DISCLAIMER: Water New Zealand reserves the right to accept or reject any editorial or advertising material submitted for publication. The opinions expressed in contributions to Water are not necessarily those of Water New Zealand. The information contained in this publication is given in good faith and has been derived from sources believed to be reliable and accurate. However, neither Water New Zealand, nor any person(s) involved in the preparation of this publication accept any form of liability whatsoever for its content including advertisements, editorials, opinions, advice or information. This extends to any consequences from its use. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or ink–jet printing without prior written permission of the publishers.
38 Weakening Atlantic currents could impact weather
40 Tackling South Dunedin’s flooding challenges
42 WAI conference report
44 From global fame to local success
46 Observations of stream restoration practices
48 30 26 46
– the global state of the science
will you call when there’s no water?
on-selling of freshwater
‘Ka
Navigating uncertainty
Tim Gibson President Water New Zealand
As I write this column, the US has just thrown a hand grenade into global trade in the form of tariffs. Of course, these are unpredictable times, to say the least, and things may have changed by the time this publication arrives on your desks. But as we stand now, this seismic shift will impact virtually every sector in every country.
As an industry, our members in the water sector are connected internationally through shared knowledge, business collaboration, and, of course, trade. So, along with the rest of the world, we’ll be taking stock as we navigate through the turbulence. It may be that uncertainty will continue to underpin much of the business environment for a little longer than we had anticipated.
We’ve just completed our third pulse survey on the state of the water sector and it’s not surprising that confidence remains subdued, with more respondents reporting feeling pessimistic, than optimistic, about the future. Again, high on the wish list is more certainty –political certainty, regulatory certainty, and certainty of funding.
We hope to see that call for certainty come to fruition after the select committee report back and eventual passing of the Local Government Water Services Bill later this year. If you’ve missed our submission, it’s available in the resources section of our website.
All council water suppliers will by now be well underway in developing Water Services Delivery Plans, and it’s good to see plenty of discussion around potential opportunities for collaboration across regional boundaries and the development of new council-controlled organisations (CCOs). The emerging pathway will become more certain as the legislation passes and the regulatory environment becomes more certain.
We’ve been working with the Commerce Commission to ensure that members have opportunities to better understand the impact of the new economic regulatory environment. This will also become more apparent as the bill is enacted.
One thing that is certain as the changes become embedded is that there will be ongoing need for a highly skilled and qualified workforce.
Our pulse survey revealed a slight increase in the number of respondents with active vacancies. The ability to compete with other sectors to attract new people into the water sector will be vital as growth picks up. We need to ensure that suitably qualified people are doing the mahi and that they get suitable recognition for their qualifications. A career pathway is vitally important.
Our chief executive, Gillian Blythe, has already been in conversation with Vocational Education Minister Penny Simmonds, and recently Gillian and I met with Local Government Minister Simon Watts. In both conversations we emphasised our view that the authorisation framework, ensuring that workers on the tools have the right skills, ought to be sped up to come into force by 2028, not 2031, as is currently proposed.
We also need to ensure we’re visible and that we are seen as a viable career option. This year, with financial support from the Infrastructure Education & Training Charitable Trust, we produced 14 videos that showcase the opportunities in the sector.
The videos will be available on the new national careers planning website, Tahatū, aimed at schools as well as learners of all ages. We would also encourage our members to use them in any recruiting programmes that you may have. We’re very pleased with the final product so I urge you to take a look. They’re on the careers development page of our website waternz.org.nz.
And finally, I’m hoping to see many of you at our Stormwater Conference in Rotorua. There’s a great line up of keynote speakers including the new Local Government Minister, Simon Watts. I’m sure we’ll all be keen to hear the latest from the Government.
The Stormwater Conference is one of the big events on our calendar and provides a key opportunity to connect with industry experts and discuss latest ideas and innovations in stormwater. So definitely an event not to be missed.
See you there.
Ngā mihi nui.
Tim Gibson President
10th IWA-ASPIRE CONFERENCE AND WATER NEW ZEALAND
CONFERENCE & EXPO
Christchurch Ōtautahi 29 September – 3 October 2025
Empowering Tomorrow — Smart
water solutions for resilient communities
Imagine a gathering like no other—a global event that brings together individuals to share, innovate, and inspire.
In an exciting new partnership, the International Water Association (IWA) and Water New Zealand are combining the bi-annual IWA ASPIRE Conference and annual Water New Zealand Conference & Expo into a single, landmark event: The 10th IWA-Aspire Conference and Water New Zealand Conference & Expo 2025.
This joint conference will provide a platform for international and Aotearoa New Zealand-based water professionals, practitioners, scientists and experts to meet around common themes.
10th IWA-ASPIRE
The programme will highlight areas where Aotearoa New Zealand has special expertise and knowledge to share – indigenous knowledge and approaches, and environmental sustainability.
ZEALAND CONFERENCE & EXPO
One ticket gets you access to all sessions
Christchurch Ōtautahi
There are separate key dates for IWA-ASPIRE and Water New Zealand Conference & Expo registrations, so please review them carefully.
29 September – 3 October 2025
Water New Zealand Conference & Expo 2025 — Save the date and get in early for a great deal – Earlybird registrations open on 6 June
www.waternzconference.org.nz
IWA-ASPIRE — see the draft programme on the website www.iwaaspire2025.org
Subdued business outlook remains
Water New Zealand’s third pulse survey on the state of the water sector indicates that the outlook continues to be very subdued, with more respondents feeling pessimistic than optimistic.
This is our third survey to gather accurate information and insights about business confidence, workforce capacity, the status of projects and future contracts, and actions that could be taken to support the sector. This survey took place in March 2025 and follows two previous surveys; the first in March 2024 in conjunction with ACE NZ and a following survey in November 2024.
Overall, more respondents reported to continue feeling pessimistic rather than optimistic about the future, with around 73 percent either neutral, fairly pessimistic, or pessimistic.
However, there was a slight shift towards more optimism than in our November survey, and a significant improvement on a year ago, with the
overall proportion of participants who felt there was some or significant improvement in business confidence rising from 10 to 27 percent.
Vacancies and contracts
The survey indicated that there was a slight increase in the number of organisations with active vacancies. Fifty-five percent of organisations indicated they had vacant positions, up from 47 percent six months ago. Combining this with business confidence and conditions, this is an indication that business is slowly improving.
However, risks remain. The total number of contracts issued in the previous six months was down to a quarter of the contracts issued in November.
We found nearly one fifth of contracts fell in the ‘other’ category, which suggested that much attention is focusing on water service delivery arrangements, rather than capital works. To have
confidence in the project pipeline, a significant uptick in projects related to capital work is needed.
The spending expectations of councils and council-controlled organisations appears more promising. Nine out of 11 council or councilcontrolled organisations that responded expected to increase their capital expenditure in the coming year, and seven expected to increase operational expenditure. Only one expected that capital expenditure would decrease, and none anticipated a decrease in operational expenditure.
The major call for the sector was for more certainty: political certainty, regulatory certainty, and certainty of funding were the three factors most commonly identified that would make a positive impact on businesses.
There were 59 respondents who completed the survey out of 336 targeted councils, suppliers and contractors. Go to our website for further details.
Celebrating World Water Day 2025
In South Waikato, this year’s World Water Day was a vibrant celebration, bringing together schools, community members, and industry leaders to reflect on the importance of water conservation and kaitiakitanga (guardianship).
The theme, ‘Wai Ora – Protecting Our Water for Future Generations’, emphasised the need to safeguard awa (rivers), roto (lakes), and aquifers for years to come. With increasing pressures on our water resources, it is more critical than ever to engage communities, educate young minds, and take meaningful action toward sustainable water management.
A key highlight of the event was the poster competition, where local schools and staff whānau showcased their creativity in expressing the importance of protecting wai.
A special mention goes to Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Te Hiringa, whose entries stood out for their artistic depth and environmental message. These tamariki are the future kaitiaki of our water, and their contributions were inspiring.
Thanks to sponsors Camex Civil, Tirau Earthmovers, Civtec, Streamline, and Xylem Water Solutions.
Blending western science and mātauranga Māori to restore waterways
Water New Zealand will be launching a short film showcasing how Auckland Council, local iwi (Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara, Te Uri o Hau and Ngāti Manuhiri), and landowners have been working together to improve the health of one of the country’s most damaged waterways.
The Kaipara harbour, bordering Northland and Auckland’s west coast, is one of the biggest inland harbours in the world. Yet it’s been under enormous pressure due to run-off from extreme land change, starting with deforestation dating back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
It’s estimated that around 700,000 tonnes of sediment and forestry slash continue to pour into the harbour each year. This has led to a myriad of complex environmental collapses including the depletion of aquatic plants and seagrasses, which have led to big impacts on fishing and kai harvesting. Seven years ago local iwi closed the Kaipara to shellfish gathering.
Now, as part of an ambitious project to restore the Kaipara harbour, the Hōteo Sediment Reduction Project is focused on reducing the level of erosion while also restoring biodiversity in the Hōteo River catchment and restoring the health of the harbour.
Auckland Council senior healthy waters specialist and co-chair of Water New Zealand’s
Te Ama | Aukaha te Wai special interest group Sarah Nolan has been working on the project for the past seven years.
She says its success has been due to the genuine partnership, collaboration, respect and goodwill between local iwi, landowners, and council, as well as the unique integration of western science and mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge).
The project is based on GEMS (Geomorphically Effective Management Solutions), an internationally well-established concept that responds to the natural environment using different mitigations and
working with the natural processes of the waterway rather than trying to control it.
Project members describe the Hōteo remediation as ‘living in two worlds’ and drawing the best from both science and mātauranga Māori. Both models look at restoration from a holistic approach and understand how the wider system, such as landuse, impacts the localised site being restored.
The film, produced by Water New Zealand and Auckland Council, will be screened at the Stormwater Conference on Thursday May 15, and will be followed by a panel discussion which will include iwi project members.
Hōteo River meets the Kaipara harbour
Māori resources added to website
Water New Zealand has added Rauemi - Te Ao Māori Resources, a dedicated hub on its website emphasising the significance of te ao Māori perspectives and mātauranga Māori within the water sector.
Mātauranga Māori and Te Mana o te Wai are important to our work, and this new page serves as a central hub for essential resources, training opportunities, and initiatives within Water New Zealand. Highlights include our Cultural Significance and Importance of Wai course, the new Te Ama | Aukaha te Wai Special Interest Group, episodes from the Tāwara te Wai podcast, and recordings of past conference keynote presentations.
Internally, we are committed to enhancing our cultural competency through regular staff sessions focused on integrating tikanga and te reo Māori. Our goal is to build confidence, expand knowledge, encourage greater use of te reo Māori in the workplace, and foster deeper engagement with te ao Māori.
We are continuing to develop tools and guidance to support our members and the wider sector, so keep an eye on our resources section of our website, waternz.org.nz/rauemi.
Global water challenges: Turning talk into action
The water sector is facing global challenges, from climate change to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, to water scarcity and resilience. Finding solutions to these problems is bigger than one organisation or even one country. That’s why it’s becoming increasingly important to share ideas and collaborate across the world.
But the big challenge is how to do this on a practical level, and how to ensure that multidiscipline, multi-organisational groups don’t simply become talk-fests that achieve very little in real outcomes.
In a recent podcast, Tawara o te Wai presenters Jon Reed and Hannah Edmond discussed this challenge with Edinburgh-based
process engineer Amanda Lake, who’s a global principal for Jacobs where she leads work on water sector decarbonisation and the circular economy. Also joining the conversation was Chris Thurston, former head of sustainability for Watercare and currently working as a consultant.
The growing threat of microplastics in biosolids and water
Microplastics have found their way into every corner of the planet, yet little is known about the long-term impact on our environment – our oceans, crops, soil, air and consequent health outcomes.
In this podcast, Jon Reed is joined by co-host David Romilly, chair of the biosolids subgroup of the Water New Zealand Wastewater Special Interest Group. Their guests were environmental scientist Helena Ruffell, who’s been investigating the impact of microplastics in biosolids and water, and Deric Dignon, who was involved in the development of Australia's first carbonisation facility for biosolids.
They discussed the plastic pandemic and what’s being done to tackle this massive global challenge.
Listen to these conversations and our other podcasts by going to Spotify or our website, waternz.org.nz
Water superstars on film
Have you seen our water superstars? We’re excited to have completed filming and editing 14 short videos that highlight the big range of water sector career opportunities available.
The film project, completed with financial support from the Infrastructure Education & Training Charitable Trust, shows the range of role models from a variety of diverse backgrounds, skills, experiences, ages, and ethnicities.
The videos will be available on the new national careers planning website, Tahatū, aimed at schools as well as learners of all ages. They can also now be seen on our website, waternz.org.nz, on our career development/careers in water sector page.
We’re continuing to build our career resources. As well as the videos, which people will be able to use and share, school resources, posters and career brochures will be available. We will also be featuring our key partnerships with Inspiring the Future, House of Science, and the Engineering New Zealand Wonder Project.
The governance path for water reforms
Professional, high-functioning boards will be vital for the success of the new council controlled water entities under the Local Water Done Well model. Water New Zealand has been working with the Institute of Directors to help support the sector and highlight the governance expectations the new entities will need to meet.
So what are the skills required to navigate the new environment, and what are the challenges our new boards will be facing?
Recently at a meeting in Te Whanganui a Tara Wellington, a panel of experts outlined some of the requirements the new professional water boards will need.
They include strong asset management planning, independence, financial literacy, public sector sensibility but with private sector planning, political astuteness while remaining apolitical, curiosity – the quality of the questions asked will determine the level of independence, agreement to a common purpose, clarity over management and governance parameters, and the ability to work with key stakeholders – councils and customers.
Thank you to KPMG New Zealand for hosting the event and Jackie Lloyd for chairing the discussion. Thanks also to Dentons and the Institute of Directors.
Panellists, from left: Raveen Jaduram, chair Taumata Arowai and New Zealand Infrastructure Commission, Te Waihanga; Julian Smith, director Watercare Services; Linda Clark, partner, Dentons; and Mair Brooks, partner, KPMG.
Water superstars - Zach Rutherfurd-Sirett healthy waters specialist at Auckland Council.
Future-proofing your workforce for change
How organisations can support their teams to remain relevant, skilled and digitallysavvy as the Fourth Industrial Revolution reshapes the way we work. By Belinda Cridge, technical lead (drinking water quality and education), Water New Zealand.
Digitalisation, automation, and AI are rapidly changing the skills we need to plan, manage, and operate water infrastructure, with profound implications for career paths. There’s a growing need for reskilling to do a different job or training people to do their jobs differently.
This shift is reshaping how human work contributes to organisations, with a greater impact on workers than ever before. That means lifelong learning isn’t just a buzzword, it’s a necessity.
More than ever, organisations need to implement strategies and interventions to ensure individuals can continue learning and navigating these transformations. Nurturing organisational learning means balancing formal training programmes with on-the-job knowledge development, embedding learning into daily routines and encouraging new ways to handle challenges.
To be successful, organisations need to communicate the importance of learning to their employees and provide the right training opportunities to help them grow. A key aspect of this is achieving a balance between enhancing existing knowledge (exploitation) and developing new knowledge (exploration).
A strong learning culture, supported by leadership and company values, makes all the difference in creating a workforce that’s ready for anything.
A good training strategy helps employees stay confident, adaptable, and ahead of the curve. Experts recommend investing three to five percent of the HR budget into training programmes to ensure workers have the skills they need to deal with new technologies, regulations, and industry shifts.
Here are some ways companies can support their teams:
• Teach digital skills: Help employees get comfortable with new tech and data-driven tools.
• Develop soft skills: Communication, problem-solving, and adaptability are more important than ever.
• Offer industry-specific training: Keep teams up to date on new regulations and best practices.
• Invest in leadership training: Equip managers to lead teams through change effectively. Water New Zealand has a scholarship programme that can help you or your organisation fund leadership training. Find out more on our website.
Water New Zealand is working across both formal and informal training to improve outcomes for our industry.
In the formal training space, we’re engaging with the proposed changes to the Vocational Education and Training (VET) system. This reform aims to make operator and pipeline construction and maintenance (PCM) training more accessible and efficient but could also lead to significant changes in training providers and student/employer support mechanisms.
To help businesses and workers adjust, Water New Zealand has been working with other member organisations across the infrastructure sector to advocate for faster standard-setting and a smooth training transition. You can check out our submission on this process on our website.
Digital badges
In the informal training space, we’re continuing to develop our digital badge offerings, which allow employees to learn on the job, at their own pace.
Joining our offering is the new School Water Suppllies digital badge, which provides specialist support to the 450+ schools that manage their own drinking water supply. This initiative is rolling out nationwide with the support of the Ministry of Education. See more on our website waternz.org.nz/training.
Our long-awaited digital pin on emerging contaminants (or contaminants of emerging concern) is also available on our training website.
Keep an eye on our fortnightly e-newsletter, Pipeline , for more training announcements, including exciting new opportunities for stormwater professionals.
Want to train your whole team? Talk to us about bulk buy options that will save you money and keep everyone up with the latest content from industry leaders. Remember, Water New Zealand members get a 10 percent discount on all training from Water Research Australia. Check out our external training courses webpage for more details.
We all know change is moving at breakneck speed, and keeping up can feel like a full-time job. But organisations that prioritise training and development will set their employees (and themselves) up for long-term success.
The best way to navigate change? Embrace it, learn from it, and make sure your team is ready for whatever comes next.
Storm Water Overflow Screens
revolutionary concept in mechanical screenings for CSO’s.
A Pump Action Screen (PAS) is designed for screening storm water in various applications.
• 6mm screening in two directions
• High Solids Retention Value (SRV) of 58%
• Modular system for retrofitting through existing manholes
• Robust proven components
• Minimal maintenance, no moving parts
• Stainless steel construction
Check out the installation at Nelson Airport here.
Modelling Symposium: Drawing on the past to create a better future
By Juan Alvarez De Lugo and Kirsten Henden
The recent Water New Zealand Modelling Symposium 2025, organised by the Water New Zealand Modelling Special Interest Group (SIG), was a resounding success. The event brought together almost 100 industry professionals, researchers, and practitioners to discuss the latest advancements and challenges in water modelling.
Held over two days in Kirikiriroa Hamilton, the event provided a platform for insightful discussions, knowledge-sharing, and networking among experts and enthusiasts in the field.
Key themes and discussions
’Drawing on the past to create a better future’ was the theme, with 22 speakers presenting on a wide range of topics, including climate resilience, advancements in modelling technology, integrated catchment management, and the role of artificial intelligence in enhancing predictive modelling capabilities.
One of the many standout sessions focused on the intersection of policy and technical modelling, highlighting the importance of effective communication between modellers and decision-makers. The discussion underscored the need for transparent, evidencebased planning to support sustainable water management.
New to the symposium in 2025 was the introduction of poster presentations. We received four fantastic posters, which were on display for the duration of the symposium. The posters ranged in content, including how to use spiral charts to display data in an impactful way, and the importance of model planning.
Insights and takeaways
A key takeaway from the symposium was the growing emphasis on collaboration across disciplines, stakeholders and mana whenua. Many presentations reinforced the idea that successful water modelling extends beyond technical proficiency, requiring strong stakeholder engagement and a deep understanding of real-world applications.
Another important insight was the push for more accessible and user-friendly modelling tools. As urban development and climate
change continue to impact water systems, the industry is seeing a shift towards models that provide more dynamic, real-time data to support proactive decision-making.
Attendees also engaged in discussions around the challenges of data availability and quality. While technological advancements are enhancing modelling capabilities, the effectiveness of these tools is ultimately dependent on robust and reliable datasets.
Site visits and workshops
Attendees had the opportunity to participate in one of two site visits, offering real-world insights into water and wastewater management.
One visit explored Fonterra Te Rapa, Waikato’s largest dairy manufacturing site, where participants gained an understanding of the milk powder production process and on-site wastewater treatment plant.
The second visit was planned for Ranfurly Gully, with the intention to examine wastewater infrastructure upgrades designed to replace aging systems and improve resilience, however due to weather conditions this visit had to be cancelled.
The symposium also featured interactive workshops, allowing participants to provide feedback and engage in hands-on discussions.
One workshop focused on reviewing the 2017 Wastewater Modelling Guidelines published by Water New Zealand, with the goal to encourage active engagement and gathering further feedback and demonstrate a wider industry mandate for updating the current guidelines.
Feedback from the 2024 Symposium revealed unanimous consensus on the need for an update to these guidelines, highlighting the CIWEM guidelines as a key reference document to be considered moving forward. The Modelling SIG invites additional feedback on the 2017 Wastewater Modelling Guidelines from professionals in the wastewater modelling field who were unable to attend the Water NZ Modelling Symposium 2025.
