Tukituki Questions

Questions asked about the Tukituki

The following questions were raised during this presentation. Please click on the question topic to view the questions and answers.

From Tom Belford

Water Quality

National Surface Water Quality Standards

1. Is there a national set of surface water quality standards for N.Z.'s rivers and lakes? If yes, what do they protect against and where can they be found? If no, what standards then do apply in a region like Hawke's Bay? How rigorous are our standards compared with OECD or other pertinent standards?

There are no national standards; however, New Zealand and Australia have guidelines (ANZECC 2000) which are based on international and national research. Due to the paucity of specific freshwater ecological information, a reliance is based on overseas studies.

The Regional Resource Management Plan contains target guidelines for a number of rivers for the purposes of protecting aquatic ecosystems and contact recreation where appropriate. These guidelines apply at median flows and after 'reasonable mixing' so applying these guidelines is not a straightforward process.

Contaminants Monitoring

2. Do we know whether there are contaminants in our underground waters in Hawke's Bay? What monitoring of this threat occurs today?

The State of the Environment monitoring programme includes groundwater monitoring for a number of determinands (major anion and cations) including nitrates, E.Coli and TOC. This is done either four times or two times per year depending on depth to groundwater and recent sampling frequency analysis. Monitoring to date indicates that the aquifers are generally of high quality. The current monitoring programme dates back to 1996 although it has recently been reviewed to identify optimum frequency of testing and spatial distribution of sites. Nitrate-Nitrogen levels for the SOE monitor sites do not exceed N.Z. Drinking Water Guidelines.

Responsibilities for Water Quality

3. Here in Hawke's Bay, what is the division of responsibility amongst various Councils and the District Health Board for protecting our water quality?

Regional Councils have overall responsibility for water management in New Zealand under the Resource Management Act (RMA). With the exception of taking water for stock drinking and domestic purposes and fire fighting purposes, the RMA restricts the taking of water unless it is a permitted activity in a regional plan or has a resource consent. The RMA also restricts discharges of contaminants into water unless it is permitted in a regional plan or has a resource consent.

District Councils under the RMA are responsible for controlling the effects of land use which they do via the District Plans. District Plans generally do not cover water quality issues but for particularly sensitive areas, district plans can identify water quality effects that may arise from land use activities and can place some controls on that land use. However, it is generally left to Regional Councils as the authority with the direct mandate.

There are also National Environmental Standards for Drinking Source Water which District Councils need to comply with for their public water supplies and which Regional Council needs to comply with for their public water supplies, and which Regional Council need to take into account when processing discharge consents in catchment with community water takes.

District Health Boards, through their Public Health Units, have an advocacy role in terms of the RMA, including the National Environmental Standards.

The District Health Board and the Regional Council jointly monitor for recreational water quality and the District Health Board is responsible for notifying the public when recreation water quality guidelines are breached.

Procedures for Monitoring Water Quality

4. Explain the procedures followed to monitor water quality in the Tukituki.

a. What effluents or pollutants are measured?

There are three different monitoring programmes for different purposes. The State of the Environment programme is designed to give an indication of baseline water quality and changes over time so the parameters analysed are indicators of water quality. They are sampled monthly for chemical, microbiological and physical tests and annually for ecological monitoring. The indicators include:

Physical tests: pH, electrical conductivity, turbidity, suspended solids concentration, CO, Black Disc, Temperature.

Chemical tests: HC03, C03, TOC, N03, TKN, NH3, TIN, Mg, Ca, TP, SRP, Alk, HDT

Biological/ecological tests: Dominant algae taxa, Chlorophyl a, AFDW, Macroinvertebrate diversity and density (kick net method), E.Coli

The Recreation Water Quality monitoring is carried out weekly over the summer period. The samples are tested for E.Coli in freshwater and Enterococci in marine waters. Results are assessed against the national guidelines for recreational water quality.

Consent monitoring is undertaken monthly of the effluent discharges and at upstream and downstream sites. They are tested for microbiological parameters (faecal coliforms and E coli), level of organic matter (Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Suspended Solids) and nutrients (nitrate and phosphorus parameters).

b. Does this include industrial pollutants?

No. The level of industrial pollutants is small in comparison to sewage. The District Council requires industrial effluents to meet certain standards before accepting the effluent into the reticulated network and this requires some pre-treatment.

c. Where and how often are samples taken?

