Surface water quality
Abstract
Water in rivers, lakes and wetlands is one of New Zealand’s most important resources. Good quality water is valued for many reasons; including its ecological function and its role in maintaining biodiversity, its scenic and recreation value, and its cultural and spiritual significance. It is also an invaluable resource for drinking, irrigation, aquaculture, many industrial processes, and for assimilating contaminants.
Developing a regional water quality plan is a complex, multi-disciplinary task that requires technical information from experts and knowledge of community values and expectations. The role of a plan is to guide the sustainable management of surface water quality, meaning plan provisions must allow for reasonable use of the resource, while safeguarding its life-supporting capacity and managing any adverse effects of its use.
Resource uses have the potential to affect environmental values by reducing water quality. Water quality planners must be able to identify the relevant values, account for the effects of different types of point and non-point source discharges, establish acceptable water quality for receiving waters, and establish acceptable zones for mixing of discharges.
A range of effective planning approaches are used in current practice. Significant challenges still exist, and developmental work is in progress. One of the largest challenges is managing non-point source discharges and the cumulative effects from land uses on water quality.
Guidance note
Introduction
This guidance note addresses planning for the management of surface water quality in rivers, lakes and wetlands. Surface water quality planning is a large and complex subject that ranges from strategic considerations, such as identifying the effects of land uses on the quality of adjacent water resources, to site specific issues associated with individual discharges. It has a considerable technical component that requires input from a range of disciplines (eg water chemistry, microbiology and aquatic ecology). At an early stage in the planning process planners should identify their technical information requirements, and relevant knowledge and expertise to meet these.
Planning for water quality cannot be separated from water quantity management, as a reduction in water quantity (for example, due to water takes) can result in a reduced capacity of that water body to dilute contaminants (see the water allocation guidance note for more information). Neither can surface water quality be managed independently of groundwater, or the beds and margins of water bodies, or the coastal marine environment or catchment land uses. Surface water quality must be managed comprehensively, and in a manner that is fully integrated with other environmental media and human uses.
The role of regional water quality plans
A regional water quality plan is a valuable part of a council's overall framework for managing water quality. It enables a council to:
S65 RMA allows a regional council to prepare a regional plan at any time and sets out a number of circumstances in which '...a regional council shall consider the desirability of preparing a regional plan...' One of these circumstances s65(3)(h) RMA relating to any use of land or water that has actual or potential adverse effects on water quality.
In the absence of a regional plan, water quality is generally managed by considering discharge consent applications on a case-by-case basis. This is because s15 RMA restricts any person from discharging contaminants or water into water (or onto land in circumstances which may result in contaminants entering water) unless the discharge is expressly allowed by a rule in a regional plan, a resource consent, or regulations.
Although considering applications on a case-by-case basis allows councils to take into account the site-specific details for each discharge, it is unlikely to be the most effective way of managing the cumulative effects of discharges or the effects of activities that generate non-point source discharges. They also do not provide resource users with guidance on what is expected when preparing an application.
By contrast, regional water quality plans assist councils to co-ordinate regional functions to address environmental issues and provide a structured means for them to consider:
The overall management framework under the RMA can be illustrated as follows: the RMA at the national level; policies and plans at the regional level, and individual resource consents at the site-specific level.
Figure 1: RMA statutory framework for water quality management
Under this framework, a regional water quality plan must give effect to any national policy statements and the regional policy statement and must not be inconsistent with any other regional plan for that region (section 67 RMA).
The regional water quality plan should also:
Resolving conflict between environmental values and resource uses
Good quality water supports many environmental values and resource uses. It is also of spiritual value to Māori.
The key issues in surface water quality planning usually involve:
Environmental values
Environmental values reflect the community's aspirations for the water in its region, and the level of water quality desired, including:
Cultural and spiritual values
Many Māori consider water as the source of life and sustenance. Māori believe that water contains a mauri (lifeforce) that joins physical and spiritual elements and links water to every other part of the natural world. Water is a taonga (treasure) because it carries the lifeblood of the land; the well-being of all living things depend on it. Maintaining water quality in the best possible condition, so that a river or lake and its ecosystems are healthy, is an issue of major concern for many Māori.
