7am to minimise - Water toys or water purpose built water sensor or soil evaporative play using a hosepipe tanker. moisture sensor. losses. are not permitted. - All potable water use (including dust suppression) is limited to health and safety; environmental protection reasons as required by resource consent conditions; or construction equipment requiring water for safe operation;

Auckland Drought Management Plan

Level of Residential, Playing fields (e.g. Fountains and Hard surfaces Vehicle and boat Building and Swimming pools, Tanker supplies Construction and Large users - Agricultural and restriction commercial and golf courses, water features washing window washing spas, and recreation renovation Industrial and horticultural public lawns and hockey turfs, commercial users gardens (including bowling greens) customers garden centres) Level 2 - No lawn - Watering of - A hand held Cleaning of - Only clean for - Cleaning only - Top up of an existing - Limited to - Replace potable - Replace potable - Replace potable watering. sports fields and hose, bucket or hardstanding health and safety allowed with a covered pool or spa approved filling water with non- water with non- water with non- Expected - Garden watering playing fields watering can may (paths, roads, or biosecurity bucket and hose which has a stations. potable sources potable sources potable sources savings: permitted only as limited to be used to top up patios, decks reasons. with a trigger permanent cover is - Tankers supplying wherever wherever wherever winter 3- required using a watering of the existing ponds or etc.) or outdoor - A bucket and hand nozzle for rinsing, allowed using a bucket the wider Auckland practicable. practicable. possible. 5% hand held hose active strip / lakes supporting artificial held hose may be or a high pressure or watering can. region for essential - No unattended - Subject to the - Watering playing area only, aquatic fauna or surfaces is not cleaning unit and summer with a trigger used for rinsing or a - Pools and spas uses only are hosepipes in site at same restrictions permitted only as as required using a birdlife. permitted only for health 10-16% nozzle, watering high pressure without covers may permitted to fill any time. on use as all other required using a can or bucket, or a hand held hose - Water cannot be except spot cleaning unit used and safety, only be topped up if from the Watercare - Potable water may customers. hand held hose drip or trickle with a trigger used to fill or top cleaning for to wash the accident and an engineer certifies system. only be used to with a trigger irrigation system nozzle, watering up fountains and health and windows, mirrors, emergency that this is required - Customers supress dust if no nozzle, watering with an automated can or bucket, or a water features or safety or lights, registration reasons. for structural or health receiving water other alternative can or bucket, or weather drip or trickle new ponds or biosecurity plates and carry out - Graffiti removal and safety reasons. from tankers are source is available an irrigation adjustment, rain irrigation system lakes. purposes with a spot removal of permitted. - Newly constructed subject to the same and in any case only system with an sensor, soil with an high pressure corrosive and not previously restrictions as by means of a hand- automated moisture sensor. automated water blaster or substances. filled pool, or Watercare’s held hose with a weather - New turf may be weather water from a - Use of a car or renovated pool of any customers. trigger nozzle, adjustment, rain watered for one adjustment, rain bucket. boat wash facility size may not be filled. watering can or a sensor or soil sensor, soil week after it is with an efficient - Paddling or purpose built water moisture sensor. moisture sensor. delivered. water recycling temporary pools tanker. - Limited to system is (holding less than - All potable water between 7pm and permitted. 2,000l) may not be use (including dust 7am to minimise - Boat motor filled. suppression) is evaporative flushing is - Water toys or water limited to health and losses. permitted only if a play using a hosepipe safety; non-potable water are not permitted. environmental source is not protection reasons as available. required by resource consent conditions; or construction equipment requiring water for safe operation.