The other workshop, facilitated by one of our sponsors TUFLOW, explored uncertainty in modelling, highlighting how abstraction and parameterisation influence modelling outcomes.
Attendees discussed best practice for
managing uncertainty in hydrologic and hydraulic models, as well as strategies for effectively communicating uncertainty to stakeholders.
Awards
The symposium also recognised outstanding contributions through its awards.
Best Poster: ‘Data Visualisation Using a Spiral Chart’, by Joe Xie and Vicki Koopal, Hastings District Council - Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga.
Best Presentation: ‘Beyond the Storm: Lessons from the 2023 Auckland Anniversary Storm’, by Elliot Egan, HAL Consulting, and Cheryl Bai, Auckland Council.
The Water New Zealand Modelling SIG would like to congratulate the winners, and we hope this recognition inspires continued engagement and encourages even more participation in future symposiums.
Looking ahead
The symposium served as a valuable opportunity for professionals to reflect on the progress made in the industry while also identifying areas for further development. The modelling group remains committed to fostering continued innovation and collaboration within the sector.
As the industry moves forward, the insights gained from this event will play a crucial role in shaping future modelling practices. We extend our thanks to all speakers, attendees, and organisers for contributing to an engaging and thoughtprovoking symposium.
We would also like to especially extend our sincere gratitude to our sponsors, Hydraulic Analysis Limited (HAL), Stantec, and TUFLOW, whose generous support helped make this event possible. Looking ahead, we will be holding our Annual General Meeting online, with the date to be confirmed. This is an excellent opportunity for those interested in shaping the future direction of the SIG to get involved. With some committee members stepping down, we welcome expressions of interest from anyone keen to contribute to the ongoing development of the modelling community. Let’s keep pushing the boundaries of water modelling for a more resilient and sustainable future.
Join us to celebrate success and help build a resilient and sustainable future for our communities
Stormwater 2025 is about sharing knowledge, new innovations and best practices.
Help us celebrate outstanding achievement in the stormwater industry and be inspired through presentations, workshops and cutting edge technology on display at more than 50 expo stands
Congratulations to our 2025 award finalists
Stormwater Professional of the year
Sponsored by Aurecon
Jenny Vince – Beca
Sue Ira – Koru Environmental
Tim Preston – GHD
Stormwater Project of the Year
Sponsored by Stormwater360
Young Stormwater Professional of the Year
Sponsored by Beca
Hannah Ludlow – Pattle Delamore Partners
Lucy Ferris – Jacobs
Sarah Nolan – Auckland Council
Stephanie Dijkstra – Storm Environmental
Auckland Flood Recovery – Property Categorisation – Lead Organisation: Auckland Council
Ports of Auckland Outfall – Lead Organisation: McConnell Dowell
Brought to you by
Biosolids guide revised and reissued
By Lesley Smith, technical lead (projects and sustainability), Water New Zealand
We are very pleased to announce the re-issue of the ‘Good Practice Guide for Beneficial Use of Organic Materials on Land’. After completing much-awaited revisions, the new guidelines supersede the ‘2003 Guidelines for the Safe Application of Biosolids to Land in New Zealand’.
Biosolids are full of essential plant macronutrients and micronutrients and are rich in organic matter, bringing benefits for soil structure, porosity, water retention, and overall fertility. Recapturing these to use on land is the circular economy in action, reducing the need for imported fertilisers, releasing pressure on landfill, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Unfortunately, not all substances in our biosolids are good for our soils. Contaminants from everyday lives, such as microplastics and PFAS, concentrate in sewage sludge. As well as this, in elevated levels, nitrogen and other trace elements pose risks to plants.
For this reason, the guidelines outline a risk management framework with appropriate controls to enable their safe reuse to land.
Purpose
The purpose of the guidelines is two-fold:
1. To promote the beneficial use of organic materials: Encourage the use of biosolids and other organic materials to improve soil health and fertility, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and facilitate a more circular economy, less dependent on external fossil fuels, and generating less waste.
2. Ensure safety of soils and other receptors: Provide protocols to ensure that the application of organic materials is managed in accordance with a safe regulatory framework to protect human and animal health, the environment, and cultural values.
Beneficial Use of Biosolids on Land
The status quo for biosolids reuse
Aotearoa New Zealand has a few good examples of beneficial biosolids reuse. The New Plymouth District Council produces a BioBoost product. In the central North Island MyNoke vermicomposts biosolids alongside wood waste to high quality, nutrient-rich soil conditioners, in both solid and liquid form.
There’s also a smattering of quarry restoration projects – most notably on Puketutu Island, where most of Auckland’s biosolids are used for landform restoration.
Despite these examples, biosolid reuse rates here have remained stubbornly low, with less than 20 percent being reused in a way that recaptures their significant nutrient benefit (for a helpful overview, see Trends In The New Zealand Biosolids Industry, in the 2024 conference proceedings, at waternz.org.nz/resourcehub which report on information collated by the Australian New Zealand Biosolids Partnership).
Key controls
The guide is structured around the risk management framework shown in the supporting figure. Fundamental to this is a product grading approach which classifies products into categories with associated levels of controls. Products that achieve higher stabilisation grades, and less contamination, have fewer restrictions on their use.
The guidelines stress the importance of using biosolids at agronomic rates of crops, and never more than 200kg/TN/ha/year to avoid nutrient run off.
For biosolids meeting contamination grade criteria, applied to average soils, nitrogen will be the most limiting factor and can determine their application rate.
There are a range of other scenarios however, where contaminants in the biosolids will become a limiting factor – either where soils have above average background levels of contaminants, bulk density, or where the biosolids themselves have contaminant limits above specified (Grade A) criteria. In these situations, contaminant limited loading rates need to be considered alongside both nitrogen and PFAS loading rates, to ensure contaminants don’t build up over time to unsafe levels.
The guidelines have been based on repeat application rates over a 20 year period, to protect the most stringent of soil ecological guideline values (laid out in the Envirolink
project, an implementation framework for ecological soil guideline values).
In addition to these values there is also a limit for mercury, a contaminant that can impact on human health, and which has maintained its limits from the previous guide.
There are also important requirements for pathogen reduction which vary based on its stabilisation grade. Products can achieve higher stabilisation grades by achieving pathogen reduction methods, implementing vector attraction processes, and having in place quality control.
Products containing pathogens at levels that may impose a risk to the receptors would therefore have stricter controls regarding how they can be used, and may require special management during handling, storage and application to land.
How the guidelines fit in with other work
As we go to print, Taumata Arowai will have recently closed consultation on its wastewater standards. The standards are expected to give effect to many of the key controls outlined in the guidelines.
There are other important references that biosolids will need to be aware of, most notably:
• PFAS NEMP, which outlines limits and a management approach, with Supporting Document 1, applying specifically to biosolids;
• ACVM regulations, which outline controls and labelling requirements for products being sold as soil conditioners and fertilisers.
Accessing resources
A rich suite of resources has been developed alongside the guidelines. This includes information on iwi and community engagement, pathogen management, emerging organic contaminants, trace elements and biosolids characteristics.
Both the guidelines themselves and the supporting work can be accessed from waternz.org.nz/technicaldocuments.
Where to from here
The guide acknowledges several challenges associated with the application of organic materials, being some of the key areas we need to progress. These include management of organic contaminants, supporting and developing other disposal routes offered by advanced thermal destruction techniques,
developing the market and guidance for the various routes identified in the guideline.
As a sector we have two key vehicles for facilitating these discussions. One is the Australian New Zealand Biosolids Partnership which enables Trans-Tasman sharing, as it exclusively focuses on biosolids with dedicated events and support, and the other is the Water New Zealand Wastewater Special Interest Group that has a biosolids focused workstream, which deals with Aotearoa New Zealandspecific issues, and operates on a voluntary basis. Information on both these groups and how to get involved can be found online.
Using the guides
The guidelines are a dense technical resource, best suited for biosolids producers and regulators. Much of the content is also applicable for product end users, however we acknowledge that this is a dense technical resource and support will be required in applying these practices.
Acknowledgement
A huge amount of expertise has gone into this guideline. We commissioned expert input from the subject matter experts to develop supporting resources. However, the majority working on the guide were volunteers who contributed their time alongside full-time roles. This update began under my former manager, Nick Walmsley, who had hoped to see the guidelines expand to cover all organics (sorry Nick, we didn’t quite get there). For several years, the work was sustained by a dedicated group of volunteers. Special thanks to Maria Gutierrez Gines, Katie Beecroft, and Rob Tinholt, who stuck with it through that time, and to our Ministry representatives, Sarah from Te Whatu Ora, Bruce from the Ministry for the Environment, and Jefferson Fowles at the Ministry for Primary Industries. A big thank you also to Chris French, who joined toward the end and brought fresh energy to push the risk management framework across the line.
Regional councils played a key role in the latest round of feedback, offering detailed reviews and generously sharing their time and expertise. You know who you are – thank you. Many others from industry groups, regulatory bodies, and the wider sector also contributed insights.
It’s genuinely heartening to see so many professionals bring their passion to this space. Thank you to everyone who played a part in helping biosolids progress.
Pursuing growth through chartership
India Eiloart (left) has recently been made a Chartered Water and Environment Manager with CIWEM. Here, she shares the steps taken in the past five years on her journey to this
milestone.
Whāia e koe te iti kahurangi ki te tūohu koe, me he maunga teitei. Pursue excellence – should you stumble, let it be to a lofty mountain.
In early 2020 I was still riding the high of being awarded Young Water Professional of the Year 2019. I had just returned from Cambodia as a design summit mentor with Engineers Without Borders Australia, and after years of volunteering and developing my humanitarian and water engineering skills, I had finally secured my dream role, a two-year placement with the Vanuatu Department of Water Resources through Engineers Without Borders New Zealand (EWBNZ) and Volunteer Service Abroad.
However, the world ground to a halt as the pandemic rolled across the globe, and I found myself not sitting on a plane bound for a new life in Vanuatu, but at a kitchen bench with a TV screen as a computer monitor, isolating alone with only a cat for company, and unsure if it was a weekday or not. At this point, I could have focussed on what opportunities I had lost. But instead, I considered myself fortunate in my circumstances, and set myself new challenges – to continue pursuing excellence within my new limits.
Fast forward to today: I have reached goals and milestones I could hardly grasp five years ago. In my personal world, I have bought, renovated and sold my first home, I am planning a wedding with my fiancé who in 2020 I hadn’t even met yet, and my professional world has been just as rewarding.
In this time, I moved to the hydrology team at Cardno (now Stantec) to focus on hydrological concepts and expand my knowledge in catchment management. I then joined the Water Services Authority – Taumata Arowai as the first senior technical advisor in its infancy, and I am now in my fourth year with them and have a whole team of technical experts to work alongside.
All of this has eventually culminated in my most recent achievement of becoming a chartered professional, as recognition of my skills, experience and integrity. I am now a Chartered Water and Environment Manager (C.WEM) with the Chartered Institute of Water and Environment Management (CIWEM), as well as a Chartered Scientist with the Science Council, and Chartered Environmentalist with the Society for the Environment.
My journey to chartership began when I was still a graduate. As an engineering student, I had been familiar with the process of professional chartership but as a water and environment specialist surrounded by civil engineers, I was not enthused by the typical engineering chartership route. It appeared to be requiring me to gain
technical skills I wasn’t interested in gaining, specifically design and construction of hard infrastructure.
I was interested in water resources, understanding our catchments and preparing our communities and environment for the future climate. Fortunately, my colleagues in the WSP Water Resources team saw my conundrum and introduced me to CIWEM.
I was shown the breadth of technical specialisations CIWEM encompassed including climate change, water resources and the natural environment.
For the first time, I could see my career mapped out across all the fields of expertise within a professional body, and not in a sub-heading.
I initially joined as a member of CIWEM and got to work mapping my career alongside C.WEM competencies.
A steady stream of professional development opportunities through WSP kept my CPD hours healthy, and my consulting work provided many opportunities to pick up and test out new skills across diverse projects.
My eventual application drew on experiences from my entire career, with reflections on my student work placement being discussed sideby-side with projects that I am actively involved in today. I included projects that did not go well, experiences in my volunteer work with EWBNZ, and interesting findings from conferences I had attended here and in Australia.
The Aotearoa New Zealand branch of CIWEM has been more than welcoming and helpful over the years as I compiled my application. Members have been happy to meet with me and share their chartership experiences, have pointed me towards resources such as the CIWEM chartership webinar series, and eventually they’ve become my sponsors for the application.
When I was navigating the application requirements, my CIWEM sponsor, Liam Foster, helped me decipher the educational requirements for my New Zealand qualifications which showed that a New Zealand honours degree is considered the equivalent of a UK master’s degree, an important note for other future applicants. This meant that I was not required to follow the work-based learning route for chartership and could continue with a standard application.
Once my application had been accepted for assessment, branch members were quick to offer their support in conducting a mock interview before my professional review interview with assessors.
This activity proved invaluable for me, and I strongly recommend this to anyone else undergoing their chartership journey, if not for
feedback on presentation and answers, then to just quell nerves in a knowledgeable and supportive environment.
The local branch is also quick to point out that the chartership process with CIWEM opens the door to chartership with other professional bodies; the Society for the Environment, Science Council and Engineering Council. I saw these options as the chance to be recognised further for my experience that was not typical engineering projects, of applying scientific methods to my work and being an advocate for the environment.
When I read the competencies for each of these registrations, I felt comfortable and enthused to meet them and could confidently provide answers with my existing skills and responsibilities. This did require me to write a lot more for my application; a total of 12,000 words across the three registrations but I was able to use the same projects and reflections across them where applicable which made the process a lot less confronting.
I have probably recommended this chartership pathway to a different person in the industry every couple of months and now that I’ve finally been through the process myself, I will be able to confidently say it is worth the effort.
CIWEM provides you multiple pathways to chartership and registrations with international professional bodies that can support your journey in your chosen field.
By being a member, you are aligning yourself with their professional ethics and code of conduct, demonstrating professional integrity and
centring of water and the environment in your work.
By becoming chartered, you are recognised as an experienced professional in your chosen field and are confident in your capability as a water and environment manager to do what is right for the environment and our communities.
Thank you to the Aotearoa New Zealand branch of CIWEM, especially Dan Stevens, Jivir Viyakesparan and Liam Foster for your time to practise interviewing. Thank you to Matt Balkham for being my sponsor as well as leading me on this path in the first place alongside Louise Algeo. I must also thank my team leaders at the Water Authority who supported my pursuit of chartership and ensured I had the time to compile my application.
So, what’s next? Regarding chartership, during my application process I learned more about the registration classes with the Engineering Council, and Incorporated Engineer (IEng) looks to be another title I could add to my belt when the time comes.
My continued development is still heavily focussed on water security research, and I continue to look for opportunities to dive into the topic and research the risks posed to our climate.
In the immediate future I am looking forward to contributing to the technical and programme committees for the joint IWA ASPIRE and Water New Zealand Conference later this year. And this is where you’ll probably find me pitching to fellow professionals the benefits of being chartered with the leading global water and environment professional body, so come find me!
Shaping the future: Taumata Arowai’s proposed Wastewater Standards
By Lesley Smith, technical lead (projects and sustainability), Water New Zealand
As this publication went to print, Taumata Arowai was considering feedback on proposed standardisation of wastewater treatment and the downstream effect on the environment. The proposed standards seek to address long-standing issues faced by councils and the wider sector, and will shape the direction of wastewater treatment for decades to come.
Water New Zealand has been calling for more consistent standards for many years and welcomes the cost savings and certainty provided by a standardised consistent approach.
However, some members have raised concerns that the new standards, as currently proposed, could have a detrimental impact on the quality of the water environment in many parts of the country, and lock in unintended consequences if not strengthened.
In some cases, the proposed standards would allow for a lower level of wastewater treatment, particularly in ocean outfalls, and they don’t consider the cumulative effect of multiple discharges on a water environment.
For those looking to catch up, Taumata Arowai’s consultation page includes overviews, technical background papers, and webinars explaining the standards. See korero.taumataarowai.govt.nz/ regulatory/wastewater-standards
You can read Water New Zealand’s full submission on our website, and here I will give an overview and suggestions to improve and enhance this important legislative change.
Why these standards matter
The proposed standards provide a much-needed foundation for consistent consenting practices in four key areas: Discharge to water, discharge to land, beneficial reuse of biosolids, and managing overflows and bypasses.
They address issues in areas our members have been seeking progress on for years; Water New Zealand first began advocating for national consistency in wastewater consenting over a decade ago. They also support uplift in other aspects of wastewater management; the lax or nonexistent framework for management of wastewater overflows that exist in much of the country, and stubbornly low rates of beneficial reuse of biosolids.
Taumata Arowai’s regulatory impacts assessment quantified the benefits points to millions of dollars in cost savings and environmental improvements by speeding up the consenting process.
A solid foundation, with work still to do
While these standards are a welcome development, our members have also pointed to areas where further work is needed.
Several issues relating to wastewater consents sit outside the
guidelines. These include the management of emerging organic contaminants, heavy metals, air, and greenhouse gas emissions.
Taumata Arowai has acknowledged this work is needed, but as Michael Petherick of Taumata Arowai aptly describes, “It will be necessary to eat the elephant one bite at a time”. We look forward to working further with Taumata Arowai and the sector to prioritise further work on these issues.
Others have highlighted a need to clarify how the standards interface with the existing Resource Management Framework (confusingly also scheduled to be reviewed). The supporting article by Ezekiel Hudspith and Samantha Fowler on page 22 considers the interface between these frameworks and how things could work.
In addition to these issues, members have been active in engaging with us to share their views on these standards. Below we outline some key technical issues they have raised which require attention, as follows.
Strengthening ocean discharge standards
The proposed standards only require ocean outfalls to meet limits for ammoniacal-N and enterococci – levels that could be achieved with minimal treatment. This represents a significant regression from current practice in many regions.
Section 70 of the Resource Management Act has other important controls for discharges, for example, satisfying regional councils regarding the production of conspicuous oil or grease films, scums, or foams, or floatable or suspended materials. It is not clear from the standards whether the section 70 requirements would still additionally apply to consents, however it is important that they do.
Strengthening the ocean discharge requirements is needed to maintain existing discharges quality already achieved with significant investment in plants with large ocean outfalls.
Factoring in the receiving environment
The standards clearly set out end-of-pipe expectations – but measuring what comes out of a pipe isn’t the same as knowing what happens in the environment.
Receiving environment monitoring (e.g., of stream health, aquatic life, or cumulative nutrient loading) is essential to assess realworld effects and ensure environmental outcomes are met. Many operators already carry out this kind of monitoring to fine-tune plant performance in response.
While it’s not possible to determine compliance based on an environment impacted by many factors, environmental monitoring has an important role to play in wastewater management; information can be used to fine tune plant operations, provide communities and
councils with assurance that plant performance is effective, and support trigger levels for response if significant degradation occurs.
For example, altering the discharge location, adding new trade waste controls, or implementing inflow and infiltration programmes to lessen treatment plant loads, could be possible responses to degradation in receiving environments.
The standards should recognise the need for environmental monitoring – either as a required component in certain cases, or clearly stating that receiving environmental monitoring should be considered by councils as part of resource consenting processes, as with other components left out of these standards such as metals or odour emissions.
After all, our treatment plants exist to protect the receiving environment – and that’s where our attention should be focused.
Accounting for cumulative effects
Where multiple discharges (e.g. from multiple WWTPs or industrial users) enter the same waterbody, catchment-based approaches are needed to determine the environmental impacts on the water body as a whole.
The current individual end-of-pipe compliance limits proposed by the standard does not address cumulative effects of multiple discharges which can lead to environmental degradation over time, even when individual plants meet their conditions.
Requirements for monitoring of receiving environments noted earlier provide a mechanism to assess whether cumulative effects are occurring. Maximum load limits into a catchment provide a management mechanism when impacts have been understood, and a mechanism for allowing for future growth.
We acknowledge the challenges of determining maximum loads based on catchment understanding. These processes add complexity and cost, especially where robust baseline data is lacking. But a staged or risk-based approach, for example, requiring cumulative impact assessments in larger river systems or culturally or environmentally significant catchments, is one possible way forward.
Impacts of multiple discharges will in some cases be very significant. Dismissing them into the too-hard basket will cost the environment dearly.
Aligning nitrogen loading rates
Nitrogen application to land needs to be carefully managed to avoid damaging soils and nitrogen leaching into waterbodies, which can contaminate drinking water supplies and lead to eutrophication which harms aquatic life.