A Cultural Health Index for Streams and Waterways: Indicators for Recognising and Expressing Māori Values has been developed to facilitate the input and participation of iwi into land and water management processes and decision making. This index links Western scientific methods and cultural knowledge about stream health,
Particular values concering water quality vary among tangata whenua, and depend on characteristics at specific sites. Consultation with local iwi is essential for identifying values. For more information see the Consultation with Tangata Whenua guidance note.
Resource uses
Resource uses include:
Human activities often affect environmental values by discharging contaminants into rivers or lakes. Contaminants in water can be increased and concentrated by point source discharges and non-point source (diffuse) discharges. Water takes (abstractions) can also affect water quality by reducing the water's ability to dilute contaminants.
Point source discharges come from a single discrete point, such as the end of a pipe or drain. Some of these discharges are treated before being released into receiving waters, but many are not. Common examples include:
Non-point source discharges are from widespread or diffuse sources. Contaminants enter rivers or lakes via runoff across land or shallow sub-surface drainage. These discharges are difficult to manage, because it is hard to establish a direct link between an adverse effect and its source.
Management options include reducing the contaminant at source, or using riparian management to maximise attenuation before contaminants enter rivers or lakes. Further detail can be found in the Ministry for the Environment's Managing waterways on farms: A guide to sustainable water and riparian management in rural New Zealand.
Common examples of non-point discharges are:
For more information and resources see Common point source and non-point source discharges
Measuring water quality
Water quality can be measured using chemical and physical measures and/or biological measures. The quality of both the discharge effluents and of the receiving waters can be measured. It is also necessary to measure ambient (background) water quality, preferably through time, in order to quantify how water quality has changed or is changing.
Community consultation is needed to establish less tangible aspects of water quality, such as its mauri. Interpreting water quality is not a straightforward activity. The water quality that is measured is often the consequence of complex interactions between a number of factors, and understanding, for example, the relationship between measured water quality and catchment land use often requires the application of specialised skills.
Chemical/physical measures involve the scientific measurement of contaminants of concern, or 'indicators' of contaminants of concern. Contaminants are usually of concern because they affect aquatic 'biological health' or some other value of a water body (e.g., visual amenity or human contact-related illness risk). Contaminants and indicators are often referred to as water quality variables or determinants or parameters.
Most contaminants and indicators are measured as concentrations (an amount per volume). Exceptions include temperature, pH, clarity, and colour.
Biological measures involve directly measuring aspects of the density and/or composition of the biological communities that live in rivers, lakes and wetlands, and using these as indicators of 'health.' This approach is based on the relationship between chemical/physical water quality and the health of the biological community, although care is needed when interpreting results because factors other than water quality are also important influences (e.g., water flow or level, substrate, riparian condition, or biological interactions). For this reason, a range of methods is often used.
Biological measures are particularly useful because the composition of the biological community reflects the water quality over a period of time, rather than just the single instant in time represented by a chemical measure.
For examples see Common measures of water quality.
Ambient (background) water quality usually refers to the existing quality of receiving water upstream of a discharge. This measurement includes concentrations of naturally occurring contaminants that are usually not harmful, and are often necessary, for aquatic life. For example, phosphorus compounds are released by eroding rocks, and phosphorus and nitrogen compounds are common components of biological processes. Concentrations of these contaminants can, however, reach harmful levels. Establishing the background water quality enables councils to decide what is an acceptable change from background water quality, and establish standards that set an acceptable level of change from ambient conditions.
Cultural values of water quality should be recognised through consultation with the community to determine those aspects of water quality that cannot be measured scientifically. For example, the mauri (life force) of water cannot be directly measured, although measurements of water quality variables and biological indicators may help to assess some aspects of the state of mauri or effects on mauri.
Setting standards for water quality
Regional councils may choose to set water quality standards in a regional plan, but it is not mandatory to do so. If water quality standards are set, it is important to ensure that those standards meet the plan’s objectives and policies for water quality and that they are reviewed over time to ensure ongoing suitability.
Setting water quality standards is a complex task that requires input by experts in water quality and aquatic ecology. The scientific information usually underlying water quality guidelines can be used to develop standards, but it is important to understand the difference between guidelines and standards. Guidelines do not have any statutory standing and they generally offer several levels of environmental protection, which are provided as 'options' that may apply to different types of water bodies, or different management purposes. Standards within rules in a plan have the authority of regulations under the RMA and can be enforced. They must therefore be carefully defined and justified based on the circumstances of the water bodies to which they apply.
