Take Four: Draft NPS for Freshwater Management

Environment & Planning
Sep 09 2019

Photo from:  Ministry for the Environment. 2019. Action for healthy waterways – A discussion document on national direction for our essential freshwater.

The Government released its proposals for freshwater management reform on 5 September 2019, including a consultation draft of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (“Consultation Draft”) which, once finalised, will represent the fourth iteration of the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management (“NPSFM”).

In contrast to the 2014 and 2017 iterations which built on the original 2011 format, the Consultation Draft has a new look and feel and much greater coverage. The Consultation Draft has simply one objective with thirteen supporting policies. It provides for the continued setting of freshwater management units by regional councils, and the national objectives framework (“NOF”) which requires regional councils to work through specific values and attributes for those freshwater management units. However, it covers a far greater number of topics including inland wetlands, and has a larger number of attributes tables for both limit setting and ‘action plans’ under the NOF.

Te Mana o Te Wai
The Consultation Draft continues to strengthen and build on the concept of Te Mana o Te Wai which is proposed as a “fundamental concept” and permeates the Consultation Draft more fully than the current NPSFM. While the current NPSFM says it “is the integrated and holistic well-being of a freshwater body”, the Consultation Draft omits a clear definition statement, saying it “refers to the fundamental value of water and the importance of prioritising the health and wellbeing of water before providing for human needs and wants”. There is a re-framing of the term at least and whether it is clearer than the current NPSFM will no doubt attract submissions.

‘Maintain or improve’
Objective A2 of the current NPSFM – amended in 2017 to spatially narrow “region” to “freshwater management unit” – has attracted much debate around the use of the term ”overall”. The Consultation Draft includes a ‘maintain or improve’ policy (proposed Policy 2) but with a different emphasis to the current NPS. It no longer uses the word “overall”, and instead of the term “water quality”, refers to the health and wellbeing of water bodies and freshwater ecosystems.

NOF & compulsory values
Within the NOF, there are now at least three and potentially four compulsory values. Ecosystem health remains, but “human health for recreation” is proposed to be “human contact”. “Threatened species” has been added, and there is a placeholder for a fourth possible compulsory value for Mahinga Kai or Tangata Whenua Value. The range of other values that must be considered through the NOF remains the same, but will be shortened if Mahinga Kai becomes a compulsory value. The term ‘freshwater objective’ is absent from the NOF. Instead regional councils must describe the environmental outcomes that it wants to achieve for the compulsory and other values it identifies.

The Consultation Draft appears to place development of the NOF more squarely with regional councils than the current NPSFM. It is proposed that at every stage of the process regional councils must engage with communities and tangata whenua in order to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai, but the list of mandatory considerations at all relevant points in the process – such as how to enable communities to provide for their economic well-being, including productive economic opportunities – is absent from the Consultation Draft.

Attributes tables
There range of attributes tables is considerably expanded. The attributes which require limits have expanded from nine to twelve, and include suspended fine sediment. Eleven attributes requiring ‘action plans’ have also been introduced covering matters such as macroinvertebrates, fish, and submerged plants (native and invasive). Regional councils are to identify the current states of each attribute, and set target attribute states. Much like the current NPSFM these are proposed to be at or above current state (unless below the national bottom line in which case the target must be better than the national bottom line). However a notable exception is Human Contact where the target attribute is to be above the current state of that attribute.

New ground
The Consultation Draft covers far more ground than the current NPSFM. There are specific requirements introduced for inland wetlands, streams, and fish passage. There is an emphasis on no further loss of wetlands which is not surprising given New Zealand’s record of wetland loss, and there are strong provisions directed at ensuring continued fish passage in New Zealand’s rivers and streams.

Timing
In line with its desire to take a strong stance on the improvement of freshwater quality, the consultation draft shortens up the timeframe for councils to have final decisions out on regional policy statements and plans by no later than 31 December 2025.

Not addressed
The question of Māori rights and interests which has recently been considered by the Waitangi Tribunal is not directly addressed in the Consultation Draft. The Cabinet paper accompanying the proposals states that the Tribunal’s report (which was released on 28 August 2019) is to be considered alongside submissions as part of public consultation. Given the complexity of how this issue might be addressed, it remains to be seen whether it will form part of the replacement NPSFM in due course.