The proposed nitrogen loading rate for land application (500 kg N/ha/yr) is much higher than the proposed limit for biosolids (200 kg/ha/yr) and typical rates applied to farming activities (the synthetic fertiliser cap the government requires for most farming
systems is a limit of 190 kg/ha/yr). Regional councils have previously flagged concerns that even 200 kg N/ha/yr could lead to nitrogen accumulation over time.
This inconsistency needs to be addressed, and appropriate nitrogen loads set based on receiving environment impacts (as opposed to previous discharge consent requirements which appears to be the current approach).
It’s important these rates are scientifically justified, consistent, and aligned with long-term environmental outcomes.
Clarifying what applies to on-site systems
It is unclear whether the land discharge standards apply to on-site wastewater systems (OWMS).
The small treatment plant definition includes systems with influent cBOD (Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand) of <85 kg/day, equivalent to around 1400 people, which would capture almost all existing OWMS. We understand the intent is for the standards to apply only to reticulated systems. However, this should be clearly stated to avoid misinterpretation.
Clarifying the biosolids guideline process
The consultation references the updated Guidelines for the Beneficial Reuse of Biosolids on Land. The references to which specific aspects of the guidelines are being referred to are unclear, and the draft guidelines are not widely available at the time of consultation.
There needs to be clarity on which elements will be adopted into the standards, and opportunity for sector feedback before final drafting.
A revised set of consultation notes should be released making clear what requirements are intended to be adopted into the biosolids standard. It would be inappropriate, and risk locking in unintended difficulties for years to come, if drafting was to progress without allowing for peer review of the intended content of legislation.
The standard is also silent on advanced thermal treatment processes, which are increasingly being applied internationally to address emerging threats such as PFAS and microplastics. A pathway for introducing emerging issues and advanced treatment systems into the standards over time should be signalled.
Recognising and allowing for impacts on pond based systems
For pond-based systems the discharge to water standard represents a significant uplift in performance. While ‘small’ wastewater plants at cBOD5 load of less than 85kg p/day (a population equivalent of around 1000 people) are exempted there are a significant number of pond systems serving populations larger than this.
As our smaller communities often serve rural dispersed communities running several treatment plants, and are reliant on a small number of ratepayers, the cost impacts of these standards are likely to disproportionately affect those communities. Mechanisms to support funding these upgrades should be considered by government.
Enabling improvement over time
While 35-year consents provide certainty for investment, they also risk locking in outdated practices.
The standards should provide pathways for staged improvement to allow communities to stagger upgrade costs, uplift practices as new technologies emerge or environmental understanding evolves (e.g., around greenhouse gas emissions).
There is an opt-out pathway for waterways already meeting ‘Grade A’ criteria, but this does not allow for communities with less degraded waterways any opportunities for ambition.
It would be helpful to provide for more nuanced levels of ambition, for example providing another category of limits that communities could choose between should they be willing to invest in additional treatment.
This would allow communities willing to pay for higher treatment standards to do so, support the adoption of new technologies, while allowing for insightful outcomes from industry benchmarking, and the efficiency of prescribed treatment levels.
Recognising the role of communities and iwi
While the standards bring welcome consistency and clarity for designers, they risk being seen as limiting the role of communities and iwi in shaping outcomes.
Water New Zealand does not believe the two need to be mutually exclusive. Important decisions that matter to iwi and communities – such as discharge location, discharge to land or water, use of contact beds, or protection of mahinga kai – can still be informed by local values, and sit side by side with end of pipe discharge limits.
Consideration of environmental effects monitoring (discussed earlier) is an important component of this.
The standards could do more to explicitly state the role communities and iwi can still play in protecting what matters most to them.
A way forward
The proposed standards are a strong starting point. They signal Taumata Arowai’s intent to create a more efficient, consistent, and environmentally sound approach to consenting.
At the same time the challenges put forward by our members are significant. Some require multi-disciplinary expertise, years of underlying monitoring, and modelling to achieve.
Recognising that we are on a journey, that issues can be staged and tackled over time, will help us accept this challenge. We can start by identifying what we can and can’t address now and what needs to remain in traditional consent pathways, and develop a plan to stage and incorporate other matters into the standards over time.
We should not opt for simplistic approaches in the name of expediency.
Decades of work have gone into shaping freshwater and marine monitoring frameworks, building valuable insights from scientists, planners, engineers, and iwi. The final standards should draw on that expertise to progressively fill the existing gaps in the standard and prevent us sliding backwards in our environmental management of wastewater.
As has been noted, many times, it would not be unusual for a resource consent to cost more than $10 million and take five years or more. If the government is willing to provide Taumata Arowai with commensurate time and money on what is currently spent on a single consent, good environmental outcomes that cost our communities less are possible.
ifm
What the proposed Wastewater Environmental Performance Standards mean for RMA processes – changes under the Local Government (Water Services) Bill
By Ezekiel Hudspith and Samantha Fowler, Dentons
The proposed Wastewater Performance Standards will mean a step-change for the way that wastewater infrastructure is developed and managed. Water New Zealand members’ reactions to the proposed technical content are covered on page 18.
However, one key aspect of this change is the implications the new standards will have for Resource Management Act (RMA) consenting processes, in combination with changes to the RMA introduced by the Local Government (Water Services) Bill. This article highlights key changes in the bill, and what they are likely to mean based on indicative proposals in the discussion document for the wastewater standards.1
Standards to prevail over other RMA instruments
Significantly, the standards (made under the Water Services Act) will ‘prevail’ over RMA instruments such as plans, policy statements, and national environmental standards, in the event of inconsistency.2 In addition, councils will need to amend any rules3 that conflict with or duplicate the standards as soon as practicable, and without using the formal plan change process.
In many cases, what amounts to ‘inconsistency’ or ‘conflict’ will be fairly obvious. However at the margins, it will be important to ensure the standards are clear in terms of the matters to which they don’t apply (such as particular contaminants, in the case of the discharge to water standards4); and the extent to which activities regulated by the standards are also caught in other ways; for example, network discharges could also contravene specific rules or national environmental standards around discharges to wetlands or other sensitive environments.
Activity status and notification
Wastewater standards can set the activity status for wastewater projects, providing greater certainty of outcome (e.g. controlled activity status through the standards would mean consent cannot be declined, and the consent authority must instead focus on
1. Noting the Bill also proposes equivalent changes to the RMA in relation to stormwater environmental performance standards (if or when made).
2. Clause 269 Local Government (Water Services) Bill inserts RMA s 58JA(4).
3. Clause 269 of the Bill inserts RMA s 58JA(5). There is no equivalent requirement to amend existing polices.
4. For example, it is not entirely clear from the Discussion Document how heavy metal levels in a treated discharge will be regulated. While it is indicated that heavy metals will not be covered by the proposed standard, the Discussion Document also suggests that the Total Nitrogen limit will also regulate levels of heavy metals in a treated discharge.
conditions – to the extent the standards allow).
In this regard, the discussion document indicates that in many cases activities that comply with the standards will be classed as a controlled activity (notably including network overflows). The biosolids standard is likely to assign permitted, controlled, or restricted discretionary status depending on the categorisation grade.5
In addition, standards will be able to specify whether public or limited notification of applications can occur.6 The discussion document does not comment on notification, but it seems likely that in at least some circumstances (if not all) public notification will be precluded for compliant applications.
Regional councils cannot impose conditions that are more onerous than the standards
It has been well-signalled that the proposal is to put in place singular standards, rather than simply minimum standards. The Bill amends the RMA7 so that a consent authority ‘must include, as a condition of granting consent, requirements that are no more or less restrictive than necessary to give effect to’8 the standards or an infrastructure design solution.9
Again, how this applies will depend on the final drafting of the standards. Clearly there will be no room for more stringent conditions in relation to the named contaminants in the discharge to water standard, for example, but what is less clear is whether consent authorities will be able to regulate other contaminants 10 in a way that has the effect of raising the overall level of treatment required. On the other hand, where matters such as discharges to air are clearly exempted from the standards, consent authorities
5. Discussion document, page 33. The discussion document does not expressly state which status would apply to discharges to water (although that may well be controlled if all relevant parameters are met) or discharges to land.
6. Clauses 271 and 272 of the Bill amend RMA ss 95A and 95B.
7. Clause 273 of the Bill amends RMA s 104(2D)(a) and (b) and adds new section 104(2DA).
8. The current wording in s 104(2D) RMA is “no less restrictive”, which would still allow more restrictive conditions.
9. Infrastructure design solutions, also made under the Water Services Act, will effectively set out means to comply with the standards.
10. For example, as discussed above, it is unclear from the discussion document how heavy metal levels in a treated discharge will be regulated.
11. Such as the frequency, volume, or contaminant load of discharges.
12. It remains to be seen if this scheme will apply in all parts of the standards; for example, the discussion document proposes to apply controlled activity status to bypasses and network overflows, but to otherwise leave decisions in the hands of regional councils.
13. Clauses 274 and 275 of the Bill amend RMA ss 105 and 107 so that they do not apply where an application ‘complies with’ relevent environmental performance standards.
14. Clause 277 of the Bill amends s 123 of the RMA.
will have the same discretion to impose conditions as they do now. In addition, if the standards stop short of prescribing set parameters for network overflows,11 then difficult decisions will still have to be made at the local level regarding the extent of environmental improvement required, the cost of achieving it, and the timeframes for doing so.
Fewer statutory hurdles for applications that ‘comply’ with the standards
If an application ‘complies with’ or ‘meets the requirements’12 of the standards, then normal RMA restrictions on granting discharge consents under sections 105 and 107 would not apply13 (which means less need to consider alternatives, or to avoid certain kinds of effects in the receiving environment); and consents would have to be granted for a period of 35 years.14
Again, it will be important for the final standards to provide clarity on exactly when an application should be treated as complying with or meeting the requirements of them (for example, if an activity can meet some but not all applicable requirements, or for activities such as network overflows and
15. Clause 279 of the Bill inserts s 128(1)(bc) to the RMA.
16. Operators would also be free to amend their conditions under s 127 to align with the standards.
discharges to land where there are few substantive requirements included in the standards).
Transitional arrangements
Finally, there are a number of important transitional arrangements to be aware of, including:
• New standards coming into force (or being amended) would enable consent authorities to initiate a review of existing resource consent conditions regulated by the standards.15 Depending on the current conditions, this may mean an adjustment to improve performance, or changes to relax the current requirements in line with the new standards.16
• Any existing consents for WWTP discharges that are due to expire within the first two years of the Bill being passed 17 will instead expire at the end of that two-year period. This will allow operators time to consider the standards in preparing their applications.18
• In the future, the ability to rely on expired consents after a replacement application has been lodged will be capped at two years (it is currently unlimited).19
17. Or, more precisely, the relevant part of the Bill coming into force – in the event that this occurs later. Clause 280 of the Bill inserts RMA ss 139B – 139D.
18. Noting there is no similar grace period proposed for activities that are not already consented, such as network overflows (in most cases).
19. The Discussion Document at page 40 proposes that this new two-year deadline would not apply in the first five years following the Standards being made. See also clause 278 of the Bill.
Stormwater 2025 is about sharing knowledge, best practices and ensuring a holistic approach to mitigating and planning for the effects of climate change and the challenges of increased rainfall and storm events.
This year’s themes include:
• Kaupapa Māori
• Nature-Based Solutions
• Stormwater Futures
• Sustainable & Innovative Funding
We’re delighted to bring you a line-up of thought-provoking keynote speakers and discussions that will help us plan for a stormwater resilient future.
Kris Faafoi
Kris Faafoi joined the Insurance Council of New Zealand Te Kāhua Inihua o Aotearoa (ICNZ) as chief executive in April 2024.
He is a former member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister who served in a number of roles, including Minister of Justice, Immigration, Commerce and Consumer Affairs and Broadcasting and Media.
Before that, Kris worked as a journalist, including at TVNZ and the BBC.
Jonathan Rowe
Jonathan is the programme manager for South Dunedin Future, a joint initiative between the Dunedin City Council and Otago Regional Council to develop a climate change adaptation plan for the low-lying and flood affected South Dunedin.
Jonathan has led design and delivery of the programme, navigating council systems to deliver a blend of science, engineering, land use planning, and community engagement work over a five-year period.
With a background in sustainable development and prior to joining council, Jonathan spent 15 years working in central government, primarily for Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) and the New Zealand Aid Programme (NZAID). He has worked across the Pacific, including diplomatic postings in Cook Islands and Fiji and has had roles in advising the Minister of Foreign Affairs (2015) and Minister of Climate Change (2019-21).
Allan Leahy
Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: The past, the present and the future (maybe) of the Water New Zealand –Stormwater Special Interest Group
Allan is a civil engineer by training who has spent his nearly forty-year career operating in the stormwater management practice area. He was a founding committee member of the Water New Zealand stormwater special interest group which he continued to support through conference papers, awards judging, workshops (in and out of conferences) and session chairing.
Allan has worked within multi-disciplinary consulting, including land development and transportation. He joined the Auckland Council Healthy Waters team in 2021
He has also had involvement in ACE New Zealand, Engineering New Zealand and the National Green Infrastructure Certification Programme (NGICP)
Hon Simon Watts
Minister of Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister of Local Government and Minister of Revenue
Simon Watts was elected as the Member of Parliament for North Shore in the 2020 election.
Simon grew up in the Waikato, where his family were farmers and orchardists. He is married, has two sons, and lives on the North Shore with his family.
He studied accounting and finance at Waikato University and worked in investment banking in Asia, Europe and the United Kingdom.
He has worked for one of the world’s largest investment banks, the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), where he held several management roles during and in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.
Simon has also completed a Health Sciences degree at Auckland University of Technology. He continues to volunteer with St John as an ambulance officer and is a registered paramedic alongside his duties as a Member of Parliament.
Dr Shari Gallop
Shari (Ngāti Maru ki Hauraki, Te Rarawa) is a coastal scientist, researcher and practitioner with extensive national and international experience in coastal hazards/ processes, coastal geomorphology and hydrodynamics, coastal monitoring and nature based solutions.
After 10+ years in academia, she now holds a coastal scientist role at Pattle Delamore Partners in Tauranga. A key focus of her work is taking a holistic approach considering policy and guidance, climate change, risk, community needs and te ao Māori.
Shari contributes to the broader sectors with roles such as co-leading Te Komiti Māori in the New Zealand Coastal Society. She is on the working group to establish the Aotearoa Society of Adaptation Professionals (ASAP) and is on the design team for the MBIE-funded Natural Hazards and Resilience Platform.
A key focus of her work is finding new ways to build capacity and capability to support projects that support hapū and iwi aspirations.
Nicki Green
Nicki describes her professional niche as being in the development and delivery of multi-disciplinary resource management policy and planning
She recently joined the Thames Coromandel District Council as strategy and district planning team leader, where she is leading spatial planning and district plan change work through the Resource Management Act reforms.
Previously she worked as a principal policy advisor at Toi Moana Bay of Plenty Regional Council leading the work programme to implement the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and providing national policy advice for Toi Moana, Te Uru Kahika (the Regional Sector Organisation) and for some national working groups for the Ministry for the Environment.
Mike Adams
Mike Adams is a civil/water resources engineer who has been deploying nature-based solutions for stream restoration and resilient stormwater management, including geomorphic stream design, process-based natural channel design, fluvial geomorphology, dam removal, and stream assessments for 27-plus years.
He has worked on highly urban and large-scale projects across the United States in a variety of aquatic landscapes, focused on understanding stream responses to geomorphic processes for channel/floodplain design. He serves as a discipline lead and subject matter expert in stream restoration for Stantec.
Strength in knowledge
A scientist by training, over the years Peter Bahrs has gleaned a lot of engineering knowledge, setting him up to be a well-rounded leader of Tauranga’s water supply team.
By Mary Searle Bell
Peter describes his water career as “an interesting journey spanning over 35 years”. He’s been water supply manager at Tauranga City Council for the past 18 years, but it all began in a town near Durban on the east coast of South Africa.
There, Peter studied microbiology and biochemistry at university, and his first job had him looking at the microorganisms in ruminants – the bacteria in cud – a job he says was quite interesting.
From there he moved into beer, working in a brewery with their yeast supply before transitioning into laboratory management.
“By this stage, my wife and I had a young family and we wanted to move back to be nearer our families near Durban, and with that move, I fell into the water industry.
“And what an industry – it’s so used to being under the radar, the only time the public take notice is when they turn on the tap and the water’s not there.
“Water has such a huge and positive impact on life, not just our health but the whole environment. And we in the water industry are providing a service – just knowing you’re providing safe drinking water to a community is such a privilege.
“It’s up to us to share and foster our passion. Water New Zealand together with us as practitioners need to really promote the industry.”
Employed by Umgeni Water, Peter started off in its scientific services.
“I wasn’t there too long before an operations management job came up, and in 1988 I was put in charge of the water supply to the city of Durban.
“We had three raw water impoundments and two water treatment plants that supplied about three million residents. Our treatment capacity was 1000 megalitres a day and on a busy day we’d treat up to 700 megalitres – so no small operation.”
Peter was with Umgeni Water for over 18 years in a variety of roles. During this time he also completed an honours degree in water utilisation to supplement his knowledge of water supply.
“It’s important to make sure you’re knowledgeable about your job – it’s a technical role and you must make sure you know what you’re doing.”
At this time in South Africa, things were getting hot politically and Peter found the challenges were making life difficult, so he started looking at his options.
“I came across an ad seeking water engineers in New Zealand. I submitted my CV, and the rest is history.”
In 2007, Peter, aged 50 at the time, moved his family across to Tauranga and “started again from scratch”.
“I’ve been with the Tauranga City Council this whole time and have witnessed so much growth and transformation in the city and its water supply.
“When I arrived, the city had two water treatment plants. A highlight of my career has been the involvement from concept to the successful delivery of a third water supply scheme.
“It’s been a long journey – the consent was given in 2010, and
Peter Bahrs describes his water career as “an interesting journey”.
the original plan was to have it built by 2015. But then the Global Financial Crisis reared its head and the project was delayed.
“We restarted the project in 2016, with construction getting underway in 2018, and the new plant finally going live in 2022.
“The decision to build a new water treatment plant is never an easy one because of the sheer amount of capital investment required. But we did it, and Tauranga should be future-proofed until at least 2060.”
That being said, Peter says there are still challenges around Tauranga’s water supply.
“Our existing two water take consents come up for reconsenting next year. There’s a bit of uncertainty around these as the consents were given before the Resource Management Act was around.
“The conditions were pretty generous in the old consents and, realistically, current science would mean a change in how much take we are allowed.”
However, Peter also says the city has been on a conservation journey over the past 25 years, with water consumption statistics improving over this time.
“We started metering between 2000 and 2002, which led to a significant change in behaviour, and this has been supplemented by ongoing education.
“Water use dropped by 25 percent on average and 30 percent on peak demand, and even with the massive growth in Tauranga’s population, it took 17 years before we had to reintroduce water restrictions during summer.
“I’m pretty proud of the fact we’ve continued that water
conservation journey since then. It means that when we go for consent again, I can, hand on heart, say we’re using our water wisely.”
There have been other challenges along the way. In the past six months Peter and his team have been battling with a section of the public over fluoridation.
“We’re required to fluoridate the water by law but the unhappy public take it out on us – we’re the meat in the sandwich.
“Part of the problem is people take the provision of safe water for granted.
“This comes back again to promoting the industry and being more visible to the public. One of the things we can do is mentoring more people into the water industry.
“I’m blessed with a great team who are a pleasure to work with. They’re well-rounded and deliver the job successfully every day.
“For example, back in December 2023 we started getting complaints that the water from our new plant ‘tasted like dirt’. And we could see there was definitely a taste and odour issue –slips in the nearby catchment were likely responsible.
“The timing couldn’t have been worse, with the holidays meaning a lot of our contractors were away. Life became hell for two months, but the team rallied. Together, we started an activated carbon dosing programme. It was a makeshift job, so it didn’t run that smoothly, which meant we’d get outbreaks of complaints and have to rush to fix things.
“But to see the team pulling together and changing the game – it gave us such a great sense of achievement. It was really fantastic.”
Life doesn’t always go according to plan, but as three waters consultant Wioletta Gilfoyle has discovered, with the right mindset and a willingness to learn and work hard, you can thrive in a career you truly love. By Mary
Searle Bell
Born in Poland, Wioletta had no intention of moving abroad or of becoming a water engineer. Growing up in a communist country, she had no opportunities to learn English at school. She assumed a career in medicine would unfold for her in her homeland.
“I thought of perhaps becoming a doctor or a veterinarian but the universities in my hometown of Zielona Gora didn’t offer tuition in either and I couldn’t decide where to go to study it. Instead, I opted for a gap year, which would give me time to decide as well as prepare for the entry tests.”