When setting standards, councils also need to consider what mixing is appropriate or 'reasonable' in order for a discharge to meet the standards.
Guidelines
Guidelines are usually based on scientific information about the effects of contaminants on the environmental conditions of a water body, or on the organisms that live in that water body. This relationship can be seen as a conceptual cause-effect curve:
Figure 2: Illustration of a typical 'cause-effect' relationship
For example, the cause-effect curve for a particular toxin is established by measuring growth impairment or death as the effect of increasing concentration of a toxin on aquatic species.
Adverse effects are not always the result of increasing concentrations. For example, aquatic species require dissolved oxygen for survival and adverse effects occur when concentrations decrease. Similarly pH can have adverse effects below and above a certain tolerance range.
In addition, the concept of a cause-effect relationship is also relevant for effects that are not related to aquatic biology. For example, the risk of water contact-related illness in humans increases with micro organism indicator concentration. Similarly, the 'conspicuousness' of changes in water colour to the human eye increases with measurable changes in hue.
The key point is that cause-effect relationships provide the basis for suggesting concentrations of contaminants that provide an identified level of protection.
For example, the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality provides a risk-based approach by presenting four options for concentrations of many toxic contaminants. These options are designed to protect aquatic organisms at either 99%, 95%, 90% or 80% levels of protection. These options are points on the cause-effect relationship for a range of New Zealand and Australian aquatic species. The Guidelines also show how to develop options for other levels of protection based on site-specific or region-specific information.
Many guidelines used in New Zealand are complex, and require professional technical advice to interpret. Guidelines commonly used include:
Standards
Standards define a threshold for the point on the cause-effect curve that is deemed to be acceptable for a given situation. A standard can be either a numeric value for a contaminant or a narrative description of an environmental state.
Defining standards requires both the use of scientific information, such as cause-effect relationships in guidelines, and value judgements concerning what values to protect and at what level. Many plans include standards within rules as methods to achieve objectives and policies.
S69 RMA allows water quality standards to be set regionally in plans, and provides direction for regional councils in setting such standards. In particular s69(3) requires that regional councils shall not set standards which may result in a decline in existing water quality unless it is consistent with the purpose of the RMA.
S43 RMA allows standards to also be set nationally. However, there are currently no national standards for water quality.
Related statutory restrictions that are sometimes referred to as standards are:
Other related standards are:
- Proposed national environmental standard for human drinking-water sources. The Ministry for the Environment is working with the Ministry of Health to develop and implement a national environmental standard for human drinking water sources under the RMA. The standard is intended to help regional councils and water suppliers manage drinking water sources better, which will ultimately lead to better quality drinking water.
The benefits of setting water quality standards in a regional plan are:
The disadvantages of setting water quality standards in a regional plan are:
Some examples of regional plans that have used standards are:
'Reasonable mixing'
The RMA requires that any water quality standards imposed through s107, s69, s70 or the Third Schedule shall be met after allowing for 'reasonable mixing' of discharges. This requirement implies that it is sometimes necessary and acceptable to allow for a zone in the receiving water to not meet water quality standards. Such a zone is called a 'non-compliance zone.' The question is: what sized non-compliance zone is reasonable?
Regional plans need to address this question if adopting the use of standards. When a standard is set in a plan, the size of the non-compliance zone considered reasonable for that standard should be defined as specifically as possible.
When dealing with individual discharge consents, the usual approach is to estimate the size and shape of the non-compliance zone for each contaminant in a particular discharge, taking into account:
If the non-compliance zone will not compromise the management objectives, it is a 'reasonable mixing zone.'
Matters that should be considered in reaching a decision include:
No specific, quantified mixing zone will be reasonable in all cases because management objectives and environmental characteristics vary between rivers and lakes, and different contaminants have different effects on the management objectives. This makes defining a single criterion for reasonable mixing impossible.
The impossibility of a single, quantitative criterion for a reasonable mixing zone presents particular challenges for developing regional plans. The most justifiable definitions of reasonable mixing depend on case-by-case conditions, which is contrary to the aim of providing prior certainty in a regional plan. Defining sub-regional spatial frameworks helps to account for some of the variability between objectives for different rivers and lakes. See Define a spatial framework for further discussion.