See above. The presentation contains a map showing the location of the sampling sites.

d. Why are measurements no longer taken directly below the discharge points from CHB treatment ponds into the Tukituki?

As part of the consent requirements, samples are taken 50 metres upstream of the discharge point into the Tukituki and Waipawa Rivers and 400 metres downstream of the discharge point. They are sampled monthly.

The Resource Management Act includes the concept of 'after reasonable mixing' and this is incorporated into the Regional plan and resource consent. It is defined in the plan for different water body types and can also be defined as part of the consent process. Taking a sample within this mixing zone would not provide any meaningful data. It is the quality at the edge of the mixing zone that is important.

e. How can the public access monitoring information?

The information is public information and can be made available on request.

CHB District Council discharge consents

5. How many times in the latest available reporting periods has the CHB District Council violated its resource consent governing allowable discharges into the Tukituki? How are such violations discovered?

Since January 2007, the BOD levels in the effluent samples from the Waipukurau, Waipawa and Otane oxidation ponds have been in compliance. There were a small number of exceedances of Suspended Solids which can be related to algal blooms within the pond itself.

CHBDC report these results monthly to the Council. The sampling is audited by HBRC staff and the samples are analysed in an independent accredited Laboratory.

There have been some issues with the volume of discharge being exceeded, and the return of data. Abatement notices were used to rectify this situation and all ponds are now telemetered.

Pollutant levels availability

6. Is there readily available to the public, a published list of current pollutant levels in the Tukituki and other HB rivers, compared to pertinent existing standards? If not, why not?

The HBRC website (www.hbrc.govt.nz) contains water quality monitoring results for groundwater in the region and the recreational water quality programme. It does not currently list the water quality results for the State of the Environment monitoring and we will investigate whether this can be done.

The Annual and 5 yearly State of the Environment Reports are readily available in hard copy and provide good summary information and case studies.

Water quality data within standards

7. What do the most recent water quality measurements tell us about the quality of Tukituki water today? Specifically, which pollutants are most problematic? And which are comfortably within relevant standards?

The most recent water quality measurements confirm that the water quality of the Tukituki Rivers is comparable to the water quality expected in braided gravel rivers. It can be expected that water quality will decrease during high flood flow events which may have resulted in the sediment and nutrient laden runoff entering the river. It also can be expected that during prolonged low flows where temperatures increase, that aquatic plant growths will occur. The discharge of effluent containing nutrients such as nitrates and phosphates can put the river at risk of excessive algal growth. Phosphorus is a contaminant in sewage effluent, derived from household detergents, and is one of the main contaminants that CHBDC is required to reduce in the upgrade.

Greatest threats

8. What are the greatest threats to Tukituki water quality today and looking forward? Do we have the necessary monitoring, regulatory and enforcement programs in place to protect against these threats?

A number of factors can impact on water quality including land use intensification, increasing water use, new discharges, and changes in climate patterns.

The Regional Resource Management Plan contains an adequate regulatory regime for controlling point source discharges.

It also contains a minimum flow and allocatable volume regime designed to protect the life sustaining capacity of the water bodies. The allocatable volume regime that was put in place did result in the resource being 'over allocated' based on the existing takes. In addition, new scientific information indicates that we need to review the minimum flow levels.

There is also the surface water – groundwater interaction that we do not yet know enough about. Significant challenges are facing the Council in light of the potential land use intensification and water demand in the Ruataniwha Plains area and the current information gaps.

From a land management perspective, Council has a number of current initiatives to help farmers avoid or minimise diffuse runoff from their properties. These include soil conservation programmes, farm plans, riparian protection and wetland enhancement and minimum tillage techniques.

3 steps to improve Tukituki

9. What are the three most important steps that can be taken to improve water quality in the Tukituki? Are we taking those steps today? Could we intensify or accelerate these efforts?

1. Improve the quality of the main point source discharges. The CHBDC consents for Waipukurau and Waipawa contain a date by which the effluent treatment must be upgraded to meet a higher quality. That date is 30 September 2014. The District Council is required to make a decision on the proposed upgrade by December 2008 and is not restricted from implementing the upgrade earlier than 2014. It will, however, be a question of affordability for the CHB district ratepayers.