Auckland Drought Management Plan

Level of Residential, Playing fields (e.g. Fountains and Hard surfaces Vehicle and boat Building and Swimming pools, Tanker supplies Construction and Large users - Agricultural and restriction commercial and golf courses, water features washing window washing spas, and recreation renovation Industrial and horticultural public lawns and hockey turfs, commercial users gardens (including bowling greens) customers garden centres) Level 3 No lawn or garden No watering of - A hand held Cleaning of - Cleaning limited Cleaning only - Top up an existing - Limited to As for Levels 1 and 2 - Rota cuts (days No potable water watering is sports fields or hose, bucket or hardstanding to windows, allowed with a covered pool or spa approved filling but an efficient water when customers use allowed Expected permitted. playing fields is watering can may (paths, roads, mirrors, lights and bucket and hose which has a stations. use plan is required cannot use water) other than for savings: permitted. be used to top up patios, decks registration plates with a trigger permanent cover - Tankers supplying for testing and will be imposed domestic use and winter 12- existing ponds or etc.) or outdoor and spot cleaning nozzle for rinsing, allowed using a bucket the wider Auckland flushing. and monitored. animal drinking 25% lakes supporting artificial for removing or a high pressure or watering can only. region for essential - All large users water. aquatic fauna or surfaces is not corrosive cleaning unit and - Pools and spas summer uses only are will be prohibited birdlife. permitted substances. only for health without covers may 24-30% permitted to fill from using water - Water cannot be except spot - Boat motor and safety, only be topped up if from the Watercare one or more days used to fill or top cleaning for flushing is accident and an engineer certifies system. per week. up fountains and health and permitted only emergency that this is required - The volume water features or safety or using non-potable reasons. for structural or health delivered to each new ponds or biosecurity water sources. and safety reasons. property will be lakes. purposes with a - Newly constructed limited to the high pressure and not previously Auckland average water blaster or filled pool, or per capita water from a renovated pool, of any consumption per bucket. size, may not be filled. household resident. - Paddling or A reasonable temporary pools allowance for (holding less than animal drinking 2,000l) may not be water is also filled. permitted. - Water toys or water - Customers play using a hosepipe receiving water are not permitted. from tankers are subject to the same restrictions as Watercare’s customers. No unattended hosepipes for any purpose once restrictions are imposed. These restrictions also apply to the use of water from cisterns and tanks filled from the municipal supply. Whilst limited time of day restrictions are proposed, promoting watering when evaporation is limited should be recommended and could be required. Rainwater and recycled water may be used for any purpose at any time, unless the rainwater tank is topped up or filled using the municipal water supply. Consider defining essential uses from water tanks: as for human health requirements, watering of stock and animals, firefighting unless a non-potable source is available, for the safety, but not the cleaning, of vehicles and equipment, and for cleaning required as a result of an accident, fire, health hazard, safety hazard or other emergency (in accordance with the permitted methods and unless a non-potable source is available). Vehicles includes all types of vehicle; cars, trucks, buses, rolling stock, trailers and boats. Graffiti removal permitted in Levels 1 and 2.

5. Customer segmentation

5.1 Health Considerations (Health and Safety)

5.1.1 Critical Customers When water supplies are extremely limited, stringent measures will be required to minimise the adverse effects on health. Critical customers need to be prioritised and may be supplied with tanker water – this can be in the form of mini tankers. Critical customers include: • Dialysis patients – list supplied by Auckland Regional Public Health Service (ARPHS) • Hospitals • Schools • Private hospitals/Rest homes • Fire service

5.1.2 General Public Health The most likely adverse health outcome related to water restrictions would be an increase in the incidence of food and waterborne diseases. An increase in fire risk would also apply due to possible reductions in pressure. These health effects would not be because the water is unfit to drink, but possibly due to inappropriate measures being undertaken by customers, particularly relating to a limited general understanding of food and water hygiene. Likely problems are: • Use of non-potable water for drinking, cooking, food preparation and dishwashing. This includes inappropriate use of roof-collected rainwater; • Relaxation of frequency and adequacy of hand washing; • Excessive conservation measures voluntarily being taken. It is envisaged that control of these issues will be achieved primarily by education, with emphasis on groups such as the elderly and schools, and in commercial premises by monitoring. The incident management team shall ensure that consumers are advised on health related issues. Mitigation measures may include: • Assisting in intensive public education on differentiating between potable and non-potable water in respect to use and storage; • Assisting in intensive public education on the maintenance of hygiene when water is scarce.

5.2 Water Savings

5.2.1 Specific Commercial/Industrial users - Voluntary Savings The incident management team might consider targeting specific commercial/industrial water users in an education programme of voluntary savings. The education programme might be part of the unified communications campaign. Tips for water saving measures would target specific users such as: • Commercial Car Washing facilities. • Commercial Kitchens / Restaurants & Hotels/Motels (dishwashers) • Laundries/Laundromats • Commercial Swimming pools/spas • Industrial process washing and rinsing

Auckland Drought Management Plan

5.2.2 Council Self-Imposed Restrictions Public cooperation with voluntary savings will have a greater chance of success if Watercare and Auckland Council lead by example. The Auckland Council should consider directing staff to make an immediate reduction in water use at city facilities. Such measures might include: • Landscape irrigation reduced, including park and golf course irrigation. • Leak detection and repair program augmented (start with water audits on Council buildings, then target top 100 water users). • Ornamental fountains turned off. • Reduced cleaning of vehicles and facilities. • Reduced flushing of streets, sewers, and storm drains. • Restricting use of fire hydrants except for fire fighting.