Existing regional water quality plans deal with this challenge in different ways. Some councils have elected to reserve discretion over the definition of reasonable mixing, while others have used 'rules of thumb', such as five or 10 times a river's channel width, for purely practical reasons. The section Current Challenges in Practice for further discussion. MARK!
Terminology
The RMA does not define or provide guidance on reasonable mixing, which has led to wide debate and often there is confusion over terminology. It is important that regional plans use consistent terminology.
Refer to the publication, 'Reasonable Mixing': A Discussion of Reasonable Mixing in Water Quality Management (Rutherford et al. 1994) for:
Developing provisions
Like all regional policy statements and plans, regional water quality plans need to show a clear relationship between the purpose for managing a particular water body and the issues, objectives, policies, methods, and anticipated environmental results (AERs).
The process
Developing provisions for a water quality plan essentially involves answering the key questions: Where? Why? What? How?
- Create a monitoring strategy that compares progress against the anticipated environmental results and tests how well the plan provisions are working. The monitoring strategy should also continue to monitor the state of the environment. See the guidance note on policy and plan effectiveness monitoring.
Gather information
Planning for water quality requires detailed information on:
Analyse issues
Analysing and focusing issues is an important and complex task in developing plan provisions. Issues must be clear statements about matters that need addressing to achieve the purpose of the RMA and should be thoroughly researched and consulted upon. For example, the conflicts between environmental values of rivers, lakes and wetlands, and various point and non-point source discharges are usually key issues for water quality. The issues should be analysed in detail, including the linkages between surface and groundwater quality and quantity, and management of land uses.
Define a spatial framework
A spatial framework for water quality planning may involve breaking the region into catchments, individual rivers, lakes or wetlands, or even parts of rivers, lakes or wetlands.
The use of spatial frameworks recognises that different rivers and lakes have different environmental values and resource uses, and have different capacities to assimilate contaminants, all of which depend largely on physical characteristics and location. The purpose of spatial frameworks is to more specifically and justifiably assign provisions that are appropriate to the characteristics of different rivers and lakes. The gathered information and analysis of issues will help determine which spatial framework is appropriate.
The RMA statutory framework shows that the RMA sets broad goals and regulations that apply across the whole country, rather than being specific to particular parts of the country. Regional policy statements and plans can apply spatial frameworks to subdivide water bodies into types, in order to apply strategic provisions that take account of the variability between different types of rivers and lakes. Individual resource consent processes are guided by national regulations and regional policies and rules, but involve case-by-case consideration of site-specific conditions.
A recent approach to grouping rivers that share similar physical characteristics is the River Environment Classification (REC). Environment Canterbury and Environment Southland are using the REC to define spatial frameworks for their water plans (see Work in progress). For a discussion of the use of river classification approaches for regional plans see Using River Habitat Classification in Regional Plans.
Define the management purposes
Deciding on the purpose for managing a particular water body involves a value judgement and is a political decision. Since water bodies typically support many values and resource uses, some of which may be in conflict with each other, a judgement must be made to choose and prioritise which values will be managed for, and at what level of protection. This is the defined 'purpose for management' and it will drive the development of objectives.
Develop objectives
Objectives describe the environmental outcomes required to support the defined management purpose.
Ideally, objectives should be specific, quantitative and measurable descriptions of environmental state or condition. However, quantitative outcomes can be difficult to define, especially when applied to large-scale spatial frameworks. This is because appropriate outcomes vary between rivers and lakes with different physical characteristics, environmental values, and uses. This variation decreases if spatial frameworks are used. In addition, as it is not possible to foresee all outcomes, and scientific knowledge about effects is sometimes uncertain, narrative objectives are often used.
The problem with narrative objectives is that they are open to interpretation and difficult to measure, and are therefore less certain and justifiable.
Develop policies
Policies define the course of action needed to achieve the objectives. For example, policies could state that land uses or point-source discharges should be managed such that they do not cause water quality effects that are inconsistent with the objectives.
Develop rules and other methods
Rules and other methods define how the policies will be implemented to achieve the objectives. Water quality plans usually include a wide range of methods, ranging from rules and standards relating to discharges, to community education and promotion initiatives, and more recently, to rules governing land use in catchments.