2. Improve land and riparian management to minimise sediment and nutrient discharges. The Council has an extensive land management programme designed around keeping soil on the land and encourage riparian and wetland enhancement.

3. Increase community awareness of water's intrinsic values and how they can make a difference through using environmentally friendly products, being involved in the Regional plan process etc.

Water Supply

Measuring water use

1. Now, what about water supply? Is anyone responsible for measuring water use by residential, industrial/business, or farming/agricultural/horticultural users?

The Regional Resource Management Plan contains a requirement for the surface water takes, and groundwater takes over a certain volume to be measured and the results forwarded to the Council. All public water supply takes and most industrial takes are already metered.

The Ministry for the Environment is working on a National Environmental Standard for water metering. Early indications are that all consented water take will be required to be metered.

Water allocation

2. Who and what factors determine the limits or allotments on the amount of water various users can take from rivers and streams? How are these limits enforced?

The Regional Resource Management Plan contains policy requiring applicants applying for water to demonstrate the need for the water. For irrigation, the Council has a crop water allocation methodology to determine water needs. This is currently being refined but is based on rainfall and potential evapotranspiration rates.

Percentage of Tukituki water allocated

3. What percentage of available water from the Tukituki is presently allocated? Does this vary at different portions of the river?

Based on the current alocatable volumes, most of the tributaries of the Tukituki and Waipawa rivers above the confluence are over allocated to existing surface water takes. Water is still available in the lower Tukituki area. These existing takes expired in 2004 and are still going through the consent process. No decisions have yet been issued.

Limits on aquifer takes

4. Are there any limits on the amount of water various users can draw from underground aquifers? If so, who and what determines the limits and how are they enforced?

The Regional Resource Management Plan does not contain any aquifer limits and this has already been highlighted as an area of work that needs to be done. As a rule of thumb, 15% of the annual average recharge has been used by other Councils in absence of more detailed knowledge about the aquifer. The Ministry for the Environment is preparing a National Environmental Standard which is expected to contain methodology for Councils to use to determine aquifer limits. A draft is expected this year.

Levels in aquifers

5. Seasonal variations aside, are diminished water flows in rivers like the Tukituki not a good indicator that aquifers might be excessively depleted or over-used?

Not necessarily. Once bans are in place for consents subject to minimum flows and taking stops, the flow you are seeing is the naturally occurring flow. The consented takes do have the impact of reducing flows to a lower level for longer but that is why there is a set volume to be allocated; it allows the flushes to go through the system.
We know that taking groundwater from the Ruataniwha Basin has the potential to reduce the outflows into the Tukituki and Waipawa Rivers but we do not know enough yet to understand that interaction. Investigations are planned to find those answers.

Determining water availability for urban takes, eg Ocean Beach

6. How would it be determined if sufficient water supply exists in the Tukituki or elsewhere in the Hastings District to support the development of a small city at Ocean Beach?

It is for the developer to demonstrate the volume of water needed and to assess that need against available water, where an allocatable volume has been set. In the lower Tukituki River there is still water available for allocation. If the source was groundwater, there would be a requirement for a comprehensive assessment of environment effects to demonstrate the effects of the take on other users and the resource itself.

Water supply projections

7. Has any authority prepared any kind of future projection – say looking 10 or 20 years out – of water supply and demand in Hawke's Bay? If so, where can those projections be found and what do they tell us?

It has not been done on a comprehensive scale. District Councils would do it as part of their growth strategies and asset management. The Regional Council has looked at the potential irrigable area in the Ruataniwha Plains. It is work that needs to be done and will be included in the regional scenarios/strategic planning process.

Water conservation

8. What measures are in place today to: a) encourage, or b) require water conservation by various user categories?

The District Councils, as public water supply managers, do implement water demand strategies and campaigns to avoid or minimise wastage in the urban communities. More recently, these have been incorporated into conditions of resource consents.

As part of the land management programmes, the Regional Council works closely with the irrigation industry to increase the efficiency of the water use, as well as with the horticultural industry to better determine crop water requirements and need.

For many industries, high water use means high wastewater flow. High wastewater flows can mean high costs to discharge into a reticulated sewerage system, or larger treatment plant capacity. So there is incentive to reduce the amount of water used in processing.

