2. Consideration of Alternatives

Four scenarios for the uptake of water-measuring devices by consented abstractors have been considered. These are:

• the status quo

• the proposed NES

• voluntary approaches and working with regional councils without regulation

• legislative change (via amendment of the RMA).

Each alternative is discussed below and assessed for its ability to meet the policy objectives.

2.1 Option 1: Status quo

Status of water-measuring devices in regional planning

The status quo scenario forms the basis of any cost−benefit analysis. The preliminary cost−benefit analysis conducted as part of the discussion document defined the status quo as:

... the water measurement regime in the absence of the proposed National Environment Standard, comprising:

• regional councils’ current and planned future policies on water measurement, including the obligations placed on consent holders
• consent holders’ current and future voluntary installation of meters and measurement of their water use for their own information. (Ministry for the Environment, 2006

Aqualinc’s stocktake of existing water-measuring devices suggests that there are 19,527 consented water takes nationally, of which 66 percent (or 12,850 takes) are unmeasured. This means that of an estimated total annual allocated volume of 9,908 million cubic metres, approximately 69 percent (6,800 million cubic metres) is not currently subject to measurement.³ The following table summarises the extent to which regional councils currently measure consented water take, along with any proposed measures to introduce measuring devices.

Table 3: Current status of water measurement by region

View current status of water measurement by region (large table).

Only three councils have implemented the universal measurement of consented water take. Aquilinc (2006b) note that “one of the reasons other councils have not implemented universal water measurement is that use monitoring is often not required on existing consents”. A further reason given during key informant interviews is that measuring actual water take may be unnecessary in situations where there is ample water resource to meet demand, and where consented take has little or no impact on the resource.

In many cases councils are planning to add the condition for the measurement of actual water take to new consents and upon consent replacement. This condition is unlikely to be universal, however, with smaller consented takes and catchments without prescribed allocative limits exempt from measurement. It is clear that even where councils have implemented − or propose to implement − measurement there is significant variation in the detail and extent to which the required accuracy and reporting standards for metering are prescribed, as well as significant variation in the conditions under which metering is required.

A further barrier to the uptake of water-measuring devices under the status quo stems from the fact that about 35 percent of consents have a replacement date of 20 years or more (see Figure 2). The majority (85 percent) of these long-term consents are in the Canterbury region.

Source: Ministry for the Environment’s consents database, compiled by Aqualinc (2006c)

Environment Canterbury (ECan) has initiated consent review processes that are likely to see measuring devices installed on consented takes in key aquifers within five years. ECan’s proposed Natural Resources Regional Plan (NRRP) includes the universal measurement of consented water takes. It is anticipated that this plan will be operative within five to six years, and that universal measurement of consented water takes will be achieved within 10 years of the plan becoming operational.⁴

Key informant interviews suggest that the voluntary installation of water-measuring devices is occurring ahead of consent requirements. The extent to which this is taking place is unknown, but it is not considered to be widespread and is unlikely to result in the consistent, accurate and comprehensive measurement of consented water take within the policy’s desired timeframe.

Table 4 summarises the advantages and disadvantages of the status quo, and Table 5 compares the status quo with the objectives of the proposed NES.

Table 4: Assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of the status quo option

Table 5: Assessment of the status quo against the objectives

The status quo appears unlikely to fulfil the policy objectives of consistent, accurate and comprehensive measurement of consented water take. Although the objectives might be achieved under the status quo, it appears highly unlikely they could be achieved within the policy’s stated timeframe of five years after the gazetting of the regulation. The status quo does, however, have the advantage of being low cost and requiring no new regulation.

2.2 Option 2: Introduce a national environmental standard

The proposed NES is concerned with ensuring that all consented water takes are subject to continuous measurement. The NES proposes that new consents will be immediately subject to the regulation, and that the measurement of existing consents will be achieved within five years of gazetting the regulation. It is also proposed that no consented water takes be exempt from the standard.

The requirements of the standard are given as follows.

Minimum requirements for water measuring devices

It is proposed that all new pipe-measuring devices installed after the National Environmental Standard is enacted:

• be capable of continuous measurement
• measure volume in cubic metres
• have an accuracy standard of ± 5%
• be capable of recording daily volume
• be fit for purpose
• be tamper-proof and sealed.