The use of rules governing land development is an emerging but contentious area of water quality planning that is potentially very important for future regional water quality plans. Such rules have been proposed on the basis of s9(3) RMA which imposes restrictions on certain uses of land that (it is contended) could have adverse effects on water quality. There may also be some basis for rules governing land development under s15(1)b RMA which restricts any person from discharging any contaminant onto or into land in circumstances which may result in that contaminant entering water. For examples see see Environment Waikato - Land Use in Taupo Catchment.
A mix of regulatory and non-regulatory methods is generally the best way to achieve water quality management outcomes because:
- Problems are addressed more completely from several angles
- A mix of methods will have a greater ability to change the awareness of a greater proportion of the community
- A mix of methods is generally most cost effective
See Section 32 - Methods of Implementation guidance note.
Develop anticipated environmental results
Anticipated environmental results should be measurable and should indicate the extent to which it is anticipated the objectives will be achieved within the lifetime of the plan.
Create a monitoring strategy
Monitoring the effects of resource uses on rivers and lakes is an essential part of planning for water quality. Development of monitoring programmes requires careful forethought. Good design is essential if strategies are going to answer adequately the kinds of questions that will be asked of them. For example, where programmes are intended to determine rates or magnitudes of changes in water quality relative to plan objectives, particular emphasis needs to be given to statistical considerations.
Develop a monitoring strategy that:
Best practice examples
Planning for water quality is a developing area. Many regional councils are currently working on regional water quality plans using a variety of approaches to developing provisions. These can be summarised into three broad approaches. Many councils have used a combination of these approaches. The choice of combination depends on regional characteristics such as the size and nature of water resources, and the level and type of resource use.
The following examples illustrate best practice in particular aspects of plan preparation, as described in the guidance note.
Waimakariri
River Regional Plan Date (PDF 2.57MB)
The Waimakariri River Regional Plan provides an example of where provisions have been been applied to
rivers or lakes with similar characteristics. These are grouped according
to their characteristics.
Plans using this approach apply spatial frameworks to group rivers and
lakes with similar characteristics. Plans then assign management purposes
and apply provisions, including standards, to these groups.
The strength of this approach is that provisions can take account of the variability
in physical characteristics among different rivers and lakes, as well
as various purposes for managing different groups.
Regional councils that are trying this approach include:
- Environment Canterbury (Proposed Natural Resources Regional Plan)
- Environment Southland (Proposed Regional Freshwater Plan for Southland).
Provisions applied to water quality classes
Manawatu
Catchment Water Quality Regional Plan (PDF 314KB)
The Manawatu Catchment Water Quality Plan is a best practice example of where provisions have been applied to water
quality classes. These are based on management purposes, as defined in
the Third Schedule of the RMA. Most plans using this approach use spatial
frameworks to identify rivers and lakes within each class. The plans
then apply conditions and/or standards to each class.
The strength of this approach is that it provides clear linkage between provisions
and the various purposes for managing particular water bodies or parts
of water bodies, even if the effects of some activities are not well
understood.
Several regional councils have created Water Quality Classes, based on management
purposes similar to those set out in the Third Schedule of the RMA.
Councils that have used this approach include:
- Environment Waikato
- Horizons Regional Council
- Environment Canterbury
- Environment Southland
- Greater Wellington.
Provisions based on activities
Proposed Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water -
5. Discharges to Land or Water (PDF 222KB)
Chapter 5 of the Proposed Auckland Regional Plan – Discharges to Land or Water provides a best practice example of where provisions have been based on activities.
The plan sets rules for particular activities, such as specific
types of discharges, and makes some activities permitted and others discretionary.
Most plans apply conditions and/or standards to the permitted and discretionary
activities. The strength of this approach is that it provides clear direction
for resource users undertaking activities for which the effects are well
understood. Most regional councils have used this approach for at least
some of their water quality planning provisions.
Councils that have used this approach include:
- Auckland Regional Council
- Otago Regional Council
- Environment Waikato
- Taranaki Regional Council
- Hawke’s Bay Regional Council
- Horizons.mw
- Environment Canterbury
- Environment Southland
- Greater Wellington.