However, Wioletta thought it would be wise to keep studying in her gap year so decided to check what courses were available at her local polytechnic. She chose to do the first year in a civil engineering degree, specialising in water supply, wastewater treatment, and waste disposal.
“It was mainly to keep my brain going. I was studying part time and managed to get a full-time job working as an accountant. I had no training or experience in this, which I admitted at the job interview. However, I was confident I would work hard and learn all I needed to know. My future managers nodded and smiled…. and gave me the job!”
At university, at the end of the first-year engineering degree, only 60 students in the large intake were offered places in the second year, with tough exams selecting those few.
“I was one of those 60. It took a lot of effort to make the cut, and I thought it was a shame to waste all that work and not continue with the degree. And at that point I started to enjoy it more. The dream of a career in medicine was fading.”
So, Wioletta decided to switch her job to part time and study full time, continuing on to complete her master’s in engineering. After that, then came the difficult task of finding a graduate role in the industry.
“Fortunately, through my accountancy work, I had developed a network of contacts. I had been working with a design and construction company and they must have liked my work ethic. They offered me the position of a graduate civil engineer.”
In her new job, Wioletta was tasked with undertaking designs of water supply and wastewater networks, as well as gas and air conditioning systems for municipal buildings. The highlight from that chapter of her life was engaging with communities and discussing plans of replacing the current septic tanks system with a public collection network. She says it was interesting to hear public views, answer their concerns and share their excitement.
Then Wioletta stumbled over a seasonal job opportunity in the UK. English was not required, and she believed being fluent in French and Russian would come in handy.
“My plan was to move across for six months and earn enough money to have a deposit for a nice apartment in Poland. At age 25, I presented my parents with a ticket to England for the following Tuesday. And just like that, I was off!
“Looking back, I can see a certain level of bravery and naivety, but also a lot of determination.
“My managers were very supportive, they offered to keep doors open to my current role when I came back. But I am a ‘glass half full’ kind of person – the
idea of things ‘not working out’ never crossed my mind. But it turned out they were sort of right: there was no job. It was a scam!”
The vision of going back after just three days in the UK and admitting to everyone that they were right, was almost unbearable for Wioletta.
“I was determined to make it work. Fortunately, before I left Poland, I had gotten phone numbers of Polish people in the UK. One of them was an old flatmate of my best friend from Uni. I didn’t really know him, but I called him in desperation, and he was willing to help.
“He helped me get accommodation in a shared flat and through an employment agency I was able to get jobs – I worked in factories, I did cleaning jobs and I worked in McDonalds. I surrounded myself with English speaking people and for the first six months I would not leave home without a dictionary in my hand!
“One of the cleaning jobs I had was in a hospice, and when the staff found out I had an engineering degree, they encouraged me to apply for engineering jobs, so I did.”
Using the Yellow Pages, Wioletta sent her CV to companies with water in their names, and one asked her to interview.
“I didn’t expect to get the job but I thought the interview would be good practice – and then they hired me!”
For the next seven years, Wioletta worked for RPS Water in Clevedon, near Bristol.
“I did lots of field work, doing short-term flow monitoring and wastewater network asset surveys. I got to know a lot about pumping stations and CSOs. In about my third or fourth year I was introduced to hydraulic modeling and was immediately entranced.
“I saw the simulation replay and changes in water levels on a long section of a network – it blew my mind! I thought, I want to do this. This is so amazing.”
Wioletta also took advantage of RPS Water’s structured mentoring programme to become a chartered member of CIWEM.
“I had an amazing mentor. In my eyes he was the most knowledgeable engineer, always cool, calm, and collected, great with clients, and supportive and encouraging to juniors.”
During the Global Financial Crisis in 2008, the water industry was hit hard in the UK. Wioletta realised that she needed to diversify her skills to be more valuable and to avoid redundancy. There were many job losses around her, but with her CAD skills, Wioletta was able to undertake drafting for utility and ground penetrating surveys.
“A real career highlight was when I had to do an impact assessment at Pinewood Studios, where parts of movies such as James Bond, Harry Potter, and Mamma Mia were filmed. As part of Pinewood's £200 million expansion, they wanted to build replicas of famous streetscapes, but all the properties would have the dual purpose of having people living in them while still being a film set.
“I was assessing the impact of that development on the wastewater network and doing concept designs of improvements to the network to accommodate
the extra people living there. It was such a fun project but unfortunately had stalled due to big objections from locals. I still check on it now and then to see if it’s going ahead.”
After seven years, Wioletta wanted a change, so moved to Mott McDonald in Cambridge, where she was seconded to Glasgow, to work on modeling for one of the large cities of Scotland.
“I enjoyed my time at Mott MacDonald but something about the move from Somerset to Cambridge didn’t really click. I realise now I was just impatient and needed to settle in. There were some great opportunities unfolding for me there, but instead, I applied for a job in New Zealand at Opus International Consultants and they offered me a role.”
Wioletta and her husband bought one-way tickets, coming with the mindset of making it work. There was no Plan B, she says.
“It was 2011 and the Rugby World Cup was in full swing. We went to a pub on our first day to watch a rugby match, and I learned what haka was. The atmosphere was amazing.
“And Opus was very welcoming. I felt I had landed in the right place.”
Wioletta carried on hydraulic modelling and was given plenty of opportunities to “try all sorts of things, to learn and expand”.
“I always wanted to do more, learn, develop. I finally could do water supply and stormwater and flood modelling in addition to the wastewater.”
In 2012 she became a Chartered Member of CIWEM and joined the Water New Zealand Modelling SIG committee. With being new to the country, the group enabled Wioletta to expand her professional network and provided first-hand understanding of developments in the industry. After over six years with Opus in Auckland, Wioletta relocated with her
husband and two daughters to Cambridge.
“Opus, or at that time WSP-Opus, were very supportive and they allowed me to transfer to the Hamilton office, which I really appreciated.”
Then the seven-year itch struck. The family moved to Hamilton and Wioletta joined Aecom.
“I met some great people at Aecom and had many opportunities to learn, but my hunger for discovery, learning and expanding brought me to seek further opportunities in the industry.
Wioletta considered her options. She had done a lot of research and decided that Tonkin + Taylor could offer what she was looking for.
“It has been over three years now and I am still loving Tonkin + Taylor as much as I did in my first week here. I appreciate the company’s culture, the support and encouragement, the trust, the freedom, and the opportunities. And once again – I have a pretty amazing mentor to guide me through the maze of technical and management aspects. I’m very grateful.”
Wioletta’s highlight from the recent years is her role within LEAD Alliance as 3 Waters lead and then discipline lead – water supply and wastewater. Tonkin + Taylor, Woods, Harrison Grierson, Kainga Ora and built partners are working together to transform seven large areas across Auckland.
“In my role, I lead a team of planning and modelling specialists tasked with defining infrastructure needs to enable land development. The work includes brownfield redevelopment which comes with many challenges and requires regular stakeholder engagement.”
Wioletta is also chair of the Water New Zealand Modelling Group and the vice-chair of CIWEM New Zealand Group.
Sea foam: A ‘bacterial smoothie’
Two windswept beaches 80 kilometres south of Adelaide have been closed to the public after locals reported more than 100 surfers fell ill on a weekend in mid-March. Their symptoms included a sore throat, dry cough, and irritated eyes or blurred vision. Dead sea dragons, fish, and octopuses have also washed up on the beaches. By Ipek Kurtböke, associate professor in microbiology, University of the Sunshine Coast
Water samples have been taken for testing and health authorities suspect toxins from an algal bloom may be to blame. But the mysterious foam in the water is a health hazard in its own right.
My research shows people should not go in the sea when it is foaming. These bacterial smoothies can contain more harmful pathogens than a sewage treatment plant – and you wouldn’t go swimming in sewage.
Beware of sea foam
Sea foam doesn’t look dangerous. But looks can be deceiving. This foam is likely to contain a mixture of many different types of microbes and pollutants.
On beaches with lots of sea foam, people should avoid all contact with the water – and definitely avoid surfing or breathing in the contaminated water droplets in the air.
I have been studying sea foams since 2003. In 2021, my PhD student Luke Wright and
I published research (see mdpi.com/20760817/10/5/579) on our discovery of infectious disease-causing microbes in the sea foams of the Sunshine Coast in Queensland.
Named Nocardiae, these microbes are filamentous bacteria that can cause foaming in wastewater treatment plants, particularly when there’s a high load of fats, oils, and greases. We now know the bacteria can cause foaming in the sea too.
We detected 32 strains of Nocardiae in samples of sea foam from beaches at Noosa and south to Caloundra.
Some of these species were new to science. So we named them Nocardia australiensis and Nocardia spumea (‘spumea’ meaning froth or foam).
Nocardiae bacteria are known to cause skin, lung and central nervous system infections in both humans and animals. But the infection usually only takes hold in people with weakened immune systems. The bacteria can
cause abscesses in the brain, lungs and liver.
The incubation time can range between one and six months, depending on the strain of bacteria and the health status of the person involved.
This means it will take some time for people to get infected and show symptoms. Long-term medical monitoring is required to detect the condition, as it can be masked by other disease-causing microbes such as the infectious agent that causes tuberculosis.
Where is the sea foam coming from?
During heavy winds, microbial spores from the soil can end up on the surface of the ocean. If the water is polluted with floating fats and grease as well as asphaltene, motor oil, and hydrocarbons, these spores soon form bacterial colonies or biofilms that go forth and multiply.
That’s because these microbes use pollution
32 strains of Nocardiae were detected in samples of sea foam from beaches at Noosa and south to Caloundra. Some of these species were new to science, so were named Nocardia australiensis and Nocardia spumea (‘spumea’ meaning froth or foam).
as a food source. Seawater is increasingly polluted by runoff from farmland or hard surfaces such as roads. Everything washed into the stormwater, drains out to sea. During heavy storms accidental overflow from sewage systems can also occur, as Rockhampton has experienced in the past.
Algae is another food source for these microbes, as they can crack open algae cells to access the nutritious oils inside. Sea foams have been observed in northern France during algal blooms.
Warm water makes matters worse, as the warmth increases the survival rate for Nocardiae. In our laboratory on the Sunshine Coast, we were able to replicate a foaming event. We found foaming started at water temperatures of 24°C and above.
What can be done about it?
Reducing stormwater pollution will reduce the growth of sea foams. Any potential incident of infections of these surfers can raise awareness of the problem.
But sea foam can also be found in pristine environments such as national parks, where it is mostly due to oils leached from trees. We proved this fact at Noosa National Park.
In my experience on the Sunshine Coast, the council and other local authorities have been very receptive to advice on how to fix the problem. They have supported our research and also completed major upgrades at sewage treatment plants over the past 20 years.
Once there’s an outbreak in the environment it is very difficult to control. That’s because the ocean is an open system, as opposed to the closed system of a sewage treatment plant, where operators can use special chemicals or mechanical equipment to break the foam down. In open sea it’s impossible. So we just have to wait for it to go away.
In this case, teams of researchers from different disciplines should come together to explore the issue. Microbiologists, marine scientists, meteorologists, and chemists should team up to find out what’s going on. Ocean currents should be followed to determine where the pollutants end up.
Sea foam is a global issue
Earlier in March, Tropical Cyclone Alfred whipped up sea foam all the way along the coast from South East Queensland to northern New South Wales. I was horrified to see footage of people playing in the thick, sticky sea foam, blissfully unaware of the dangers.
But the problem is not confined to Australia; sea foam can be found at polluted beaches all over the world.
I have been telling this story ever since I first observed it on the Sunshine Coast in 2003. Every time there’s a major sea foam event, the media is interested. But research support is also needed in the gaps in between. We scientists need to monitor the shorelines continuously.
As long as humanity continues to produce pollution, the problem will increase. It will also worsen as the world warms, because sea foams like it hot.
This article first appeared in The Conversation.
Skill -Up
NZ Apprenticeship in WastewaterTreatment Level 4
(with Multi-stage Processes strand)
Skill-up with New Zealand’s leading provider of infrastructure industry training.
When every drop counts
For over 90 years ADR has been there for New Zealand water authorities and Councils with our fieldsmart technology.
From metering to control systems to pump controllers, we offer insight and expertise in the technology that helps you manage water and waste water to a high standard, with resources that are always limited.
Waterborne disease surveillance highlights gaps in risk factor reporting
Environmental Health Intelligence New Zealand (EHINZ) reports reveal under-reporting of waterborne diseases, which is masking the true impact of untreated drinking and recreational water on public health.
EHINZ says large numbers of waterborne disease cases are not receiving the necessary follow-up investigations. A unit within Massey University’s College of Health that provides information and intelligence on how the environment affects the health of the population, EHINZ updated its surveillance reports on cases of waterborne diseases, including campylobacteriosis, giardiasis and cryptosporidiosis.
The reports reveal a worrying trend: large numbers of waterborne disease cases are not receiving the necessary follow-up investigations, particularly in relation to their potential connections to water contamination.
EHINZ’s surveillance relies on data from ESR’s EpiSurv system, which tracks notifications of gastrointestinal diseases reported by public health services. EHINZ senior intelligence analyst Patrick Hipgrave says that while public health providers are required to report all relevant risk factors for each case of waterborne disease to the Institute for Environmental Science and Research (ESR), much of this crucial data goes unreported.
“Auckland’s public health services, in particular, have shown consistent under-reporting, with risk factor data included in only about two percent of campylobacteriosis reports.
“This lack of thorough data collection means that many waterborne illnesses may go unrecognised and their causes unaddressed within the healthcare system.”
EHINZ’s latest findings include 419 notifications of campylobacteriosis, 90 of cryptosporidiosis and 88 of giardiasis in 2023, where untreated drinking water was identified as a potential risk factor. However, these numbers are likely to be underestimates, as risk factor data was missing for the majority of cases.
In 2019-2023, no health district reported sufficient risk factor information for a reliable calculation of disease rates linked to untreated drinking water, which Patrick says suggests the true scale of the issue is much higher.
“Despite the large number of reported cases, untreated drinking water as a risk factor was only noted in about 10 percent or less of all notifications in 2023. In fact, more than two-thirds of notifications for these diseases had no risk factor information at all.
“EHINZ estimates that, based on the available data, there could be as many as 1234 additional cases of campylobacteriosis, 120 cases of cryptosporidiosis and 171 cases of giardiasis in 2023 that may be linked to untreated drinking water.”
A call for better data and accountability
Patrick says the lack of risk factor information hampers the ability to assess the true impact of untreated drinking water and recreational water on public health. These gaps in data are especially problematic for public health authorities trying to track the effectiveness of water safety measures and prevent further outbreaks.
For instance, the 2016 contamination of Havelock North’s drinking water highlights the potential severity of untreated water sources. Patrick says the outbreak, which involved 964 confirmed cases of campylobacteriosis, may have affected as many as 8320 people in the town – demonstrating how such diseases can spread quickly when water sources are compromised.
EHINZ also noted that completion rates for risk factor reporting have remained low across the country, with some districts showing risk factor completion rates as low as one percent.
Recreational water: a less recognised source of infection
In addition to untreated drinking water, EHINZ’s report also examined recreational water as a potential source of disease.
In 2023, 103 notifications of campylobacteriosis, 26 of cryptosporidiosis and 35 of giardiasis were linked to recreational water contact. However, similar to the untreated drinking water data, these figures are likely to be under-reported due to incomplete or absent risk factor information.
EHINZ highlighted that, when considering the missing data, there could be an additional 215 cases of campylobacteriosis, 20 of cryptosporidiosis and 48 of giardiasis in 2023 potentially linked to recreational water exposure.
Completion rates for risk factor information vary significantly across the country. Health districts such as West Coast, Lakes and Wairarapa have demonstrated relatively high notification rates with complete risk factor data, whereas the Auckland region has shown consistently poor data collection.
The varying standards across different public health services (PHS) make it difficult to draw reliable conclusions from the data, highlighting the need for improved reporting practices nationwide.
The need for improved surveillance
As Aotearoa New Zealand continues to grapple with the challenges of monitoring waterborne diseases, Patrick says stronger accountability and better data collection practices across all public health districts is needed.
“The ongoing gaps in risk factor reporting not only obscure the true extent of waterborne disease transmission but also limit the country’s ability to address these public health threats effectively.”
The complete reports are available online. Untreated water: ehinz.ac.nz/assets/Surveillance-reports/Released_2024/WBD_ withDW24_final.pdf, and recreational water: ehinz.ac.nz/assets/ Surveillance-reports/Released_2024/WBD_withRW24_final.pdf.
Article provided by Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa Massey University
Get to know Mary Wood, our Technical Lead, as we delve into her career journey and insights on the trends that are shaping the future of the water industry.
Tell us about your role at GHD
I’m a Technical Lead and GHD Associate, based in the sunny Bay of Plenty. As a civil engineer, I have the privilege of mentoring team members and junior staff while contributing to a range of threewaters projects, from initial concept through to detailed design. I also assist with option analysis, navigating consenting processes and providing evidence for hearings. It’s a rewarding and varied role that allows me to be involved at multiple stages of each project.
What inspired you to pursue a career in engineering and how has that passion evolved over time?
What initially drew me to engineering was a genuine desire to help solve problems I found that engineering offered a great blend of practical problem-solving and the chance to work on projects that have a tangible impact Over time, my enjoyment for the field has grown, especially as I've had the opportunity to work on a variety of projects and collaborate with a diverse group of people.
““I believe that by supporting great local talent we can build the skills necessary to create a stronger and more sustainable future.”
What do you love about working on projects in your community?
It feels more tangible working in a regional office You have closer contact with clients, a greater sense of investment in local projects, and it’s rewarding to see and hear about the positive results when you ’ re out in the community.
What do you think clients are prioritising most in today’s water engineering projects?
I’d say the key priorities are value for money and efficiency. While this may seem simple, the real challenge lies in achieving outcomes within a limited scope or budget. It’s like preparing a meal with whatever you have in the fridge – you can’t go out for extra ingredients, so you need to make the most of what’s available. Ultimately, the goal is to maximise resources and still deliver the best result possible
In terms of the future of the engineering industry, what trends or innovations are you most excited about, and how do you see them shaping your work?
I’m excited about the growing use of blue-green infrastructure It’s been a long time coming in the stormwater field, and it’s great to see how these solutions can bring environmental, social, and economic benefits all in one project.
In water and wastewater, I’m excited about advancements in data and modelling tools. They’re helping us understand network performance with confidence, which means we can plan better, prioritise key areas and develop adaptive strategies to tackle future challenges like climate change and growth.
Implementing a Wastewater Safety Plan in Te Aroha
Water services entities will be required to develop wastewater risk management plans as part of the new national wastewater standards. This case study outlines a risk management plan developed by Lutra for the Matamata Piako District Council (MPDC) and how plans can provide practical ways to get the best operational and environmental outcomes.
In the wake of the Havelock North Inquiry in 2017, the water industry faced significant regulatory changes. The establishment of Taumata Arowai as an independent regulator and the revision of the Drinking Water Standards of New Zealand were among the key initiatives.
Amid these developments, MPDC and Lutra identified the potential value in developing what we termed a Wastewater Risk Management Plan (WWRMP) for the Te Aroha wastewater network.
A pilot plan was developed and designed to take the Water Safety Plan framework and adopt this for wastewater. By taking this approach and aligning the water and wastewater safety plans, we were looking to gain efficiencies and make each plan understandable and comparable between operations groups.
The Te Aroha wastewater network serves a population of approximately 4250 people. The network is prone to infiltration and inflow during wet weather, leading to occasional overflows.
The wastewater treatment plant, originally built in the 1970s and upgraded in 2006, includes a flat sheet MBR process. The plant’s resource consent allows for the discharge of up to 7000 cubic metres of treated effluent per day, with specific conditions for effluent quality.
The pilot programme aimed to improve environmental outcomes through better wastewater treatment, enhance industry consistency and versatility by aligning quality management approaches across water and wastewater, and provide thought leadership and experience to the industry.
The development and piloting of the WWRMP involved several stages, including
a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) to quantify organisational benefits from the creation of a WWRMP framework, data review and gap analysis, risk assessment, and the final MCA and outcomes.
The programme encountered several challenges and risks, as well as solutions. These included, for example, compliance for nutrient removal with manual chemical dosing, along with innovative solutions such as automated management of landfill leachate addition, and consideration of supplemental carbon dosing into the swing zone to improve denitrification based on automated feedback loops.
Unlike water treatment plants (WTP), wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) cannot demonstrate compliance in real-time due to the limited online instrumentation.
