The total charge (authorised and calculated according to Section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991) is based on three components:
1. A fixed (uniform) charge that applies to all affected consents; and
2. The zone variable charge calculated either with reference to the actual (or deemed) weekly volume authorised by your water take consent or the Pollution Index score attributed to your discharge consent;
3. A subsidy (or credit) attributable to your consent. This part of your total charge will be funded from Council’s Sale of Land (Non Investment) Account as part of Council’s decision to phase-in or buffer the impact of these charges. Council has allocated $87,000 per year for the next five years (up to 2014/15) for this purpose.
A detailed description of these calculations for each zone is described below.
The Council acknowledges that the introduction of these Water Science charges increases our accountability to consent holders. Council will be organising regular, targeted consultation with consent holders through zone-based water user groups and annual forums.
Council will also let consent holders know about the ongoing Water Science work programmes through our regular region-wide newspaper, in local newspapers, and by publishing associated technical reports on our website for your information and use
HBRC has undertaken four investigation and five monitoring water science projects in 2010/11. As part of the process of establishing whether a proportion of these costs could be justifiably allocated to consent holders, these projects were further segmented into 26 sub projects and reviewed on that basis. An appropriate consent holder allocation for each sub project was determined following careful consideration in accordance to the requirements outlined in the Resource Management Act. Some sub projects attracted a consent holder allocation higher than 35% whereas other sub projects were allocated lesser percentages (some sub projects attracted no consent holder allocation at all).
As a result of this analysis, HBRC allocated 65% (weighted average) of the Section 36 water charges to general funding sources. This allocation recognises the wider direct/indirect economic and other benefits members of the general community obtain from HBRC’s monitoring and investigation programmes. We have established that some programmes have been implemented to address the cumulative effects of consent holder activities. We have also identified situations where consent holders obtain a distinct benefit from these water management programmes. In the circumstances, HBRC allocated 35% (weighted average across all projects) of the monitoring charges to consent holders.
Twenty percent of the determined 35% consent holder allocation (being 7%) was distributed uniformly amongst all consent holders irrespective of the zone in which they are located and represented a charge of approximately $58 per consent. This mode of allocation recognises that there are some costs that can be attributed to all consent holders irrespective of the size of take or nature of discharge. The balance of the consent holder allocation (being 28%) was distributed using the zone based methodology described below and is referred to as the “variable charge”.
Different consent holder classes may obtain different degrees of benefit from the activities conducted via the 26 water science sub projects carried out by HBRC. Alternatively, the particular sub project may be occasioned more by the effects or actions of one class of consent holder than another. In order to ensure that these differential effects were incorporated into the analysis, we have distributed the overall sub project consent holder allocation amongst five primary categories of consent holder (ground water, surface water, discharges to land, discharges to water and hydro). This process allowed us to attribute benefits/costs in a more detailed manner than would otherwise be the case. For example, if a project primarily benefited surface water consent holders and provided very minor benefits to ground water consents, this characteristic would be reflected in the cost allocation made to each of the designated consent classes.
Under this approach the region was divided into seven freshwater management zones. Where specific work is concentrated in a zone the costs associated with the planned programme of work can then be allocated in a focused manner to consent holders located in that zone. This more effectively prevents consent holders that do not benefit from or cause water science programme work being levied with charges for those activities. In addition, consent holders will more clearly be able link the Water Science programme work being undertaken by Council in their zones with the Section 36 charge attributed to them.
A variety of allocation “keys” are established and applied to different projects in a way that would be consistent with the requirements of S36 and achieve an equitable zone-based allocation of costs. In contrast, some investigation were carried out in specific zones and did not warrant the use of an allocation key. Instead, these costs were directly attributed with the zones in which they were incurred.
Once the s36 water science costs had been allocated across the different consent holder classes and zones, they were then distributed to individual consent holders within those zones.