5.2.3 Engaging the Services of Other City Agencies The incident management team might also consider consultation with other City Agencies to encourage their support. Considerations might include: • Police Department - Assist in closing illegally opened hydrants. • Housing Authorities - Request plumbing leak surveys. • Auckland Transport - Request fleet washing cutback. • Ministry of Education - Initiate student water conservation education program.

5.2.4 Encouraging Commercial/Industrial Cooperation The voluntary stage of water savings is a good time to encourage cooperation from major commercial and industrial users of water. The incident management team might consider ways of approaching these major users to encourage them to prepare a water consumption reduction plan, enabling each to reduce its water in stages based upon its average water consumption during the previous calendar year.

5.2.5 Implementation of Restrictions

If all of the council’s efforts in using the voluntary management options outlined previously consistently fail to reduce demand, and storage levels and inflows are trending below the target, then mandatory management options will need to be introduced. Forward looking projections of storage response are an integral part of short term planning during a drought. Projections assist to anticipate the “likely” response based on current climatic conditions.

5.2.6 Mandatory Savings Measures Restrictions generally apply to all properties connected to municipal water reticulation, almost all of which will be connected to a public sewerage system. It also applies to anyone taking water from the water reticulation system, such as tanker operators taking water for self-serviced properties, construction activities, etc. In situations where public health and/or safety are potentially at risk, including firefighting, restrictions will not apply. Use of recycled water and water from other private sources, such as rainwater tanks, is not under the control of local government bodies and will therefore not be restricted. Wherever recycled water or water from private sources is used, approved signage has to be displayed by those users.

Auckland Drought Management Plan

During any event, the restrictions will need to be reviewed, confirmed, added to or modified over time based on the effectiveness in bringing about reductions in water consumption. It should be noted that Stage 4 restrictions are regarded as an emergency situation and should be viewed as a last resort to be avoided at almost all costs owing to the deleterious effects that they could have on public health and safety and on the economy.

5.2.7 Water Tanks The use of water from water storage tanks is unrestricted as long as the tank is not also connected to mains supply (some water tanks have the option of topping up with mains water when the water level in the tank gets too low – in these cases, water usage restrictions shall apply). However, levels 2 and 3 ask of households on rainwater tanks not connected to the network to follow the same restrictions as households solely supplied by the network.

5.2.8 Water Supply Augmentation – contingency plan Alternative water supplies need to be considered and the list of alternative sources should be reviewed and updated as required.

5.2.9 Standpipes Should the drought worsen and total storage reach the 15% reserve storage level, then the following steps will be used to effect standpipe collection: • Standpipes will be installed on critical mains and will be located near public places; • The public shall be notified of the location of standpipe facilities on the isolated distribution mains. • All users of dialysis and other medical equipment dependent on the water supply shall be notified and systems put in place for alternate methods of a consistent potable water supply.

5.2.10 Policing During the droughts in Australia, 2003-2010, it was found that for outdoor use, neighbours police each other and report transgressions. This may be followed up by visits from Council representatives and eventually the issuing of fines. For indoor use policing may not be possible except through inspection of water bills to assess total average use per household. High use households may be visited by Council/Watercare staff to advise occupants on how to save water. This may not be practical unless more frequent water meter readings are implemented to replace the normal schedule.

Auckland Drought Management Plan

6. Communications The primary purpose of a communications campaign is to give consumers ownership of the situation and the appropriate solutions so that they can contribute to achieving the desired savings. Savings through imposing restrictions will only work if the community is aware of them and implement them. The responsibilities of the Communications Group are covered in the IMP and will include the following: • Key Authorities and Groups It will be necessary to conduct and record discussions between the key public authorities and groups from the early stages of drought prediction through until the final response stages • Key and strategic Customers Ensure key and strategic customers are identified and their requirements fully documented, so they are protected in the event of a drought. Strategic and key customers are those more affected than most others by a reduction in the quality and/or quantity of water, including: • residential customers such as dialysis patients; • commercial customers including hospitals, mortuaries, hotels etc., where the continuous supply of water is critical to their normal operations and where those operations have a direct interest in maintaining a healthy community; • commercial and industrial customers who normally would consume significant quantities of water and would be expected to make considerable changes to their normal activities in order to achieve the desired savings (this group often needs more time to prepare). • The public, to ensure that they: • take ownership of water savings; • are informed of the drought situation; • know what they are required to do following the introduction of any restrictions included in this plan; and • know how to reduce water use.