Compliance in a WWTP is demonstrated through sampling, which may take several days for results to be available. This necessitated a comprehensive capacity assessment to understand both the hydraulic and biological treatment capacities.
The team conducted a thorough review of historical plant data and used a steady-state Biowin model to fill gaps in understanding the plant’s performance and compliance risks.
The wastewater treatment plant, originally built in the 1970s and upgraded in 2006, includes a flat sheet MBR process. The plant’s resource consent allows for the discharge of up to 7000 cubic metres of treated effluent per day, with specific conditions for effluent quality.
There was considerable overlap between what would be considered Critical Control Points (CCPs) and various standard operating procedures (SOPs).
The team identified and reviewed available documents and policies, noting that most required information was available but not organised in a user-friendly manner. This required repurposing and adjusting existing information to populate the WWRMP.
They found that compliance with effluent nutrient loads was impacted by high effluent flow rates caused by inflow and infiltration during wet weather events.
To mitigate this risk, they proposed reducing the severity of inflow and infiltration or improving the management of equalisation volumes in the oxidation ponds.
The pilot highlighted the importance of a multibarrier compliance approach, similar to the drinking-water industry.
The Te Aroha WWTP achieves its effluent E. coli limit through membrane filtration, but this single barrier approach lacks robustness. One recommendation from the team to
achieve this was to evaluate the installation of a UV disinfection system providing a proactive, secondary approach to maintaining E. coli compliance.
The risk assessment process identified 14 hazards with intolerable residual risk, seven of which were within the reticulation network.
The team proposed several improvements, such as bunding the leachate storage tanks and desludging the oxidation ponds, to mitigate compliance risks and improve environmental outcomes. As a result, several of the risks identified in the network and at the plant have been addressed or are being addressed through upgrades such as pump station improvements and membrane treatment capacity upgrades.
By going through this process, similar to a wastewater safety plan, the preparation of the WWRMP helped to increase the understanding and awareness across the council, and its operations teams, reducing risks around maintaining compliance. Meanwhile the alignment of documents, terminology, and risk mitigation strategies
across drinking-water and wastewater treatment helps to improve the consistency across both the organisation and wider industry.
The WWRMP pilot in Te Aroha successfully demonstrated the value of a quality management approach to wastewater treatment and identified the following key findings to reduce risk; recommending the automation of the leachate dosing system and considering supplemental carbon addition to reduce effluent TN, as well adding a UV system for multi barrier protection.
These outcomes support improved environmental outcomes, industry consistency, and thought leadership and provide a strong foundation for future WWRMP implementations.
Lutra acknowledges the MPDC operations and compliance team for their valuable input and data collection efforts.
If you want to find out more about the pilot, you can get the full whitepaper at lutra.com/ blog/wastewater-safety-plans/.
Article provided by Lutra
and
• Rotary drum screens
• Sludge heat-exchangers
• Macerators & chopper pumps
Weakening currents in the Atlantic may mean a wetter northern Australia and drier New Zealand
Europe is warmed by heat from ocean currents, which move water from the warm tropics to the colder North Atlantic. Once the warm, salty waters from the tropics reach the polar region, they cool enough to sink to the depths and flow back towards the Southern Ocean. This enormous system of currents is known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). Climate scientists are increasingly worried about the AMOC, which appears to be slowing down. By Himadri Saini, research associate, and Laurie Menviel, associate professor, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW Sydney.
While there’s still debate over whether the AMOC has weakened over the past decades, climate models consistently show the AMOC will significantly weaken over the coming century due to the increase in heat-trapping atmospheric greenhouse gases.
As more heat stays in the system, the ocean heats up and ice melts, adding fresh water to polar oceans. The overall effect is to slow these currents. The AMOC could weaken 30 percent by 2060.
A weaker AMOC would mean big changes in Europe, which benefits directly from the warmer waters it brings. But it would also change the climate in the Southern Hemisphere. Our new research (read paper at agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ full/10.1029/2024PA004967) shows a weakening of the AMOC would lead to a large change in rainfall patterns, leading to wetter summers in northern Australia and a drier New Zealand yearround. Indonesia and northern Papua New Guinea would also become drier.
Running AMOC?
In the Earth’s long history, the AMOC has gone through many periods of weakening. These were most common during ice ages, when glaciers expanded, but they also occurred during periods as warm as today.
To reconstruct past climates, researchers use data from ice cores, marine sediment cores and speleothems (mineral deposits in caves such as flowstone and stalagmites), as well as simulations performed with climate models.
These data show a weaker AMOC strongly affected the climate in the Northern Hemisphere. When flows of warmer water faltered, sea ice expanded in the North Atlantic, while Europe endured colder, drier conditions and the northern tropics became drier.
If the AMOC weakens significantly, it will mean major change for Northern Hemisphere nations. Average temperatures could actually drop 3°C in Western Europe.
Our modelling shows a collapse of the AMOC causes cooling in the North Atlantic and warming in the South Atlantic (blue-red colour scale in celcius, shown below). In turn, this leads to increased rainfall over northern Australia (green colours) and drier conditions (brown colours) in New Zealand (left).
At present, the AMOC’s flows of warmer water give European nations more pleasant climates and keeps ports ice free, while the Canadian side of the North Atlantic has a much more severe climate.
What does it mean for the Southern Hemisphere?
Data from ice cores and marine sediment cores also showed Antarctica and the Southern Ocean became warmer during these past AMOC weakening events. Until now, we haven’t understood what an AMOC weakening would mean for rainfall in the Australasian region.
To find out, we ran climate model simulations with the Australian Earth system model, ACCESS-ESM1.5. Our modelling reveals a complex and regionally varied response, primarily shaped by large-scale atmospheric changes.
As the AMOC weakens, it sets off a chain reaction in the oceans and atmosphere which alter rainfall and temperatures across Australasia.
A weaker AMOC would affect ocean temperatures, cooling surface waters in the northern hemisphere and warming waters in the southern hemisphere. This would push the Intertropical Convergence Zone – a belt of heavy rain near the equator – further south.
This means areas such as northern Papua New Guinea and Indonesia will get less rain, while northern Australia will cop wetter summers.
Next, a warmer south equatorial Atlantic triggers atmospheric waves –large-scale movements of air that travel across the globe. These waves lower air pressure over northern Australia, pulling in more moisture and making summer rainfall even heavier.
At the same time, a weaker AMOC disrupts the usual tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean dynamics, altering wind patterns and pressure systems in the Southern Hemisphere. High pressure systems shift southward, affecting storm tracks. The overall effect is fewer storms reaching southern Australia and New Zealand, leading to drier winters.
Last, as the Atlantic currents peter out, heat builds up in Southern Hemisphere oceans rather than being carried to the poles. This results in hotter summers, particularly in southern Australia and New Zealand.
Deluges and droughts
It’s likely we will see these important currents weaken this century, bringing major change to both hemispheres.
Those in Australia and New Zealand are likely to see a magnification of some existing climate shifts, such as a drier south and wetter north.
Policymakers and resource managers need to prepare for a future where water becomes an increasingly uncertain resource. In the north, more rain over summer could mean a greater reliance on water storage and flood mitigation. In the south, drier conditions may force increased water use efficiency and drought planning.
In New Zealand, a year-round drying trend could challenge farm productivity and hydropower generation. Long-term water management will be critical.
What happens in the North Atlantic doesn’t stay there. It ripples through the atmosphere and oceans, with far-reaching consequences.
This article was originally published in The Conversation
THE FUTURE OF PIPELINE ASSET MANAGEMENT IS HERE
IPS Alliance empowers clients by identifying critical pipeline assets and using advanced, cost-effective analysis to deliver actionable plans for remediation or maintenance. This approach focuses resources on urgent renewals, maximising value and minimising waste.
Our approach leverages cutting-edge technology, data-driven insights, and a unified strategy through collaboration between industry leaders—Intergroup, Assetlife, Pipeline & Civil, and ProjectMax—to streamline processes, reduce complexity, and deliver tailored solutions at every stage of a project.
With IPS Alliance as your partner, you can expect innovative solutions that respect your time, optimise costs, and ensure sustainable success.
For more information please visit our website: ipsalliance.co.nz
Seven possible futures to meet South Dunedin’s flooding challenges
South Dunedin Future programme manager, Jonathan Rowe will be a keynote speaker at the Water New Zealand Stormwater 2025 Conference in Rotorua. His presentation follows the release of two major reports by the Dunedin City Council-Otago Regional Council (DCC-ORC) programme in mid-March which analyse the risks facing the low lying areas and options for responding to them. The reports are key building blocks for making a long-term climate adaption plan.
Jonathan says these reports are a major milestone after several years of technical work and community discussions.“Not only do we have a better understanding of the challenges South Dunedin will face in the future, we now have a full suite of potential responses.”
Report 1: Risk Assessment
The ‘South Dunedin Risk Assessment’ brings together the first comprehensive picture of the flood-related challenges facing the area.
It analyses the risks presented by a range of natural hazards like surface flooding, coastal inundation, and shallow groundwater, illustrating these down to a city block level. It shows that the overall flood risk is already high for a large part of the area known as The Flat and this will increase over the next 75 years with climate change.
Half of all South Dunedin buildings are at risk of rainfall flooding now, and this rises to up to almost 70 percent by 2100. The assessment details what is expected to happen in South Dunedin unless additional action is taken to manage the flooding.
ORC manager natural hazards Dr Jean-Luc Payan says, “The risk assessment is a snapshot in time using the best available information. It will be updated as new data and information comes to hand. It is primarily intended to support suburb-level adaptation planning, so we can test how effective various adaptation options are at reducing risk.”
Report 2: Seven Potential Futures
The second report, ‘Potential Adaptation Futures’, identifies and analyses seven possible futures for the area, with a status quo ‘doing nothing’ option, and a further six options along a spectrum of ‘fight and flight’. One end of the spectrum involves investing heavily in new
infrastructure, the other end involves moving people out of the worst affected areas, with options in between involving a mix of actions.
A visualisation has been created for each future showing what South Dunedin could look like in the year 2100.
“The potential adaptation futures show there are a range of things that we can do to make South Dunedin both safer and better. This includes building new infrastructure, creating streams, parks and wetlands, and moving people out of harm’s way,” Jonathan says.
“Some of those options look very different to how South Dunedin is now – and could involve a lot of change. Change would bring challenges, but also some exciting opportunities. We will talk with the community about the trade-offs involved with each future.”
Future 1 is a continued status quo for the next 75 years. It shows that if we keep doing what we’re doing it is likely to increase the flood risk and lead to the worst overall outcomes, with an estimated cost of about $2 billion by 2100, high risks and negative social effects, with very few benefits.
Futures 2 – 7 each adopt a different mix of infrastructure and managed relocation. The estimated cost of implementing these futures ranges from $2.8 billion to $7.1 billion (over 75 years) and have benefits of up to $4.5 billion. The costs and benefits of these don’t sit just with councils, they would be shared across Government, insurance, banks, businesses, property owners and the people of Dunedin.
In 2023, the South Dunedin Future programme developed 16 approaches that could be used. Following feedback of more than 500 residents and technical analysis, these approaches were combined in different ways to develop the seven potential adaptation futures released this week.
Next steps
Both reports have been put to the Dunedin City Council and Otago Regional Council for consideration. Councillors were asked to endorse the reports for consultation with affected communities, planned for April and early May.
This milestone has been welcomed by the leaders of both councils.
“It’s great to see this important work reach this stage where communities have a clear picture of the risks and a sense of how the future could look for South Dunedin. I look forward to discussing the reports with councillors next week,” says Dunedin’s Mayor Jules Radich.
“It’s pleasing to see latest reports blending technical science and engineering expertise with wide community engagement. This information will empower informed decisions as communities plan for a resilient future,” says ORC chair Gretchen Robertson.
Further phases of more detailed technical and economic work are planned to refine the seven futures down to a preferred option, a process that would include further community engagement. A final adaptation plan is on track to be agreed by the end of 2026.
“This is a process which takes time, but it’s important that we hear the community’s views, and use the best available science, engineering, and planning to identify the best way forward. Alongside the long-term focus of the South Dunedin Future programme, there is also more immediate work happening to address more present day issues in South Dunedin,” Jonathan says.
Other work to address issues
In the short-term, the DCC is planning to spend $29 million dollars on three pipe and pumping projects around South Dunedin which together are expected to reduce the extent of flooding by between 10 and 20 percent.
Article provided by Dunedin City Council
Reliable Solutions for wastewater
Tackle the toughest wastewater challenges with KSB‘s range of pumps and mixers, including the AmaRex Pro, Amarex KRT, Amamix, and AmaProp. Designed for efficiency, durability, and minimal maintenance, our products ensure smooth operation in all wastewater applications.
A graphic of South Dunedin prior to extensive reclamation works. Source, Hilton 2010.
Conference highlights indigenous ties to water and land
Waipapa Taumata Rau, University of Auckland held its first Water and Indigenous (WAI) conference, uniting Indigenous communities and scholars to discuss water’s lifeforce and guardianship.
A three-day international event, held in March, brought together Indigenous scholars, students, and community researchers to highlight the vital connection between water and Indigenous communities worldwide.
WAI welcomed delegates from Hawai’i, Native American nations, the Pacific, and Aotearoa to discuss the significance of water, restoring prosperity to Indigenous communities, and the responsibility of people to protect bodies of water.
Postgraduate students from the University of Auckland and the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa also had a chance to share their research and experiences of what it means to define Indigenous scholarship.
Project Mokiha, a Robert Wood Johnson Research Project aimed at building community capacity to protect water resources and increase access to water, particularly in Hawai’i, was a key topic.
From a Native Hawaiian perspective, health is deeply rooted in spiritual and familial connections to the land, including freshwater. It’s a holistic concept that encompasses the interwoven relationships between kanaka (humankind) and ‘āina/kai (land/ sea) – a shared perspective between indigenous worlds.
The conference featured esteemed indigenous keynote speakers, including associate professor Mapuana Antonio, who spoke about a culture of health that extends beyond humans to all living beings.
“Health truly is relational, and what we are doing here is fostering well-being with one another. When we create authentic relationships with ourselves, we can also build them with each other, with our ‘āina, our land, and our environment,” she said.
“We are a by-product of our kūpuna’s (ancestor’s) resilience and we must continue to put medicine into the world today for future generations.”
Professor Troy Andrade from the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa reinforced the cultural and legal significance of water in Indigenous governance, particularly in Hawaiian traditions.
“In Hawaiian, ‘wai’ means fresh water, but when you say ‘waiwai,’ it signifies abundance,” he shared.
“Our kūpuna embedded their governance systems within language itself – ‘kānāwai,’ our word for law, directly relates to water. If you controlled water, you had power.”
Dr Ashlea Gillon (Ngāti Awa, Ngāpuhi, Ngāiterangi), a lecturer in the Faculty of Arts and Education, facilitated WAI. She said attendees were invited to connect with mana whenua across Tāmaki Makaurau, engaging directly with the land and water.
At Ōkahu Bay, they joined Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei for wai-based learning, experiencing water restoration efforts through paddling waka. They also visited mana whenua at Ihumātao, spending time on the whenua and learning about local restoration initiatives.
“These visits provided a powerful opportunity to deepen discussions on Indigenous connections to land and water, offering real-world perspectives on sovereignty, environmental protection and restoration,” Ashlea says.
For her, a key highlight of the gathering was the strategic collaboration between the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa and the University of Auckland. It is what she describes as a reflection of her longstanding partnership with Mapuana Antonio in supporting Indigenous scholarship and advocacy.
Participants also acknowledged the challenges indigenous scholars face, particularly in politically fraught environments.
“The current political climate across the globe can make it unsafe for indigenous peoples to do the critical work that we are doing. This gathering provided an opportunity to connect with our relations, identify synergies, and continue working together,” says Ashlea.
“Building these relationships helps us continue our kaupapa, our kuleana as indigenous researchers, scholars, community, activists, and much more. It also provides opportunities for our new and emerging indigenous scholars to connect, find synergies and know they are not alone.”
Article provided by the University of Auckland
From global fame to local success
At the heart of the Mackenzie lakes district, a huge nesting colony of an internationallyfamous bird – the pūteketeke or crested grebe – is a great indicator of community action and how nature can respond positively when we care for lakes.
One of the most encouraging examples of nature’s resilience can be seen in a small creek on the eastern shores of Lake Alexandrina, tucked away in the Mackenzie Basin.
This creek, serene and quiet thanks to a lack of motorised boats in the lake, has become a sanctuary for the pūteketeke/ crested grebe. Over the past five years, more than 60 nesting pairs have taken up residence along a short 50 metre stretch of water connecting Lake Alexandrina to the nearby Lake McGregor.
The bird was made famous in 2023 when American comedian and talk show host John Oliver got in behind the pūteketeke bid to be Forest and Bird’s Bird of the Century. It won in a landslide and his ‘alarmingly aggressive’ campaign elicited more than $600,000 in donations to the charity.
Pūteketeke nesting at Lake Alexandrina
Environment Canterbury Regional Council’s Love Our Lakes crew spoke with Dean Nelson, a Department of Conservation senior ranger for threatened species, who’s committed the entirety of his working life to protecting the natural environment.
“Here at Lake Alexandrina, we have a colony of pūteketeke, or crested grebe. Usually, they aren’t colonial nesters but for some reason over the last five years they’ve ended up nesting in large numbers in this short little stretch of creek,” he says.
“It’s become pretty well known, especially for wildlife photographers. A lot of people come here because the opportunity to see all the bird’s life stages up so close is really cool.”
Dean visits the colony on a weekly basis to check on their numbers and to chat with locals about the significance of the site.
“We put up a permanent fence to
keep people back a bit and give the birds some room, and there’s a group of local volunteers who trap the area too.”
Dean started his career with DOC in the early 1980s and has been based in Twizel for the past 20 years.
“We have a number of iconic and threatened species in the Mackenzie Basin and possibly, if we didn’t do anything about it, they’d be extinct or going extinct so it’s really important we can help them out.”
Look after our environment to protect nature
The pūteketeke at Lake Alexandrina are proof that when we care for our lakes, nature responds.
The Love Our Lakes campaign is run by the council’s Upper Waitaki Water Zone Committee, and promotes behaviour that will protect lakes, not just for today but for generations to come.
The Love Our Lakes principles –disposing of waste properly, keeping waterways clean, and respecting wildlife –ensures that places like Lake Alexandrina are healthy for future generations.
Since 2016, the Love Our Lakes campaign has asked locals and visitors to take a moment, appreciate the beauty around them, and make responsible choices when it comes to enjoying the region’s lakes.
Article provided by Environment Canterbury Regional Council
A pair of crested grebe or puketekete pair.
PHOTO COURTESY OF MARTY BARWOOD
Global strides in stormwater
Stantec’s Stormwater Academy is a training pathway for professionals to learn, develop, and engage with international expertise—better equipping our industry to solve key challenges. With a growing global network, the Stormwater Academy’s interconnected hubs will eventually include the UK, Canada, India, the USA, and Australia as well as New Zealand
Here’s what the first New Zealand cohort has to say:
Local problem-solving
“A stand-out highlight of the Academy was the learning module related to blue-green solutions and constructed wetlands. Learning about the innovative techniques and technologies available to engineers enables me to offer these exciting solutions to our clients and communities. I’ve already started implementing my learnings into projects that my team and I are delivering now!”
Graham Moralee, Senior Principal Network Planner & Three Waters Modelling Discipline Lead (Auckland)
Big picture thinking
“As a modeller, the Stormwater Academy transformed how I approach data and solutions—it’s more than just numbers on a screen. Collaborating with people I wouldn’t usually cross paths with also made communication and problem-solving much more seamless. This diversity brought a range of priorities and perspectives to case studies, which has since influenced how I tackle challenges in my day-to-day work.”
“The Stormwater Academy gave me an excellent insight into the UK’s combined sewer system. It was also interesting to learn about the political and environmental pressures in the UK driving a lot of this work—the experienced presenters and facilitators were a massive bonus. I’m currently using my training to help me design storm attenuation tanks to reduce spills in combined sewer overflows for Yorkshire Water.”
Many urban streams are degraded and suffering from erosion. The problem is exacerbated by urban growth, intensification and shifting rainfall patterns. Legislation, growing environmental awareness, and community and cultural expectations are all driving the push to restore our awa. However, our current management and restoration practices are failing to achieve the desired outcomes.
By Josh Irvine, technical principal in stormwater, WSP
During my Winston Churchill Fellowship tour, I had the privilege of understanding stream restoration practices in Scandinavia and North America. I’d like to share insights from this experience combined with local observations, based on universally-applicable principles. When embraced, these approaches will lead to more economical, effective, and sustainable solutions.