It is proposed that all new channel measuring devices installed after the National Environmental Standard is enacted:

• continuously measure water levels
• have a water level accuracy of ± 10mm
• maintain a rating curve to convert water levels to flow
• fit a data logger to store the water- level data.

Installation and maintenance requirements for water measuring devices

It is proposed that:

• installation of water measuring devices is required as a condition of a water take consent
• installation should strictly comply with the manufacturer’s installation instructions
• measuring devices should be installed as close as possible to the take point, and before the first outlet point
• the accuracy of all measuring devices must be independently verified every five years.

Data recording and transfer requirements for water measuring devices

It is proposed that:

• responsibility for recording the water measurement rests with the consent holder
• responsibility for transferring the data to the regional council rests with the consent holder and should occur on at least an annual basis
• data recording should occur at a minimum of daily intervals.

(Ministry for the Environment, 2006)

The Ministry for the Environment has provided clarification that data loggers are not required on piped or channel takes as long as the alternative recording system is capable of being audited and checked. They have also confirmed that the accuracy requirement for channel takes is now defined as 10 percent of flow.

The NES provides a relatively simple and effective way of introducing requirements for councils to add conditions to existing and new consents to ensure the consistent, accurate and comprehensive measurement of a water take. Table 6 summarises the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed NES, and Table 7 assesses its ability to meet the regulation’s objectives.

Table 6: Assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of the NES option

Table 7: Assessment of the proposed NES against the objectives

2.3 Option 3: National direction through voluntary approaches and working with regional councils without regulation

In this approach the Ministry for the Environment would work alongside regional and user groups to facilitate the measurement of consented water takes. A range of technical assistance would be offered, but there would be no compulsion for regions to implement a regime.

It is likely that this approach would be reasonably successful in that many councils already recognise the importance of measuring actual water take. However, funding constraints and differing priorities would mean that implementation was inconsistent throughout the country, and this option does not provide a clear mandate for councils to take action.

Table 8 summarise the advantages and disadvantages of voluntary approaches, and Table 9 compares these approaches with the objectives of the proposed NES.

Table 8: Assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of voluntary approaches and working with regional councils

Table 9: Assessment of voluntary approaches and working with regional councils against the objectives

2.4 Option 4: Legislative change – RMA amendment

The RMA could be amended to ensure the measurement of consented water take.

Section 35 of the Act gives a council the responsibility to monitor “the exercise of the resource consents that have effect in its region or district, as the case may be, – and take appropriate action (having regard to the methods available to it under this Act where this is shown to be necessary” (section 35(2)(d)). It is evident from Aqualinc’s (2006b) stocktake of water measuring that although councils are individually exercising this duty to a greater or lesser extent, the level of monitoring is not commensurate with the comprehensive measurement of consented water take envisaged in the proposed NES.

A variety of sections of the RMA could be amended to achieve comprehensive measurement of consented water take, such as section 108: Conditions of Resource Consents. An amendment to this section would have the effect of requiring water take consents to be subject to continuous measurement, with a schedule defining the required measurement and reporting standards. Such a change would inform new consents and affect existing consents at their replacement. It might also result in the need for changes to some regional plans, which can be an expensive and time-consuming process.

The legislative approach would elevate the need to measure consented water take to a special status. This would be somewhat anomalous, as the RMA does not specifically define the need or standards for the measurement of any other environmental services.

The RMA allows NES provisions to apply to existing consents. The nature of any regulation is not as clear under legislative change in terms of requiring existing consents to measure actual water take with any immediacy. This lack of clarity arises because it is unusual for legislative change to be applied retrospectively. Under this option, the timeframe envisaged by the proposed NES for achieving the consistent, accurate and comprehensive measurement of consented water take is unlikely to be achieved.

Table 10 summarises the advantages and disadvantages of legislative methods, and Table 11 compares these methods with the objectives of the proposed NES.

Table 10: Assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of the RMA amendment option

Alterations to legislation are likely to be more expensive and time-consuming than the NES option. However, altering the RMA may have the advantage that regional plans would need to be more specific in relation to defining the need and standards for measuring consented water take.

Table 11: Assessment of amendments to the RMA against objectives

2.5 Summary of options

It appears that, of the options discussed above, only the proposed NES is able to achieve the policy’s objectives. Of the other options outlined, a legislative amendment to the RMA comes closest to meeting the objectives of the proposed NES. However, it is likely that such amendment would take significantly longer to gazette.