Auckland Drought Management Plan

7. Recovery, Close-out and review

The incident management team will decide when steps can be taken to alleviate consumer consumption restriction. Alleviation will take place in accordance with total system storage reaching the trigger levels in

Figure 1: Drought Response Trigger Levels. The introduction and removal of water restrictions is an exercise in public relations, and it is important to minimise the frequency (where practicable) in which restrictions are introduced and removed so that the messages sent to the community are clear and do not become confused. Therefore, the key issues to be evaluated when removing restrictions include: • the time of year and therefore the effectiveness of removing restrictions; • the short term climatic outlook; • community acceptance of restrictions; and • the likelihood that restrictions will have to be reintroduced over the subsequent months. A risk based approach is preferred when evaluating whether to remove restrictions, with the likelihood of having to re-introduce restrictions over a pre-defined short term period being the key performance measure. When the end to the drought event is declared by the incident management team, a full debrief will be conducted to review the overall success of the drought savings measures; The incident management team shall ensure the following activities are conducted at the end of the drought: • inform all customers that all water restrictions have been removed (formal declaration via the communications coordinator); • produce a review report of the execution of the drought management plan so lessons learned can be documented and the DMP updated accordingly

Auckland Drought Management Plan

Actions to be considered after a drought has occurred are summarised below. These include evaluating the appropriateness of the DMP trigger levels, the effectiveness of demand reduction and emergency supply augmentation options and the effectiveness of each level of restriction:

Table 4: Assessment of Trigger Level Response and Success

Evaluate Trigger Levels and Associated Actions

Trigger Point Description Assessment Procedure Link

Voluntary Voluntary Was the community responsive? Trigger Demand Was there a significant reduction in demand? Reduction

Was the trigger level appropriate?

Stages 1-3 Water Was the expected reduction in demand achieved for each stage? Restrictions Were the trigger levels appropriate?

Were policing methods effective; if so, how?

15% Reserve Implement other To what level was demand reduced? Storage emergency What was the cost and practicality of carting water if undertaken? supply options Were individual emergency options implemented too late?

T The table below summarises the assessment procedure for evaluating the impact of restrictions applied to customers, authority staff and supply systems. The intention is to learn from the methodologies that have been applied in order to minimise any future incidents of this nature.

Table 5: Assessment of Impact of Restrictions

Evaluate the Impact of Restrictions

Users Assessment Procedure • Were the restrictions too severe? End Users • Was the right mix of media used to disseminate information? • Was there enough warning of impending drought? If not, how could it be improved?

• Were there any reported environmental impacts? Environmental • Were they assessed? • What methods have been put into place to rectify any environmental effects?

Auckland Drought Management Plan

• Were many instances reported of restriction violations? Authority Staff • Was it possible to effectively enforce the restriction policy? • Was there sufficient staff available to monitor system performance?

• Did restrictions achieve expected levels of water savings? Supply Systems • Have supply systems been replenished? If so, how long did it take to achieve this level? • What procedures were put in place to achieve this?

Auckland Drought Management Plan

Appendix 1: Augmentation of Water Supplies In case of extreme drought conditions, augmentation of water supplies may be needed. The following information was initially gathered during the 1994 Auckland Drought and this list should be reviewed annually to ensure the information is current and complete. Since the ’94 drought, one major water supply have been added, the Waikato River. During the 1994 drought, Watercare Services Limited commissioned the following sources of bulk potable water: Source Annual Average Yield Papatoetoe Aquifer 500 m3/d Hays Creek Dam 6000 – 8000 m3/d The following sources also need to be investigated to determine their potential, in terms of quality, quantity, cost and logistics: Orewa River Weiti River Karamatura Stream Wairau Creek Lake Pupuke Papakura Stream Opanuku Stream Oratia Stream Lower Mangatawhiri Mt Wellington Quarry Heritage Park Desalination Western Springs Pigeon Mountain Roof water tanks Mangere Mountain Okura Stream Sewage re-use Hunua Stream Swanson Stream

The following area-specific water sources were investigated during the 1994 drought: Auckland: Source Yield m3/d Potable potential Western Springs 8000 – 12000 Yes Three Kings 3000 – 6500 Yes Heritage Park 2500 – 10000 Yes Lunn Avenue 2000 No Southpark 2000 – 3500 Yes Fisher Crescent 1700 Yes North Shore: (numerous bores in the area) Lake Pupuke Unknown Unknown Paremoremo Prison bore 75% of prison water requirement Unknown Papakura District: Three bores 2500 m3/d (per bore) Yes Waitakere: Some small lakes Unknown Unknown Opnanuku and Oratia stream Unknown Unknown