Understand the stream processes at play
Understanding the geomorphological processes and the catchment is key to defining the problem and predicting future changes.
Erosion is a natural process, but it can be accelerated by changes in the catchment or channel, causing issues such as infrastructure damage and environmental impacts. Streams naturally adjust over time to reach a more stable state, with the speed of this adjustment determined by the balance between the driving and resisting forces. However, given Aotearoa New Zealand’s young soils, true equilibrium may not be achievable, and we must account for the likelihood of ongoing erosion over time.
We need to avoid ‘patching’ up streams and focus on addressing the root causes instead of just the visible symptom. Designers can be guilty of accessorising streams too – e.g. woody debris here, a rock riffle there. We know in-stream interventions that are typically beneficial, but understanding the processes will ensure their effectiveness and longevity.
I learnt of a project in the Pacific Northwest where a channelised stream was ‘restored’ with significant sinuosity ‘built in’, but after the first flood the stream re-straightened itself to something closer to the previous state.
Design the minimum and for flexibility
Though our knowledge is improving, due to the complex and dynamic nature of these systems, designs must account for inherent uncertainty. Flexibility and a lighter touch will assist in overcoming the uncertainty of geomorphologic processes and our prediction of the future.
An inexperienced stream designer may be guilty of ‘overengineering’ solutions. While it’s easy to stop short-term erosion by concrete lining or heavily armouring a watercourse, it is not a good outcome and often leads to further erosion and flooding impacts downstream.
It is much harder to design something that has minimal disturbance but sufficiently addresses the ongoing problems. This approach will help though to prevent unintended consequences and unforeseen changes, and to preserve the natural characteristics of the stream. Adjustments can be made over time, based on monitoring and feedback, ensuring long-term success.
We need to avoid being heavy handed, forcing streams in a specific direction or introducing excessive sinuosity, but instead provide for flexibility, allowing the natural processes to play a significant role in the restoration.
A unique USA example demonstrates this approach, where beavers are being allowed to dam, creating pools and raising stream beds, reconnecting streams to their floodplains.
Focus on planning controls rather than design
We often default to implementing physical infrastructure projects without first considering planning provisions that may be more effective. This tendency can lead us to attempt to restore the stream without first restoring the catchment. Effective stream restoration can’t happen without appropriate management of the catchment and its associated hydrology.
We need to avoid permitting development close to streams. With adequate space there will be less reason to intervene and more mitigation options available.
Denver offers a good example, where generous stream management corridors are provided during development and now form linear parks through the city providing room for the stream to move and flood.
Conclusion
In summary, restoring streams demands a thoughtful approach: understanding the geomorphological processes, minimising intervention, planning for uncertainty, and prioritising effective catchment management to avoid common pitfalls.
Together we can learn from our mistakes and others', share best practice and achieve better outcomes for our streams.
Josh was a recipient of the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Fellowship 2022, which included a tour comprising seven weeks looking into different water management practices. A first piece on his findings from the tour was published in the Mar-Apr 2024 edition of this publication. This is the second.
Stream management corridors in Westerley Creek, Denver. Source, Mile High Flood District.
New technologies challenge traditional assumptions in pipeline renewals
Asset owners are rethinking how they manage ageing pipe networks, as new condition assessment technologies expose the cost and risk of relying solely on theoretical asset lifespans.
Traditionally, pipe renewals have followed standard age-based assumptions, with utilities replacing sections based on estimated design life rather than verified condition. But evidence is mounting that this approach is often wasteful – and potentially harmful.
“Utilities have dug up pipelines expecting to find deterioration, only to discover the pipe is still structurally sound, or not dug them up soon enough, resulting in failure,” says Christopher Miller, Business development manager for the Assetlife Alliance, a member of the Integrated Pipeline Solutions (IPS) Alliance.
“That’s money left on the table for good assets and a lost opportunity to reallocate resources to assets that genuinely need attention before they fail prematurely.”
At the same time, unplanned maintenance caused by failures in high-criticality mains – especially those running through urban corridors – can cause significant disruption, commercial losses, reputational damage and, in the case of wastewater assets, can have serious cultural and environmental consequences.
From reactive to evidence-based
Emerging non-destructive testing (NDT) tools are shifting the focus from reactive to evidence-based maintenance.
Technologies like induced pressure transient, ultrasonic testing and magnetic flux analysis can assess the wall thickness and detect corrosion in metallic pipes, providing reliable data on asset condition without service interruption and significantly reduced material costs.
These methods are already widely used in industries such as oil and gas but are only now gaining traction in the water sector.
Christopher says the water industry has lagged behind in adopting NDT, often because of legacy approaches or limited access to the right expertise; “But the shift is underway.”
One approach now gaining broader use is under pressure tapping (UPT). Commonly used to install live connections, UPT is now being used to extract physical samples – ‘coupons’ – from pressurised pipelines for lab analysis. It’s a way to gain critical insights into pipe integrity, chemical composition, and remaining service life without shutdowns and when combined with other technologies, gives higher confidence of future asset life.
Recent UPT projects for major councils on wastewater rising mains showed how data gathered through live sampling can inform targeted renewals. Samples revealed differences in wall thickness, levels of corrosive damage, and wastewater aggressivity – information that would otherwise remain unknown.
The scale of the challenge
New Zealand’s water, wastewater, and stormwater assets vary widely in age and material. Some pipelines are more than 100 years old, others are less than a decade. The condition of each depends on a complex set of factors, including installation practices, usage, and surrounding environment.
For infrastructure owners, this variability makes it difficult to predict failure or schedule replacements accurately. The result is often a mix of over-investment – replacing assets prematurely –and under-preparedness – where failure occurs without warning.
“In the past, the sector has operated with low confidence in the actual state of buried assets. That leads to either overspending or playing catch-up when something breaks.”
Collaborative delivery makes technology accessible
While the technologies themselves are becoming more available, the skills to deploy them are still specialised. For smaller utilities or regional councils, accessing the right tools, teams, and analytical capabilities can be a barrier.
That’s where collaborative models like the IPS Alliance have emerged. Formed by four New Zealand-based firms, ProjectMax, Intergroup, Assetlife, and Pipeline & Civil, IPS provides a single point of contact for clients needing condition assessment, maintenance, and remediation services. The alliance structure allows scalable delivery, drawing on a broad pool of expertise and equipment.
“Bringing multiple specialists under one roof reduces complexity for the client. It’s less about selling a service and more about reducing friction in how critical work gets done.”
The model also helps accelerate the adoption of new technologies by embedding them within familiar delivery structures.
From firefighting to foresight
Better data leads to better decisions. With detailed condition assessments, asset managers can move beyond age-based triggers and develop more accurate maintenance plans.
This shift improves budget predictability, reduces emergency works, and increases the lifespan of viable assets.
It also helps avoid the broader costs of failure – disruption to traffic and commerce, environmental damage from wastewater
The Singer ® control valve advantage
For asset owners, control valve pressure management can be one of the most cost-effective methods in reducing water loss which can lower operating and maintenance costs.
Singer’s unique rolling diaphragm technology provides operators unparalleled control and stability at all flow levels.
overflows, and public backlash over service outages.
“Infrastructure failures make headlines, but proactive maintenance doesn’t. That’s why we need to keep educating both the sector and the public about the value of investing in invisible assets.
This approach is advocated in the recently-published Water New Zealand Pressure Pipe Inspection Manual, authored by IPS Alliance member, ProjectMax.
The manual outlines the importance of planning inspections and interventions such that the right approach in the right location taking due regards to both asset criticality and cost. The manual also introduces the concept of data confidence and how this should be used to justify (or not) additional investigations.
Looking ahead
As pressure grows to improve infrastructure resilience while keeping costs down, evidence-based approaches will become essential. New Zealand is not alone – globally, municipalities face similar challenges of ageing infrastructure, limited budgets, and political pressure to do more with less.
While technology can’t solve every problem, it can eliminate much of the uncertainty. Live data from non-destructive assessments allows utilities to allocate capital where it’s needed most, and avoid spending it where it isn’t.
“Ultimately, it’s about confidence. Confidence in the data, in the decisions, and in the delivery.
“The tools are here. The challenge now is uptake.”
Article provided by IPS Alliance
Singer® control valves are not new to New Zealand and Hynds Water are proud to now be the supplier of this well established and trusted brand. Tested & third party certified to AS5081 - Hydraulically operated automatic control valves for waterworks. This ensures you are getting a quality product that meets local standards requirements.
Local Support
• Large stock holding of complete valves, valve bodies and components
• Spare parts and refurbishment kits available
• In-house workshop service for existing valves and custom build assemblies
Contact your local Hynds Water Business Development Manager to find out more about Singer® control valves and how they can help you in your network.
Richard Morron
Northern & Central region • 027 628 4607
Brent Merrit
Capital region • 027 294 1881
Dan Conaghan
South Island • 027 478 9540
PFAS - global state of the science
By Dr Karl Bowles, senior environmental scientist, Jacobs
New guidelines for land application of PFAS (per- and poly fluorinated alkyl substances) are expected to be published later this year, so it is timely to look at the global picture of PFAS contamination in biosolids and drinking water.
PFAS are raising concerns. The PFAS that end up in biosolids are those that tend to partition from liquid to solids. And those include PFAS of particular concern such as PFOS and PFOA, as well as less well-known PFAS (but equally hairy) such as so-called diPAPs which can break down to form other PFAS such as PFOA.
In Maine and New Mexico in the US, some dairy farms have been closed due to PFAS contamination from biosolids impacting milk. In Australia and New Zealand no farms have been closed down (that we are aware of) but there is sufficient concern that new guidelines for land application of PFAS have been drafted and are expected to be published later this year in v3.0 of the PFAS National Environmental Management Plan.
The US EPA has recently published a draft risk assessment for PFOS and PFOA in biosolids. This doesn’t include criteria for PFAS, and it’s not guidance. But it does very clearly make the point that if you have PFOS or PFOA in biosolids at 1 µg/kg (microgram per kilogram), you have many pathways for potential risks to people’s health.
This is important because most biosolids in the US have more than 1 µg/kg. And they have other PFAS at even higher concentrations.
For more direct relevance to Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, trigger levels in the PFAS NEMP v3.0 biosolids criteria for PFOS and PFHxS are also in the low µg/kg range.
The PFAS NEMP is not legally binding unless other legislation gives it (or part of it) force, but it is prepared by representatives of EPAs and endorsed by environment ministers here and in
Australia, so carries weight with environmental regulators. The draft NZ Good Practice Guide: Beneficial Use of Biosolids and other Organic Materials on Land references the PFAS NEMP v3.0.
The issue is further complicated by the listing of PFOS and PFOA with maximum contaminant levels for food imports to the European Union. In Australia, this has led the concerns around the possibility of some farmers being able to supply meat legally to an Australian market but not export overseas. This could potentially occur here.
Not surprisingly, there is a keen desire globally to produce biosolids with PFAS levels low enough to allow safe application to agricultural land whatever the market. The alternative is either destroy the biosolids or send to landfill, with its own long-term management headaches, and both at considerable expense.
To date, there is no conventional treatment able to remove PFAS from municipal wastewater prior to the stage biosolids are separated. Some researchers are therefore putting their efforts into destroying the PFAS in the biosolids and recovering what nutrients they can.
One of the main contenders is pyrolysis. This involves heating in a low oxygen environment to produce usable products such as biochar and bio-oil. It can also capture most of the phosphorus which is a critical win.
There’s a lot more work to be done to show that the PFAS are completely destroyed during pyrolysis, which is less well studied than incineration. Fortunately, there are now improved sampling and analytical techniques to help with that part of the problem.
Another option is to destroy all the organic matter in the biosolids and the PFAS along with it. Super critical water oxidation is one promising method. While it has its own logistical setbacks, several companies in the US are developing systems.
None of these technologies come without a price tag. This has pushed many to call for a complete ban on PFAS. Unfortunately, this is no simple fix. For example, the only major western producer of PFOS stopped production in 2002. That was over 20 years ago and yet PFOS is still one of the most prominent PFAS present in biosolids in western nations.
There are also fundamental questions about other PFAS in this enormous chemical family, and the balance between essential uses versus potential for harm.
As an extreme example, fluoxetine (A.K.A. Prozac) is a PFAS under the OECD definition used in the PFAS NEMP v3.0. So are many other pharmaceuticals and agvet chemicals. That’s not to say we don’t need national level discussion about PFAS in products but it needs to be a well-informed thoughtful discussion.
And from the wastewater sector’s perspective, it needs to include a discussion on costing arrangements that don’t result in costs of increased treatment being passed on to domestic customers with little control over the PFAS in the products on our supermarket shelves.
PFAS in drinking water… should we be worrying?
The occurrence of PFAS in environmental water, and even more so drinking water, is firmly in the spotlight at present. For example, on a single day in January 2025 there were over 30 media articles in Australia devoted to PFAS. Most of these were about concerns from exposure to PFAS from drinking water.
Much of the recent interest has followed release of drinking
water regulatory values in the US that are much lower than Australia’s values, and more recently, release by the National Health and Medical Research Council of draft drinking water guidelines for four PFAS (PFOS, PFHxS, PFOA and PFBS) in Australia, with the proposed guideline value for PFOS being equivalent to the US value.
NSW Health has sponsored sampling of drinking water sources in NSW to better understand potential risks of exposure. This sampling has revealed that most sources do not exceed the guideline values proposed by the NHMRC, though a few catchments do.
Concerns over PFAS impacts in the water supply from the Cascades Filtration Plant in the Blue Mountains, NSW, has led to the rapid installation of a portable PFAS treatment plant by Sydney Water.
Underlying these concerns and activities is uncertainty in the community about what response is warranted or even possible. There are disagreements globally over the levels at which health impacts might occur, what constitutes the PFAS class of chemicals and which PFAS most need attention.
Until recently, the focus on PFAS in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand centred around AFFF (aqueous film forming foams) firefighting foams, and in particular their use for training and emergency events at military and commercial airports. The potential for multiple routes to environment from other sources and pathways is now becoming much more widely appreciated.
The use of PFAS in an incredible array of commercial and
domestic products means that PFAS ends up trade waste, domestic sewage, and landfills. In most cases, these have not been engineered to manage PFAS and releases to the environment are now being considered.
Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand are fortunate to have many closed (protected) drinking water catchments and generally drinking water quality is very high.
The recent findings of PFAS above proposed drinking water guideline values in a few (of many) reservoirs, raises questions such as where the PFAS has come from, is the issue likely to be widespread, do concentrations change over time? And of course, what can be done to remove PFAS if alternative catchment sources are not available.
Apart from possible sources mentioned above, research from overseas has shown that PFAS can be transported in the air and spread on land and water from precipitation. We don’t yet know the extent to which this occurs in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand.
It is thought that this may not be as prominent as in the northern hemisphere, but given that many of our drinking water catchments rely on open surface water storages, it remains a question worth answering.
Fortunately, if treatment to remove PFAS from drinking water is necessary, there are a range of commercially available technologies, albeit at a considerable cost.
Direct destruction of PFAS in drinking water is a worthy goal, but the cost of treating large volumes of water make this impracticable. Therefore, commercially available approaches primarily rely on sorption to separate and concentrate the PFAS from water onto a solid phase.
Ion exchange and activated carbon are both effective approaches.
PRIMUS LINE® FLEXIBLE REHAB PIPE
Solving underground challenges.
Ion exchange can have an advantage if removal of short chain PFAS is required, and development of regenerable ion exchange resins is improving the economics of this approach. Regenerating spent activated carbon may be available to the US but so far does not appear to be commonly available in Australia or here.
In either case, there is a solid waste that needs to be managed. Given the high concentrations of PFAS in the waste, thermal destruction is generally the preferred approach.
Foam fractionation is another technology that is increasingly used to remove PFAS from environmental waters in site remediation, industrial wastewaters and landfill leachate.
Foam fractionation relies on the surface-active properties of long chain PFAS to remove them in a foam generated by bubbling a gas (which can be air) through the liquid. This technology is capable of extreme concentration factors that minimise costs for thermal destruction of the resulting waste stream.
At present, this technique is less desirable where removing short chain PFAS is a high priority, but research efforts are underway to improve this aspect.
Membrane approaches, notably reverse osmosis and nanofiltration are also capable of removing PFAS, and are better able to remove short chain PFAS than the sorptive approaches. However, membranes approaches typically have much higher volume waste streams requiring management and are less desirable from a water-scarcity viewpoint.
The current emphasis on long chain PFAS in Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand guidance means that sorption may be the go-to for removing PFAS for drinking water. However should regulation change in the future to short chain and ultra-short chain PFAS, membrane approaches may have an increasing role.
Ultrashort chain PFAS, especially trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), are increasingly being studied and reported in the media overseas, especially Europe and North America.
TFA can be in rainfall due to breakdown of chemicals used in air conditioning systems, and it can be in wastewater from degradation of pharmaceuticals and pesticides. While the level of concern for human health is not yet well established, if we continue to use these products, concentrations in the environment will continue to increase and theoretically at some point they must cross thresholds of impact.
While there is no driver at present in Australia or Aotearoa New Zealand to manage TFA and other ultrashort chain PFAS in wastewater or drinking water, should this ever be the case, the implications for managing this would be significant given very few technologies are capable of such treatment.
While such a case may seem far in the future, for those making decisions about current investments in infrastructure, such unanswered questions make futureproofing a more challenging task.
State-of-the-art aquariums will boost marine research at Leigh
The Leigh Marine Laboratory north of Auckland has unveiled state-of-the-art aquariums set to significantly enhance marine research capabilities. The multi-million-dollar Dr Anneliese Schuler Aquaria Laboratory at Waipapa Taumata Rau, University of Auckland, was named in honour of philanthropist Dr Beate Schuler’s mother.
This cutting-edge laboratory allows scientists to precisely control temperature, light, and noise, facilitating advanced research into animal and plant physiology, aquaculture, and the impacts of microplastics, ocean warming, low oxygen zones, and noise pollution on marine life and ecosystems.
“The facility represents a significant advancement in our ability to understand ocean life and address the impacts of various stressors, from pollution to overfishing and invasive species attracted by warmer waters,” says professor Conrad Pilditch, head of the Institute of Marine Science.
Current research at Leigh that will benefit from the new facility encompasses areas such as heat waves’ effects on intertidal shellfish; invasive Caulerpa seaweed; the effects of microplastics on seafloor ecology; carbon sequestration in kelp forests; the physiological basis of sleep in fish, using sharks as a model; excessive growth in sea
urchin populations; and health of farmed salmon.
Unlike public aquariums for tourists, this facility is strictly functional.
“The key point is that the laboratory complements our research vessel and analytical labs, modernising our overall infrastructure. It’s an important piece of the puzzle – great on its own, but truly excellent alongside the rest of our resources.”
Philanthropist Schuler also funded the construction of the research vessel Te Kaihōpara (The Explorer).
At the new facility, seawater is pumped from the adjacent Te Hāwere-a-Maki (Goat Island) marine reserve into tanks that flow into a large main hall, which can be configured in various ways, and five adjoining temperature-controlled rooms, two of which have sound damping. Outside, a large area houses external tanks supplied with the same environmentally controlled seawater.
“We were conducting experiments in
fibrolite sheds dating back to the 1960s,” says Professor Simon Thrush, former head of the Institute of Marine Science. “They weren’t quite cutting it.”
The aquarium facility sits alongside resources at the likes of the Nelson-based Cawthron Institute, and the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) aquaculture park in Bream Bay, Northland.
Perched on cliffs above the sea, Leigh Marine Laboratory has been operational since 1964. It was launched under the direction of Dr Bill Ballantine, who initiated the creation of New Zealand’s first marine reserve, a no-take zone which will celebrate its 50th anniversary this year.
The Goat Island Marine Discovery Centre at the Leigh campus offers handson marine-life experiences and education for visitors to the marine reserve, famous as a snorkelling and diving spot.
Article provided by the University of Auckland
The Dr Anneliese Schuler Aquaria Laboratory
Filtration
Filtersafe Titan
Automatic Self-Cleaning Screen Filter
Full 316 stainless steel construction
Filtration down to 10 micron
Maintenance without heavy lifting equipment
Safe and fast 1 person maintenance
Exceptional suspended solids removal
Patented filtration technologies: nozzlex™ , smartweave™ and EVERCLEAR™ Air Valves Backflow Prevention Control
fittings & pipes
LONGER
crack
HIGH
sandbed-free installation
LASTING CONNECTIONS
better welding results
ONE STOP SHOPPING complete PE 100-RC piping system
Improvements underway, but more change needed
In March, Wellington Water updated shareholding councils on work underway to make wide-ranging improvements to achieve better value for money, and advised significant change is still needed.