RMA provisions
Case law
A large amount of case law is associated with decisions on individual applications for resource consent to discharge contaminants to water. Much less case law is specifically relevant to creating and implementing policy and planning provisions for water quality. A few examples that contain points of interest are:
McKnight v NZ Biogas Industries Ltd, CA526/93 [1994] 2 NZLR 664
This decision found that in considering the definition of discharge and the meaning of s15 RMA the Court of Appeal, 'a person allows a contaminant to escape who fails to take precautions that a reasonably prudent person in the position would take to prevent that escape'.
Canterbury Regional Council v Doug Hood Ltd. CRN 7076006424, DC Christchurch, 30/6/1998
This decision found that it is sufficient if there is awareness of facts from which a reasonable person would recognise that escape could occur. In that case, failure to investigate and take appropriate preventative steps would amount to allowing an escape should it subsequently occur. This decision was upheld on appeal to the High Court - see Doug Hood Ltd v Canterbury Regional Council AP192/98, HC Christchurch, 19/10/99.
Doug Hood Ltd v Canterbury Regional Council AP192/98, HC Christchurch, 19/10/99
This decision upheld that if the ordinary meaning of 'discharge' is available, the prosecution only has to causatively link the appellants to a discharge; it need not also establish that the appellants should have been aware of the risk and that they failed to take appropriate preventative steps. That interpretation is consistent with the normal approach to offences of strict liability.
Southland Regional Council v Southern Delight Ice Cream Co. CRN 5025003972, 5/11/1995, 2 ELRNZ 34, 1 NZED 29
This decision clarified that a discharge of a contaminant into a stormwater drain which in turn discharges into water is not a discharge of contaminants into water (s15 (1) (a)) RMA but a discharge in terms of s15 (1) (b) RMA.
Cooks Beach Developments Ltd v Waikato regional Council A127/99, 5 NZED 21
This decision determined that the construction of a reticulated sewage system and the step of requiring private owners to connect to such a system does not require any consents under the RMA. Therefore the sewage may be collected by council under its statutory powers and taken to a point where RMA considerations may apply. The RMA definition of 'water' (s2) specifically excludes water while in a pipe, tank or cistern. Thus s15 of the RMA does not apply to discharges into the pipes forming a reticulated system.'
Mahuta and Others v National Water and Soil Conservation Authority [NZTPA 73]
This decision determined that '...what is a reasonable mixing zone will be a question of fact and degree in each particular case...'
Te Runanga o Taumarere v Northland Regional Council [1996] [NZRMA 77]
This decision determined that the treatment of sewage to the point where the discharge to water would not be a 'contaminant' as defined by s2(1) RMA may still have an unacceptable adverse effect on the cultural and spiritual values of Māori.
Minister of Conservation v Gisborne District Council [1&2 NZPTD 198] This decision determined that it is unreasonable to impose an unattainable classification on waters when considering discharges of contaminants under s15 RMA and the provision of classes and standards for water quality under s69 RMA.
Application for Declaration by North Shore City and Others [1995] [NZRMA 74]
This decision determined that, in reference to s30(1)(a) RMA, a regional council function extends to all natural and physical resources, whereas the territorial function is focused on the effects of activities in relation to land and water surfaces.
A regional council must be able to restrain management decisions made by territorial authorities so that it can achieve integrated management of all natural and physical resources of the region. These management decisions could include policies and methods establishing metropolitan limits, to manage the effects of urban discharges on water quality.
Related guidance notes
The following guidance notes are related:
Work in progress
A significant amount of developmental work is in progress to help councils plan for water quality.
At a national level, the Sustainable Water Programme of Action is focussed on developing and progressing national initiatives aimed at ensuring that freshwater resources are managed and used in ways that support New Zealand’s long-term sustainable development. It is jointly led by the Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.
The Sustainable Water Programme of Action seeks three national outcomes for freshwater:
- To improve the quality and efficient use of freshwater by building and enhancing partnerships with local government, industry, Māori, science agencies and providers and rural and urban communities
- To improve the management of the undesirable effects of land use on water quality through increased national direction and partnerships with communities and resource users
- Provide for growing demands on water resources and encourage efficient water management through increased national direction, working with local government to identify options for supporting and enhancing local decision making, and developing best practice.
Possible actions in each of these areas have been proposed. Freshwater for the Future: A supporting document outlines these actions in greater detail.