From – Angie Denby

Minimum flows

Have there been any discussions about lowering the minimum flow requirements for the Tukituki River?

As part of the settlement of appeals to the RRMP, the Council agreed to review the minimum flows for the Tukituki River in light of new information regarding the methodology that was used to determine the minimum flows. There has been no discussion about lowering the minimum flows.

From Doug Culpan

CHB District Council Sewage Treatment

When is the sewage treatment plant to be upgraded?

No later than 30 September 2014.

How badly polluted does the river have to be before warning signs are erected?

Warning signs are already erected where public have access to the Tukituki and Waipawa Rivers up to a 1km downstream of the discharge point into the main rivers.

Is there a pollution monitoring plant close to but downstream from the treatment plant?

There is a monitoring site 400 metres downstream of the discharges into the Tukituki and Waipawa Rivers as required by the consents.

Water flows

What steps are being taken to keep a decent flow of water in this river system?

The Allocatable Volume / minimum flow regime in the Regional Resource Management Plan is designed to maintain flows that will support aquatic ecosystems. However, the methodology used to set the minimum flow is to be reviewed, given new information.

From Mike Lusk (paraphrased)

Access to stock

Are there plans to reduce or preferably stop free access to the river for cattle and sheep between Rochfort Road and Camp David?

The Council uses non-regulatory methods to encourage farmers to fence off riparian margins and to minimise the amount of grazing that does occur on river berms. However, the Council does recognise that these areas do need to be managed for fire risk as well as for flood control purposes.

National comparison

How meaningful is the comparison of Tukituki water quality with other New Zealand rivers?

The comparison is relevant to put it into a national context only. What is more important is the Regional community's aspirations for its rivers. The Regional Plan contains target guidelines to improve water quality over the period of the plan (10 years). The consent is issued to CHBDC with a requirement to upgrade reflects those target guidelines.

From Selwyn June

Council infilling

Does the Regional Council have a consent for the rubbish dump (stumps and some domestic rubbish) below Black Bridge? Does the Regional Council have a consent for infilling the riverbed at this site?

The disposal of stumps, and timber in that area falls under Rule 47 of the RRMP which permits certain discharges to water. The infilling is permitted under another rule which covers local authorities drainage and flood control responsibilities. Its proximity to the stopbank in that area is the reason it needs to be filled.

The disposal of domestic refuse is certainly not permitted and is a constant problem for the Regional Council on the river berm lands. Staff will attend to the small amount of rubbish when they are next in the area.

From Jon Beck (paraphrased)

Agricultural impacts

Would expanding farming and grape growing activities not deplete our resources and contribute to a less pure and healthy flow of the river as we witnessed and enjoyed in years gone past?

Increased agricultural activity with high water demand does have the potential to impact on our water resources. It is for this reason that the Council first established minimum flows (1980's-90's) and then included a maximum allocatable volume in the Regional Plan.

From David Renouf (paraphrased)

Oxidation pond

What is the distance it is safe to swim below the monitoring site ID17 Tukituki River upstream Waipukurau oxidation pond @ SH2 bridge?

The consent gives a guide as to a safe distance in that signage is required for public access site sup to one kilometre downstream of the discharge point.

Classification relevance

Why is there no Third Schedule Water Quality Classes protection on the Tukituki River?

There is no requirement in the RMA which requires Regional Councils to classify any particular waters. If waters are not classified, the standards in the Third Schedule are not relevant.

However, the Regional Resource Management Plan does aim to protect water bodies for aquatic ecosystems and contact recreation in some cases.

Nitrate limits

Does the nitrate concentration in the shallow groundwater in the southern zone of the Ruataniwha Plains still exceed WHO limits in some locations?

The State of the Environment monitoring bores does not show any exceedances of the WHO limit for nitrate. However, there may be some shallow wells (less than 10 metres depth) that may be impacted from the land use in the immediate vicinity. What the water is used for is also relevant as the WHO limits for nitrate only apply to drinking water.

Tukituki Questions

Questions asked about the Tukituki

Raised by Tom Belford

Raised by Angie Denby

Raised by Doug Culpan

Raised by Mike Lusk (paraphrased)

Raised by Selwyn June

Raised by Jon Beck (paraphrased)

Raised by David Renouf (paraphrased)