This ongoing work addresses a requirement from the five councils it serves for Wellington Water to find better value for money, as well as recommendations made in the independent review of an error in its budgeting advice for councils’ 2024-34 Long Term Plans. The review found issues with organisational structure, systems and processes, lack of strong checks and balances, lack of strategic leadership, and wider problems with organisational culture.
“When the review findings were released last year, the board knew it had to look more deeply into the organisation. As a result, we quickly made significant improvements to strengthen the company’s operations with the aim of providing better oversights and value for councils and their communities, says Wellington Water Board chair Nick Leggett.
“Since appointing a new chief executive in October, we have been relentless in identifying areas of improvement and making fundamental changes to the way we work and operate.
“A key part of that has been changing the organisation’s culture to one of listening and action – we have been encouraging people to speak up and raise risks early. Much of what we have acted on and improved has come directly from staff pointing us in the right direction.
“Through this change in culture and direction, we expected to find more areas where improvement was needed, and we haven’t been proven wrong.
“Recently more information has surfaced around the costs we are being charged by our contractors and suppliers, as well as staff raising concerns on the way our consultants and contractors are being managed. It was clear that the level of controls was not in place to ensure proper oversight and prudent financial management.
“We took these concerns very seriously and investigated. Our investigations also confirmed a lack of oversight, assurance, and weak financial processes and controls around how the company
manages its consultants and contractors, which opens us up to risks around fraud. This had to be changed immediately, and we have done so.
“One isolated incident of alleged theft was identified. The person responsible no longer works for us and the matter is now in the hands of the police.”
Wellington Water also looked at the costs the organisation’s frontline network maintenance and operational Alliance partner and consultants and contractors are charging and benchmarked this with costs from other councils across the country.
“Benchmarking found that in most cases we are ‘consistently more expensive’ than other comparable councils, particularly for drinking water and wastewater assets. These higher costs are likely to be a symptom of our contractual setup with suppliers and our lack of oversight, assurance and financial controls and processes.
“It is now abundantly obvious that we have not been delivering value for money for our shareholding councils. This is as unacceptable to the Board, as it is to councils and ratepayers.
“It’s important to note that these issues are the same ones that staff and some of our councils have been raising for a while now. We apologise for not listening previously. We are listening now and acting.
“We unreservedly apologise to our shareholding councils and the ratepayers of the Wellington region for these issues. Everyone expects and deserves better.”
While these investigations were underway, Wellington Water has already implemented some improvements:
• Reset its contractual set up with its project delivery (consultant and contractor) panels. In the previous model, all project work was funnelled through select groups of suppliers who then allocated this to a group of sub-contractors to deliver certain aspects of the project. This lack of oversight resulted in doubling
handling of work and additional contract management costs.
Wellington Water has now moved to a model where it will have a direct contract and relationship with all key sub-contractors. This will give better oversight of the work, reduce doubling handling, allow it to get the right contractor for the work needed, and save on contract management costs.
• Reset the focus and scope of the Alliance to run frontline network maintenance and operations. The reset involved implementing a new performance framework, making sure the teams are well placed to focus solely on operations and maintenance of the network, and increasing efficiencies. Wellington Water says it has already seen improvements – the response times to jobs have been the lowest since the Alliance was established five years ago.
• Increased commercial tension across project delivery panels by putting more work out to open tender for competitive bidding. This will ensure Wellington Water can better sense-check prices and quotes, and understand if it is getting the best price for key projects.
• Developed and implementing value-focused KPIs and regular reviews of performance against these KPIs for consultants and contractors.
“We haven’t been sitting on our hands, but we know that there is much more work to do,” adds Nick. “The board has accepted all recommendations from these investigations, and we have asked management to take some immediate actions to fix these issues.”
The following immediate actions are also underway:
• Continue to drive positive culture change where our people feel safe to raise risks early.
• Scheduled the first of many fraud and corruption training workshops for staff.
• Increasing financial oversight and approvals of payments to consultants and contractors, and ensuring the right people at Wellington Water are reviewing and approving invoices before being paid.
• Improving financial controls, including stopping the creation of annualised large value purchase orders; stopping automatic payments; amending financial delegations; and limiting who can approve invoices to be paid.
• Introducing stronger day-to-day oversight of the work of contractors and suppliers to make sure the interests of Wellington Water and its councils are put first and getting the best outcomes and value for money – for example we are increasing internal project management capacity to gain better detailed oversight of all projects instead of relying on contractors and suppliers to fulfil these roles.
“With councils actively considering the future model for water services delivery for the region, it’s important that we work at pace to implement these changes to ensure that Wellington Water is not an impediment to the establishment of any new entity.”
Summaries of the findings from our investigations are available at wellingtonwater.co.nz/about-us/news-and-media/costunderestimation-review.
Article provided by Wellington Water
No water – a very bad start to the day –but who do you call?
By Gillian Blythe, Water New Zealand chief executive
It’s 2028, 6am on a weekday morning, and the radio has just gone on – so you leap out of bed into the shower for a gentle wake-up in the steamy water ahead of a busy day. But then – calamity – no water.
What’s happened and who do you call? Well, in 2028, it’s not the organisation that supplies you with your water – the recently-formed council-controlled water organisation (CCO). It’s your local council.
That’s because, back in 2025, the legislation setting up the new CCOs didn’t require the new water entities to talk to their customers; the people they supply water services to. Instead, it required that the new CCOs ‘engage’ with their shareholders; the councils that own them.
This might seem an absurd scenario. Surely keeping customers – the people who pay the water bills – informed about their water supply, including water outages, leaking geysers, sewer blockages, conservation plans, etc – would be a natural part of any service organisation’s business plan?
But that’s not necessarily the case.
Back to March 2025 – the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee has been hearing submissions on the Local Government Water Services Bill, which sets out the framework for how the new delivery models will operate. This legislation requires that any new water organisation (CCO) report to its council owners as the key relationship. This effectively puts councils between the water organisation and the customers.
Many of us regard this as a gap in the legislation or, at the very least, odd and unusual for an essential service utility. In fact, in the 325 pages of the new Bill, the word ‘customer’ only appears seven times, although the word ‘consumer’ does come up more frequently.
Councils are currently working on Water Services Delivery Plans, due for delivery to the Government in September. This requires councils to consult over their new strategies, so they’re holding meetings and providing opportunities for ratepayers to have their voices heard.
But after September, and if, as the Government hopes, many
Industry feedback
Recently I shared this article on LinkedIn, and it clearly struck a chord with many others in the water sector provoking, understandably, a range of views:
• I’ve seen first hand how important it is for water providers to take full ownership of the relationship… best utilities don’t just deliver water – they build relationships. It’s those everyday interactions that build trust, whether it’s quickly resolving billing questions, responding to an issue in their street, or explaining the need to preserve water during a drought.
• It’s critical to get the governance right but… legislating direct customer engagement is not appropriate. There is much to learn from other jurisdictions (UK & Aus) where customer engagement
councils band together and establish new CCOs, then customers could effectively be one-step removed from their water provider.
Then, where do customers go to query a bill or ask about services? Where will the call centre sit? Who will be responsible for social media? Who explains water outages and when there’s a need to put in water conservation measures? Will it be the local council or the water services entity?
Remember these organisations are natural monopolies, and that is why it’s important they have customers front and centre of their operations.
To be fair, the legislation does not stop councils from allowing water organisations to talk to their customers, but there’s no legislated necessity for this to happen.
The current bill fails to understand the importance of being directly responsive to the needs of the customer. It expects the shareholding council to represent their customers’ interests, but potentially all the water staff will have moved to the new organisation.
Remember, one of the reasons for the reforms is because councils have so many competing demands, and water infrastructure and service delivery has suffered from a lack of funding and focus.
Also, it’s not just about checking why the water service is below par or querying a bill, it’s being kept informed – knowing why your provider is planning a new wastewater treatment plant or why you need to conserve water.
In other essential utilities it is standard and expected practice for these utility providers to engage directly with their customers and communities. It appears that the Government is expecting that the councils and the Commerce Commission, in its role as the new water services economic regulator, will play a key role in ensuring customers' interests are protected.
But as customers, you and I ought to be able to talk directly to the organisation that’s sending us the bills, and expect them to talk directly with us too.
has become a core requirement placed on utilities by regulators. This has led to a massive increase in the quantity of engagement but some [of] very poor quality. I think that the matters requiring engagement tend to be the very local issues. So I’m erring in favour of the councils.
• I suggest getting rid of any political oversight committee.
• It’s really important for utilities to hear the voice of the customer. Some kind of hybrid approach may be effective since councils may have insights on how to best engage with their communities. Whatever model is in place, it’s vitally important to have clear lines of contact for customers. That’s why we’ll be talking further about this in future issues of Water and on our social media channels.
Working on tight sites in built-up residential areas is meat and drink to experienced Australasian operators TDG Environmental.
But when remediation of an aging stormwater culvert is going under one house, and very close to others, the stakes are a bit higher. Not to mention the issue of difficult access through native bush and operating on a steep slope.
No problem.
TDG Environmental Senior Project Manager, Andrew Twentyman, says the existing , culvert - all 84 metres of itwasn’t in great condition. In fact, the corrugated iron it was made from was literally flaking away. He says the construction was two half-pipes joined together. “It was pretty basic in the first place, and it’s condition was fairly bad.”
Andrew said a trenchless (keyhole) solution made a lot of sense. Brandenburger UV Liners from BurrowTech were chosen for the job.
“Access was our biggest issue. It was a tricky site.” He says the ease of being able to move the Brandenburger UV Liner was key, it was flexible, durable and easier to handle than most of the alternatives. “Other liners can be heavier and stiffer.”
“The Brandenburger UV liner took really nicely to the shape of the deteriorating original pipe. In the end, it looked better than expected.”
He says the whole process was relatively quiet and unobtrusive, and comments from residents were positive. “Feedback said they appreciated the respect we showed for their properties. They were really happy.”
Hayden Powell from BurrowTech says the 1,000mm Brandenburger UV Liner had the advantages of not wrinkling or creasing and creating a secure pipe-within-pipe no matter the original pipe’s imperfections. “Using the UV-cured, resinimpregnated glass-fibre, you don’t lose capacity. And it’ll last another 50-100 years, easy.”
Hayden says the liner’s robustness was vital, as it needed to be dragged 20m before being winched through the culvert, all with minimum disruption to the neighbourhood. “It’s another example of where trenchless is a great solution. Great work TDG Environmental!”
He says trenchless systems reduce emissions by approximately 80 to 85%, compared to a trenched approach with excavated materials, additional equipment use, and transport needs. With UV this is cut to almost zero.
Commercial on-selling of freshwater challenged on two fronts
A private member’s bill aimed at preventing the extraction of fresh water for bottling has been drawn from the ballot box. The Resource Management (Prohibition on Extraction of Freshwater for On-selling) Amendment Bill would amend the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) to make the extraction of freshwater for the purpose of on-selling in a packaged form a prohibited activity.
Essentially, the Extraction of Freshwater Bill aims to stop commercial water bottling from freshwater aquifers and groundwater.
The Member of Parliament in charge of the Bill is Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, co-leader of the Māori Party. Her intent is that the Bill would assist in upholding the rangatiratanga of tangata whenua who have been resisting commercial water bottling consents for many years.
The Bill has been introduced and placed on the Order Paper for its first reading when the wider legislative programme allows (the Bill has not been published at this point).
Judicial consideration of the extraction of freshwater
The Extraction of Freshwater Bill would support recent challenges in the courts against the commercial bottling of water, two of which received consideration in the Supreme Court in November 2023.
In the first, two water bottling companies (Cloud Ocean Water and Southridge Holdings) had acquired resource consents which were granted for the taking and use of water for the businesses of wool scouring and freezing works.
Cloud Ocean and Southridge applied to the Canterbury Regional Council (ECan) for new ‘use-only’ consents for water bottling which were to be applied to their existing ‘take’ consents (the ‘take’ and ‘use’ parts of the consents being decoupled).
ECan decided that neither public nor limited notification of the application was required and granted the application. It then granted an application to amalgamate the original consent with the new consent, so that the ‘take’ aspect of the original take
By Simon Pilkinton, environment & planning partner, and Helen Liava’a, competition & regulation senior solicitor, Russell McVeagh
and use consent and the ‘use’ aspect of the new consent were combined into a single take and use consent. This approach was challenged by Aotearoa Water Action Inc (specifically formed to oppose the consents).
The Supreme Court disagreed with ECan’s approach – agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the “carefully chosen and deliberate” wording of the Canterbury Land and Water Plan, meant the ‘take’ and ‘use’ of groundwater water had to be considered together under the specific rules of the Plan, rather than separately.
ECan’s interpretation would have allowed Cloud Ocean to essentially ‘bank’ the allocation of groundwater under the resource consent it acquired, which could be seen as an assertion of a property right in the water granted via resource consent. The Supreme Court expressed a concern that such an approach seems to be at odds with the effects-focus of the RMA.
Addressing concerns raised by ECan about the difficulty that a consent holder would face if they wanted to repurpose water in a fully allocated catchment, the Supreme Court noted that “the solution is for the take and use consent to be surrendered and a new take and use consent to be sought”.
In the second case, Ngati Awa had been challenging consents to bottle water from the Ōtākiri Aquifer in Whakatane since they were granted by the Environment Court in 2018. Water bottling was previously occurring on the site at Ōtākiri, but the new applications by Ōtākiri Springs Ltd (which had entered into a conditional sales and purchase agreement with Cresswell NZ) were for a significant increase in the scale of the operation, from a take of 8000 litres to 154,000 litres an hour.
Ngati Awa considered that the bottling activity would significantly damage the mauri (or life force) of the water, which holds special significance to the iwi. They also argued that the Environment Court did not adequately consider the environmental effects of the bottles in which the water would be packaged.
After unsuccessful challenges in the High Court and Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court heard argument on the issue of whether the adverse effects of plastic bottle disposal (including
Simon Pilkinton
Helen Liava’a
overseas) are too remote to be a relevant consideration for the resource consent process, either in connection with the regional (water take) consent or the district land use application for a rural production facility.
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on that point and was also willing to consider whether there has been an error of law in relation to how the High Court considered the negative tikanga effects associated with export and plastic bottle disposal, including on the mauri of the water and on Ngāti Awa’s ability to be kaitiaki.
To date, there has been no decision on a substantive appeal.
Wider context
The government is undertaking a three-phase reform of the RMA regime. Phase One was repeal of the previous government’s reforms. Phase Two included the enactment of the one-stop-shop fast-track consenting regime and the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2024, and the introduction of the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill.
The Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2024 pauses some aspects of freshwater regulatory burden until the gazetting of a new National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management (‘NPS – Freshwater’), or 31 December 2025 (whichever is earlier).
Details around Phase Three of the RMA reform programme
were recently announced, with confirmation that the new planning system will be made up of two new Acts. The first Act – The Planning Act – will focus on planning and regulating the use, and development of land. The second Act – The Natural Environment Act – will focus on the use, protection, and enhancement of the natural environment, including freshwater.
Specifically, in relation to freshwater, the regulatory regime will include amendments to the NPS-Freshwater, National Environmental Standards for freshwater, stock exclusion regulations, drinking water proposals and enabling vegetable growing and water storage.
Considering the focus on freshwater planning in the wider RMA reforms, it seems unlikely that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s Extraction of Freshwater Bill would garner government support to proceed to a second reading.
Its genesis in acknowledging the primacy of rangatiratanga over natural resources in front of commercial interests does not align with government priorities in more than one way. Instead, we may see relevant provisions in the new Natural Environment Act to deal with the extraction of freshwater matters that have been subject to judicial consideration.
The direction of travel was likely signposted by the Minister responsible for RMA reform, Chris Bishop. At a recent speech to the NZ Planning Institute, he said, "We live in a free market economy, and not a planned one. Commerce and trade must happen, and it isn’t the job of the planning system to control or prevent those things."
Integrated Ultrasonic Water Meters
Cost effective metering accuracy with ultrasound technology
Taumata Arowai Q&A with Tim Cadogan
You joined the Water Services Authority –Taumata Arowai in October 2024 as Local Government Engagement Specialist after eight years as mayor of Central Otago. How did this come about?
I got heavily involved in the three waters space in my time as mayor and enjoyed working in the interface between central and local government.
It became obvious to me that central government agencies need a bit of help to understand the ways of local government. I am not saying that to demean any government agency and I know people try hard, but the ways of local government, the language it speaks, the challenge of the politics and so forth can make it a dark and strange land to navigate.
When I thought about a next step, helping bridge that gap seemed to fit my experience and skills well.
What attracted you to the role? Why water?
I became really passionate about water following Jim Graham visiting our council in 2017 and explaining what went on in Havelock North the year before. I always remember him saying that water safety is as important as aircraft safety because you can kill people as easily with both if you get it wrong.
The knowledge and passion that he brought to the council in that hour turned our next Long-Term Plan (LTP) into a drinking water LTP. I was a bit star-struck to be honest when I turned up to my first day at the authority and found my desk was next to his.
Reading the Havelock North inquiry report actually made me angry and led me down a path to try to be involved in stopping anything like that happening in our country again. Taumata Arowai, with its fundamental role in ensuring safe and sufficient drinking water for all, is the perfect place to allow me to help do that.
What’s the focus of your work at the Authority?
Eighty-four percent of the water delivered to people in Aotearoa New Zealand is through local government supplies so it could be said that local government is the authority’s biggest customer, for want of a better word.
Consequently, I’ve been involved in just about everything the authority does but at the core of it is bringing my years of experience in local government into the authority to help it work effectively alongside the sector.
What are you currently working on?
I’ve lived most of my life in rural areas, so I’ve been excited to get involved in the work the authority is undertaking to help mixed-
use rural supplies work better to provide safe drinking water more easily and affordably.
There are many of these schemes across the country with water infrastructure designed primarily to be used for farm purposes such as irrigation but over time they have ended up supplying drinking water to households in the area too.
To avoid having expensive treated water go on fields or wash down sheds, the authority has an Acceptable Solution that allows for end-point treatment to be utilised at any house where the water is used for human consumption.
There hasn’t been the uptake there should be of this technology, so the authority is putting significant effort into raising awareness of it and making it as practical and easy as possible to install and maintain.
As part of that, I have set up and am chairing an advisory group aiming to get views from leaders across the rural sector and to use their connections to test our ideas on the way forward.
How are you enjoying life in Wellington?
My wife and I are lapping up the incredible cultural opportunities here as well as the great places to go walking.
What does the year ahead look like for local government in the water space?
It’s going to be a huge year for councils with massive Local Water Done Well decisions to be made and, of course, it is an election year.
There are initiatives coming out from the authority that are receiving positive responses from councils, such as the proposed National Wastewater Environmental Performance Standards [consultation closed April 24th]. These are going to have a positive impact on the cost of reconsenting and building wastewater treatment plants while also giving territorial authorities far greater certainty as they go through their planning and costings.
Overall, I think local government people, both staff and elected members, are tired after years of debate and uncertainty, and are pushing toward the finish hopefully making the right decisions for their communities.
Where do you see yourself in five years’ time?
I just turned 60 so the plan is to return home to Central Otago to semi-retire when we both hit 65, but life has shown me the truth of the adage ‘man plans and God mocks’, so we are also very open to other paths.
In the meantime, my wife and I are excited to be having a new adventure together and I look forward to coming to work every day with such a great team, dedicated to making drinking water safe for everyone in our beautiful country.
Smarter data flowing easier.
Bluecurrent’s Metering-as-a-Service takes care of all your smart data needs end-to-end, from deployment to data management and communications. Our scalable, cost-effective solutions provide accurate consumption data, helping you optimise operations, detect leaks, and meet your sustainability goals. It’s that easy.
2.6M+
Smart meters across Australasia
2BILLION+ Data intervals processed daily in Australasia 15+ Years of smart metering experience
Visit bluecurrent.co.nz/our-services/ smart-water for smarter data solutions.
Legal update
This article focuses on two matters; the Fast-Track Approvals Act 2024, and the Report from the Expert Advisory Group on Resource Management Reform: A better planning and resource management system 2025. By Helen Atkins
Fast-Track Approvals Act 2024
The Fast-Track Approvals Act 2024 (FTAA) got royal assent on 23 December 2024, and the administering agency (the EPA) set up a dedicated Fast-Track Approvals website, which has been live since 7 February 2025.
At the time of writing this article, there are three listed projects that have been accepted by the EPA as being complete:
• Bledisloe North Wharf and Fergusson North Berth Extension – new and extended wharf facilities at Port of Auckland;
• Delmore, subdivision of land and development of approximately 1250 residential dwellings and associated features, such as parks, including delivery of the State Highway 1 Grand Drive interchange and Wainui area connection. Orewa, Auckland;
• Maitahi Village, Develop approximately 180 residential dwellings (50 to be Ngāti Koata iwi-led housing), a commercial centre, and a retirement village (approximately 194 townhouses, 36 in-care facility units, a clubhouse, and a pavilion).