The Dairying and Clean Streams Accord is an agreement between Fonterra Co-operative Group, Regional Councils, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Ministry for the Environment. The purpose of the Accord is to provide a statement of intent and framework for actions to promote sustainable dairy farming in New Zealand. It focuses on reducing the impacts of dairying on the quality of New Zealand streams, rivers, lakes, groundwater and wetlands. See the Snapshot of progress for further information.
Almost all regional councils are still working towards operative plans for water quality. See Council contacts and plan status for information on plan status.
Current work in progress is aimed at developing:
Current science research aims to increase knowledge of:
Relevant publications
Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality
Published by Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council - March 2000
These guidelines provide an authoritative reference for water quality management in New Zealand - particularly for toxic contaminants.
Reasonable mixing - A discussion of reasonable mixing in water quality management
Published by Ministry for the Environment - August 1994
This ideas paper identifies legal provisions relating to water classification, describes mixing zones and non-compliance zones using practical examples.
Options for Numeric Water Quality Objectives and Standards for Rivers and Lakes of Canterbury (PDF 3 MB)
Published by NIWA - May 2003
Defines options for numeric water quality objectives and standards for the rivers and lakes described in the draft Environment Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan.
Drafting Issues, Objectives, Policies and Methods in Regional Policy Statements and District Plans
Published by Ministry for the Environment - July 2003
This working paper is an update of an existing Ministry for the Environment (MfE) report titled 'Working Paper No. 1: Issues, Policies, Methods and Results under the Resource Management Act July 1994.' The paper provides examples of the way issues, objectives, policies, methods and anticipated environmental results are articulated in RMA policy statements and plans. The updated version ensures all the material in the original working paper is still current and usable, and includes a brief review of pertinent Environment Court case law relating to the topic.
New Zealand Periphyton Guideline: Detecting, Monitoring and Managing Enrichment of Streams
Published by Ministry for the Environment - June 2000
Designed to help water managers determine the likely impacts of land and water developments and stream periphyton and thus assist to facilitate the intent of the RMA.
Relevant publications that are not available online:
Collier, K.J.; Winterbourn, M.J. eds. (2000). New Zealand Stream Invertebrates: Ecology and Implications for Management. New Zealand Limnological Society, Caxton, Christchurch, NZ
Davies-Colley, R.J. (2000). 'Trigger' values for New Zealand rivers. No. MFE002/22. NIWA report to Ministry for the Environment, Hamilton.
Loe, B. (2002). Objectives, Water Classes, Standards and Rules for Water Quality. A Draft Working Paper prepared for Environment Canterbury, July.
McLay, M. (1999). Using River Habitat Classification in Regional Plans. Prepared for the Ministry for the Environment, July.
MfE (1992). Water Quality Guidelines No. 1 ' Guidelines for the control of undesirable biological growths in water.' Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand, June 1992. 60 p.
MfE (1994a.)Water Quality Guidelines No. 2 ' Guidelines for the management of water colour and clarity.' Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand, June 1994. 60 p.
MfE (2003a). Draft Freshwater Microbiological Water Quality Guidelines ' Explanatory Notes.' Updated April 2003. (This update supercedes the earlier 'Interim' freshwater guidelines [MfE, 2002]).
Snelder, T.H.; Biggs, B. J. F. (2002). Multi-Scale River Environment Classification for Water Resources Management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38(5): 1225 - 1240.
Snelder, T.; Guest, P. (2000). The River Ecosystem Management Framework and the Use of River Environment Classification as a Tool for Planning. NIWA Client Report. CHC0/81 to the NZ Ministry for the Environment.
A number of water publications, including best practice guides and guidelines, are listed on the Ministry for the Environment's water publications web page.
There are also a large number of publications describing tools for the management of water quality on NIWAs Literature and Tools for Water Resource Managers web page.
Current challenges in practice
There are a number of complex challenges for current practice in planning for water quality. While experience is increasing all the time, the integration of all the components described in this guidance note is a challenge that most water plans have yet to fully achieve. In brief, the current challenges include:
Acknowledgements and editorial comments
This guidance note was prepared by Ned Norton and Ton Snelder of NIWA in 2003. The note was updated in 2006 by Libby Manley, Ministry for the Environment with input from Greg Vossler and Gina Sweetman.
This guidance note was prepared in November 2003 and updated in January 2007.