The consented (or alternatively deemed) weekly volume associated with each individual water take was established and the total weekly consented volume for each class of consent in each zone was also determined. The quotient of these two values provides the percentage cost allocated to each water take consent. For example, a surface water consent X located in Zone 4 has a weekly volume of 500m3. The total weekly volume of all surface water consents in Zone 4 amount to 100,000m3. The quotient of 500 divided by 100,000 multiplied by the total surface water charges applicable to zone 4 provides the charge attributed to consent X. The adoption of this methodology will invariably result in a different charge per cubic meter of consented water for each type of consent category when compared across all zones.
A pollution index (PI) was established that associated every discharge consent with an attribute score. The implementation of this index resulted in a cost allocation that achieved a relatively higher distribution of charges to those consents that exhibit a higher attribute rating. The PI is based on the potential a given activity has to adversely affect the aquatic environment.
Discharges of contaminants can cause different types of adverse environmental effects. The proposed PI encompasses four individual scores corresponding to four types of potential effects:
- Eutrophication, i.e. the effects associated with nutrient enrichment, such as algae proliferations
- Faecal contamination of the water and associated health risk for water users (swimming, shellfish gathering, etc.)
- Effects associated with the discharge of sediments, including effects on water clarity and colour and the accumulation of fine sediment on the stream beds
- Toxic effects associated with the discharge of toxicants, such as ammonia, heavy metals, pesticides, etc.
The final PI score for each individual consent is a weighted average of the four individual scores above.
Once a PI score has been determined for each Discharge to Land consent, the combined total PI score for all Discharges to Land consents in each zone is then calculated. Each individual discharge consent PI score is divided by total discharge PI score for the zone in which it is located. This provides the percentage of zone cost to be assumed by the affected discharge consent. For example, a discharge to land consent Y located in Zone 5 has a PI score of 2. The total PI score of all discharge to land consents in zone 5 is 300. The quotient of 2 divided by 300 multiplied by the total discharge to land charges applicable to zone 5 provides the charge attributed to consent Y.
The same approach is applied with respect to discharge to water consents.
Key Elements/Exceptions Underpinning the Zone Based Methodology
Frost protection consents do not have weekly volumes so a deemed weekly take is calculated for these consents. This equates to an estimated annual usage of 5 days or a usage of approximately 7 hours per week during the 4 month frost season. This usage estimate recognizes the limited circumstances and period over which this consent can be used.
Damfill consents that have a frost protection purpose are treated in the same way as frost protection consents. However, if a frost consent has both a irrigation and frost protection purpose, a hybrid approach is taken in calculating the weekly volume (50% frost; 50% irrigation). If a damfill consent has purely an irrigation purpose then it is treated in the same manner as an irrigation consent.
The consented/deemed weekly volume irrigation component of damfill consents that are subject to low flow cessation conditions are discounted by 25%. This measure reflects the lower environmental impacts associated with these takes.
The shingle washing consent weekly volume is discounted by 80%. This measure reflects the predominately non consumptive characteristics of these consents.
Consents relating to the discharge of primary or secondary treated effluent that originate from a single residential dwelling are excluded from the Water Science charging regime.
Surface water depleting consents
Consents classified as “surface water depleting” by HBRC are treated in a hybrid manner for charging purposes (75% groundwater/25% surface water).
Some consents have been authorised by HBRC but can only be utilised on the surrender of another consent. The former consents only become subject to the water science charging regime upon the surrender of the latter consent.
Consents that share a defined volume of water will cumulatively attract a water science charge that recognizes (but does not duplicate) this total entitlement.
Discharge to land consents
The Zone 2 (Mohaka) discharge to land consent pollution index has been adjusted (recognizing the exacerbation effect of dairy herd numbers) to more accurately and equitably allocate costs to sources from which they are occasioned.
Discharges that are exercised once and for a very short period and which have no or negligible environmental impact are excluded from the charging regime.
Discharges and takes that are for no other purpose than improving the environment, for example creating a wetland or augmenting a stream flow are excluded from the charging regime, one consent has been excluded under this rule for the 2010/2011 financial year.