All of these applications are currently awaiting a report under s18 of the FTAA (report on treaty settlements and other obligations) before they will be considered by the convenors for allocation to an expert panel. The convenors will be holding a virtual case management meeting for each application to seek the views of the participants about the expert panel and about the timing of a decision.
More updates on the progress of projects under the FTAA will be included in future articles.
Report from the expert advisory group on management reform: A Better Planning and Resource Management System 2025
The ‘blueprint report’ contains many elements of regimes that have been in existence before. Given the angst about the RMA over the past
30+ years, both from those in the development community as well as those non-government organisations who are proponents for the natural environment, it is not surprising that in its executive summary the Expert Advisory Group makes two pertinent observations:
1. All the members of our EAG are users of and participants in various aspects of planning and resource management. We are all frustrated by the deficiencies of the current system. We think the laws that manage resource use and conflict should seek to assist New Zealanders to provide for themselves, enable development and enable us to care for our unique natural environment.
2. It goes without saying that many of the criticisms that have been levelled at the RMA (it is slow, it is expensive, it has been so heavily amended that in places it makes little sense) are often justified. However, perhaps the most egregious failing of our current system is our inability to understand the effectiveness of our interventions on both the built and natural environment, and also how we should adapt our management for the future based on the learnings from our past.
The Group has recommended that the RMA is replaced with two separate Acts:
• A Planning Act focused on regulating the use, development and enjoyment of land;
• A Natural Environment Act focused on the use, protection, and enhancement of the natural environment.
The Planning Act will include goals for infrastructure provision and well-functioning
urban and rural areas. The Natural Environment Act will include goals for protecting important natural values.
Each Act will require one mandatory national policy direction that is succinct and resolves conflicts between environmental protection and development and, where that is not possible, provides direction on how conflicts can be reconciled through subsequent processes.
Regional policy statements will be eliminated and partially replaced by spatial plans made under the Planning Act. Spatial plans include the coastal marine area and will have weight in the regulatory planning process.
Spatial plans will enable development and focus on mapping major constraints, identifying existing and future infrastructure (including future infrastructure corridors), future urban areas, and growth and development opportunities.
Each Act will require a single regulatory plan per region. The regional council will prepare a natural environment plan and district councils will each prepare a chapter of a combined district plan.
The Planning Act will require the Minister for the Environment to create nationally standardised zones that councils select and apply in the combined district plan, with an exceptions pathway (with submissions input) if bespoke requirements are needed to meet specific community needs or preferences. These standardised zones will include a zone with substantial flexibility in land use on Māori land.
The Natural Environment Act will require environmental limits to protect the life-supporting capacity of the natural environment. It will also require environmental controls to protect significant natural values, such as outstanding natural features and landscapes and significant natural areas. These will apply similar to the standardised zone provisions – with
Helen Atkins, barrister/commissioner
nationally-set default pathways to select from and a submission process if bespoke solutions are required to meet local variations.
To support a faster transition, the regulatory plans made under each Act will initially be notified and considered by an independent hearings panel together in each region, but determined by each individual council.
The form and structure of spatial and regulatory plans will be highly standardised, enabling them to be collated and accessed as one national e-plan.
A common platform for presenting information spatially – combined with a focus on collecting better environmental reporting data in a form that can be aggregated nationally – will enable significantly better monitoring of system performance and, from there, adaptive management.
Consenting activity classes under both Acts will be rationalised and simplified by:
• Making greater use of permitted activities.
• Removing controlled activities.
• Having a greater focus on the use of restricted discretionary activities.
• Removing the non-complying activity category.
• Retaining prohibited activities, but with a narrower scope and direction on how they can be used.
Both Acts will be based on the ‘enjoyment of property rights’. A couple of examples are, that reverse sensitivity concerns will be addressed in the Planning Act by specifying that those that ‘come to the nuisance’ should not be
able to complain about it; and reasonable expansion of existing activity will be permitted where the site is ‘zoned or owned’.
The Natural Environment Act will require councils to charge for using natural resources to recover costs of operating the system and, in the case of overallocated resources, to enable them to be managed back to within environmental limits over time.
Where a resource approaches overallocation, or an environmental limit will soon be breached, the relevant community must agree a timeframe and approach for making improvements and must settle on an alternative allocation method to ‘first-in-firstserved’.
A new Planning Tribunal will be established to offer quick, low-cost conciliation and administrative review of council functions (e.g., notification, requests for further information), and determination of the meaning of consent conditions.
A new national compliance and enforcement regulator with a regional presence will be established that enables confidence in a system that shifts the focus from obtaining a consent before an activity takes place to compliance monitoring and enforcement.
The extent of the coastal marine area managed under the replacement legislation should be reduced to the area of interest to regional communities, with the Environmental Protection Authority responsible for planning and consenting beyond that.
The new Acts will each include a section on how the Treaty of Waitangi should be reflected in the exercise of their respective functions.
Commentary
The Environmental Defence Society (EDS) commented on the report within hours of it being released and noted that: “While the Government’s approach is not how we would have done things, there are elements that look positive and others that will need more thought”.
It went on to to say that it was pleased to see the emphasis on spatial planning and greater clarity on go and no-go areas, which will help speed the transition to renewables without compromising indigenous biodiversity and outstanding landscapes.
EDS also noted that it was pleased to see the commitment to environmental limits. It also supported the dedicated oversight agency to ensure environmental compliance and enforcement.
However, it was not happy with some of the language in the report that focused on importance of property rights and noted that: “We simply must have a more nuanced outcome from this process than from the FastTrack Approvals Act”.
The Government has a very laden basket of legislative reform so it remains to be seen how much occurs before we enter another election cycle in 2026.
NB: Helen is an associate convenor of the Fast-Track panel
We use the most efficient pumps available on the market Our customers benefit from renting modern equipment with proven performance on sites, New Zealand wide
Our team can handle all your maintenance and servicing needs, regardless of where in New Zealand you are located We can provide the pumping system you require including delivery to your site
Our team of highly skilled and devoted professionals possess extensive training and an unwavering dedication to the industry They are committed to assisting you in discovering the perfect solution for all your pumping requirements
Economic regulation: Lessons for New Zealand
By Steve Carne, director/principal of Taonga Water Advisory
The water sector has embarked upon a radical reset journey relating to governance and regulatory frameworks it will operate within for years to come under the government’s Local Water Done Well initiative. With the economic regulatory component of this reform programme now taking shape and gaining profile and momentum, The Commerce Commission is appropriately considering relevancies for the water sector that exist in the current economic regulatory frameworks in the local telecommunications, electricity and gas sectors that they already oversee. Given significant differences between these sectors and the water sector, one of which is the monopoly-supplier nature of the water sector in all jurisdictions, we also consider it prudent to consider the lessons learnt from over 20 years of operation of the equivalent frameworks in the water sectors in both eastern Australia and the UK.
In this article we focus on economic regulation, but it should be remembered that good water sector performance outcomes require the whole system (ownership, governance, regulation, leadership, policy) to be working appropriately in combination and as intended.
While this comparison of circumstances and frameworks highlights some significant differences, there are a number of very relevant learnings, suggesting both possible ‘take forwards’ and also some ‘leave behinds’ for Aotearoa New Zealand.
Australia
The state-based economic regulatory frameworks that exist in both the Victorian and New South Wales water sectors are similar in many ways. They have been in operation since the early 2000s and are generally regarded as successful models for those sectors in those locations. It is generally accepted they
have demonstrably improved customer outcomes and promoted efficiency within the sector, although some argue that further improvements could be made to optimise regulation further.
In Victoria, the Essential Services Commission (ESC) regulates the water sector by conducting price reviews for all water businesses, setting codes and guidelines, monitoring performance, and publishing reports to ensure quality, reliability, and affordability of water services across the state, primarily using a framework called ‘PREMO’ (Performance, Risk, Engagement, Management, and Outcomes) for price regulation; essentially setting maximum prices water companies can charge customers while also evaluating their service levels and performance against set standards.
The ESC regularly conducts price reviews to determine the maximum water prices that businesses can charge customers, and it monitors the performance of water businesses against set standards, including water quality, reliability, and customer service.
The ESC sets industry codes and guidelines that water businesses must follow regarding service provision, billing, and complaint handling, and it publishes reports detailing the performance of different water businesses, allowing customers to compare service levels and informing their choices.
In New South Wales, IPART (Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal) regulates water by setting maximum prices for water services provided by public water utilities like Sydney Water, Hunter Water, and WaterNSW, essentially controlling how much consumers can be charged for water while also reviewing their operating licences and ensuring they operate efficiently and deliver value to customers.
This includes monitoring performance
against set standards and adjusting prices as needed, based on factors like cost of service and consumer protection.
IPART also reviews and administers operating licences of water utilities, ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements, and monitors the performance of water utilities against set standards, including customer service and cost efficiency.
IPART uses a ‘3C’ framework, focusing on ‘Customers, Costs, and Credibility’ to evaluate water businesses and ensure they deliver value to consumers.
By regulating prices, IPART indirectly influences water usage and can incentivise water conservation measures.
IPART is considered successful in regulating water in New South Wales, primarily due to its focus on customer outcomes, cost efficiency, and credibility.
United Kingdom
In 1989, the 10 regional water authorities in England and Wales were privatised to form regional water and sewerage companies, with economic regulation provided by OFWAT determining prices which can be charged by utilities over five-year periods.
On face value, it would be expected that the need for appropriate economic regulation of privatised monopoly suppliers of an essential service would be far more apparent than when such suppliers are state or Crown-owned, as is the case in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Environmental regulation in England and Wales is provided by the Environment Agency (previously the National Rivers Authority) and drinking water quality regulation is provided by the Drinking Water Inspectorate. Within the geographic boundaries of the water and sewerage companies there are ‘water-only’ companies that had existed as private entities before privatisation
of the regional authorities. Some households are therefore customers of one company for water services and another for wastewater services.
Water companies are now preparing for the eighth five-year Asset Management Plan (AMP) period which is due to start April 2025, OFWAT having provided its final determinations to the companies in December 2024.
In recent years there have been many complaints by customers and community representatives, numerous articles in the media, and questions in Parliament about the performance of water companies, and in particular the state of rivers and beaches due to overflows and pollution from what are largely combined (i.e. single pipe) wastewater and stormwater networks.
In the 2024 general election in the UK, sewage in rivers featured strongly in the campaign of one of the national political parties. The narrative has been that water companies are pumping sewage into rivers or onto beaches as though this is a choice between physically possible alternatives.
Under-performing water companies argue, not unreasonably, that price increases over successive AMP periods have been insufficient to allow enough investment in assets, many of which are Victorian (1800s) in age, or to keep pace with population growth and climate change.
It has also been stated that shareholders have taken large dividends from their assets, starving the companies of the funds needed for investment to prevent these sewage spills or overflows.
In response to this, the Environment Agency has recently mandated a uniform requirement for all water/wastewater companies to limit spills from the wastewater network to no more than 10 per year. (Keeping in mind these are largely combined wastewater-stormwater networks which would have a ‘softer’ containment standard than we would expect here in our theoretical separate networks.)
It appears now that the affordability of the imposition of such a uniform overflow containment requirement nationally was not fully defined or understood when this standard was imposed. To fund such a programme, significant price increases would be necessary.
In an industry that is privatised, such price increases will be regarded with extreme suspicion. The extent of cross-agency collaboration between the economic (OFWAT) and environmental (Environment Agency) regulators when this new standard is implemented is unknown, and needs to be questioned.
Others would argue that companies have not been appropriately efficient and that as largely monopoly providers, regulators have an obligation to protect customers from unnecessary price increases.
Customers understandably wonder how it can be that the system has allowed under-investment while large dividends have been paid to shareholders when one of the key drivers for privatisation was to increase investment into assets. This was because other government priorities were preventing the sufficient investment from being made and why the economic and environmental regulators haven’t been stricter with under-performing companies, requiring them to keep pace with investment requirements.
Those water companies who have performed poorly could reasonably argue that the problems arising from insufficient price increases have been made worse by the penalty and reward system used by OFWAT to incentivise good performance which has resulted in even less ability to invest sufficiently. This has resulted in even further degradation in performance.
In late 2024, OFWAT penalised three water companies nine percent of their annual revenue for wastewater services for failing to prevent illegal discharges of untreated sewage into the receiving environment. Those who perceive that regulators have not been strict enough on the companies
Built to Last!
• 100 year design life.
• Superior water tightness.
• Single cast manufacturing
• Scalable RP production.
• Safer automated RP plant
may see this as a good thing, whereas others will argue that this reduces even more the ability to improve the system as is required.
One of the larger companies which has been heavily penalised announced in 2024 that it would run out of liquidity early in 2025 unless it attracted significant additional investment.
Whichever part of the system one holds responsible for causing the problems facing some of these companies, it is undeniable that the system has not enabled anything like the level of performance that was intended when privatisation occurred.
Some have argued that a new ownership model is required; others have called for an overhaul of the regulatory system.
The current Starmer-led government has recognised this and has hence launched an Independent Commission into the water sector and its regulation. It is expected to form the largest review of the water industry since privatisation.
The Commission will report back next year with recommendations to the Government on how to tackle systemic issues in the water sector that has led to the numerous problems and perceptions as outlined above.
Lessons for Aotearoa New Zealand
Comparing the performance of the Crown-owned utilities in Victoria and the privatised utilities in England and Wales with each other, it is clear that there is no ideal model of structure and regulatory frameworks that guarantees a high likelihood of performance outcome success.
Some, but certainly not all, of the problems within the UK sector are influenced by the privatised model that exists there. Some of these problems though could also occur in New Zealand in a system where complete ownership remains with the Crown.
It is also clear from the Australian outcomes that, while performance outcome expectations must be clearly stated and regulatory frameworks established to encourage these to be achieved, pricing reviews, performance monitoring, publication of codes and guidelines, and transparency and reporting (as per the Commerce Commission’s recent emphasis on information disclosure) are all key steps undertaken which have led to what is considered relatively successful regulatory outcomes. They have demonstrably improved customer outcomes and have promoted efficiency within the sector.
Clearly, from the UK example, using a big stick to punish poor performance, without providing an environment which supports and enables good performance will not lead to expectations being satisfied.
The ‘big stick’ approach by way of implementing large financial penalties means that in the privatised model, there is less money available to improve performance once the fines have been paid. Such arrangements have also driven investment decisions aimed to reducing or eliminating the financial penalties as a priority rather than appropriate sustainable asset management and operations.
Furthermore, the reactive nature from the environmental regulator to the under-investment in wastewater infrastructure by the imposition of the uncosted but blanket wastewater network spill frequency target suggests it is critical that the environmental and economic regulators are collaborating and coordinating their responses sufficiently so as not to oppose the effect of the other on consumers.
One of the other difficulties of the detailed KPI-based regulatory systems which have been operating in the UK since privatisation is that asset performance, health and environmental outcomes cannot be evidenced within five-year cycles.
However rational the decisionmaking of policy-makers, regulators, shareholders, and managers of utilities may have appeared within each five-year period, looking back over more than 30 years since privatisation in the UK it is hard to argue that the system has been a success. Regardless of who is to blame, it is clear that more investment should have been made over that time.
In designing regulatory systems for New Zealand, it will be important to get the right balance between measures which demonstrate which entities are performing and which are not, and mechanisms which maximise the likelihood of success rather than being over-focused on who or what is to blame.
It will also be important to take a long enough view of performance outcomes but to balance this with sufficient driving force for improvement.
Fittings
Outstanding
Highest
From
Global
Improving sanitation for a more climate resilient Pacific
The Pacific Island countries are among the most vulnerable globally to climate change, and face a unique set of challenges, including sea-level rise, frequent tropical cyclones, coastal inundation and droughts.
Pacific Island leaders have repeatedly recognised the threat of climate change to the livelihoods, security, and well-being of the Blue Pacific Continent’s people, and declared a climate emergency in July 2022, calling on all development partners to prioritise climate action.
In 2023 WaterAid released a report highlighting that the Pacific is facing a sanitation crisis which undermines its resilience to climate change. The Pacific region is one of the most off-track regions to meet the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) six targets for basic drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene services by 2030.
Between 2000 and 2020 over half a million people gained access to basic sanitation in the Pacific, however the sanitation gains were outpaced by population growth; the population practicing open defecation in the region increased by almost 50,000 people.
Approximately 70 percent of the population in Pacific Island countries currently lack access to basic sanitation services, and open defecation rates are increasing in countries such as Papua New Guinea (PNG) faster than any other country in the world.
The Pacific has the lowest global sanitation access in schools, with 40 percent lacking any sanitation service. Universal access to safe sanitation is a foundational public service and at the heart of sustainable development and community climate resilience.
The case for investing in sanitation across the Pacific is clear.
Globally, three percent of the disease burden is linked to poor sanitation and water. In the Pacific alone, inadequate sanitation and water lead to a 1.6 percent loss in GDP annually due to its impact on health, well-being, education, and productivity.
Sanitation and climate resilience are deeply interconnected. Poor sanitation causes outbreaks of diarrhoeal diseases like cholera and typhoid. Destruction of sanitation infrastructure (including toilets but also wastewater treatment plants) by climate-induced disasters can cause disease outbreaks.
Poor sanitation access in schools is a key cause of absenteeism, especially among girls. Better education for individuals and communities provides opportunities for diversified livelihoods and knowledge to improve resilience and disaster preparedness.
As well as highlighting the importance of sanitation for healthy environments and resilient Pacific communities through conferences and policy and advocacy, WaterAid has been working with local communities in Papua New Guinea, the most off-track Pacific country. WaterAid’s work includes education around sanitation and toilets, to make the use of toilets a normal daily activity for all people in the community.
In peri-urban areas around Port Moresby, the national capital, WaterAid has been establishing a new water service model in Pari Village, an urban settlement of the Motu-Koitabu people, who are the traditional land owners of the region.
Before WaterAid’s project, 4550 Pari residents relied on water from local bores. This was because the main pipeline had stopped delivering water to the village as it had been tapped with illegal connections upstream.
Residents had limited access to water for drinking and cooking, let alone flushing toilets, and most Pari residents were defecating in hanging toilets suspended over the ocean.
To help, WaterAid, Water PNG and the Motu Koita Assembly, the elected body representing Motu Koitabu people established a new model for supplying water. The new water services enterprise has been established under the Assembly’s authority and will manage the internal supply of water from bores and supply mains to a series of kiosks in the community.
WaterAid is working with community and social leaders to shift community attitudes to toilets and sanitation, train local masons on toilet and septic tank construction, and build demonstration toilets, so that when the new water supply is switched on, households – and their toilets – will be ready.
In the rural areas of Papua New Guinea where WaterAid works, there are a different set of challenges.
WaterAid has been working with government and community groups in Wewak to improve water, sanitation and hygiene since 2018. The work has created a five-year WASH plan to guide government investment and prioritisation of WASH.
To support this, WaterAid worked with the government and local partners to develop and demonstrate a community engagement package – the ‘Healthy Villages: Community WASH Engagement Manual’ – to improve inclusive and climate-resilient WASH practices.
The manual is a guide for government and civil society to engage the community in activities related to sanitation, community-based water resource management, climate change vulnerability assessments, and gender equality.
While greater investment in water infrastructure is still needed, progress is being made in sanitation. In Wawat, an enthusiastic group was inspired by the sessions they attended and took the initiative to help every household build a toilet. Similarly, in Kambagora, the community came together to construct new toilets for their local primary school.
WaterAid and the East Sepik Provincial Health Authority have also been facilitating new sanitation facilities in rural health clinics across Wewak. The upgrades have included inclusive and separate toilets with handwashing facilities, proper waste disposal sites including placenta pits, and water tanks supplied by rainwater or boreholes. These facilities ensure health centre staff and patients have access to the critical services they need to prevent the spread of infections
and ensure clean and hygienic conditions for newborns and their mothers.
Improving sanitation is not just about building toilets – it’s about ensuring healthier, more resilient communities across the Pacific. As climate change continues to threaten lives and livelihoods, safe sanitation must be a priority for governments, donors, and development partners alike.
WaterAid’s work in Papua New Guinea and beyond demonstrates that practical, community-led solutions can drive lasting change. But the scale of the challenge demands greater investment, collaboration, and urgency. By strengthening sanitation services, we can help safeguard public health, protect vital ecosystems, and build a climateresilient future for all Pacific communities.