Submissions
The official closing date for submissions is Thursday 17 October 2019 at 5pm. However, submissions will be accepted for a further two weeks beyond that date, until 31 October 2019.

Also open for submissions as part of the freshwater reforms Action for Healthy Waterways package are a proposed national environmental standard for freshwater and draft stock exclusion regulations.

You may also like ...
Another RMA amendment – freshwater and other matters
Another amendment Act, in a long line of RMA amendment Acts, came into force on 24 October 2024.  The Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2024 (Act) makes the following key changes to the RMA: Freshwater The “hierarchy of obligations” in clauses 1.3(5) and 2.1 of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPSFM) are no longer considerations for resource consent decisions. This applies to resource consent applications lodged before commencement if the consent authority has not, before commencement, served notice of its decision on the application. Provides that councils are not to notify “freshwater planning instruments” (giving effect to the NPSFM) before the a new NPSFM has been published or the end of 2025. This is a year later than the RMA previously required.  Exemptions from this delay can be sought in certain circumstances. Section 107 of the RMA has been amended to clarify that councils can grant resource consent for discharges that would result in significant adverse effects, provided conditions reduce effects over time. This is a direct response to the Environmental Law Initiative’s successful judicial review of a discharge permit in mid Canterbury. Freshwater / Farming The Act removes the use of low slope maps under the Resource Management (Stock Exclusion) Regulations 2020 that restricted the grazing of beef, cattle and deer on low slope areas near water bodies. Low slope maps are to be replaced with freshwater farm plans and/or regional plans wherein Regional Councils can determine where stock grazing needs to be excluded on a case-by-case basis. Further, the Act repeals the permitted and restricted discretionary activity regulations and associated conditions for intensive winter grazing in the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater (NES-F). The Act replaces these with standalone regulations on riparian setback and critical source areas. Significant Natural Areas Local authorities have an obligation in the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPS-IB) to identify and include new significant natural areas (SNA) by 4 August 2028. These identification and incorporation requirements are suspended for three years by the Act which amends the timing provisions for when councils must publicly notify a proposed plan or plan change that gives effect to the NPS-IB.  This change seeks to provide sufficient time for Government to undertake a thorough review of how SNAs operate. Coal Mining The NPS-FM, NPS-IB and the NES-F all provide a consent pathway for mining activities in or near wetlands and SNAs, except for new coal mining activities.  The Act aligns the consenting pathway for new coal mining activities with the pathway for other mineral extractive activities across the NPS-IB, NPS-FM and the NES-F. National Direction The Act enables the Minister for the Environment to amend national direction (excluding the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement) without using the standard process where the amendment is for a range of purposes including to give effect to international obligations and to change timeframes.
Read more
Fast-track Approvals Bill – Select Committee report back
On Friday 18 October 2024, the Environment Committee reported back on the Fast-track Approvals Bill which was introduced on 7 March 2024. We take a look at what’s changed, what stays the same, and the road ahead. What’s changed? The Environment Committee has recommended the following key changes. The purpose of the Bill has been re-framed as “to facilitate the delivery of infrastructure and development projects with significant regional or national benefits”. Timeframes are amended slightly to provide the Expert Panel with 10 working days (rather than five) from their appointment to issue an invitation for written comments, and to provide those invited to comment with 20 working days (rather than 10) to provide those comments. Expert Panels no longer include an iwi appointee. However Expert Panels must include at least one member who is suitably qualified in te ao Māori and Māori development. The Expert Panel (not Ministers) will make final decisions on substantive applications. When considering applications, the Expert Panel must give the “greatest weight” to the purpose of the Bill. The Expert Panel may decline an approval if it forms the view that the activity or activities for which the approval is sought would have one or more adverse impacts, and those adverse impacts are sufficiently significant to outweigh the purpose of the Bill even after any conditions that the panel may set in relation to those impacts are taken into account. The lapse provisions have been amended to allow some discretion. Lapse periods must be at least two years, and if not specified, a default lapse period of five years will apply. What’s stayed the same? The Bill is still an ‘omnibus’ bill which covers a wide range of processes, not just resource consents. A person who has applied for an approval under another Act must withdraw that application before lodging a substantive application that seeks a corresponding approval under the Bill for the same, or substantially the same, activity. The Expert Panel still has a window of 25 working days from the closing date for comments to issue its decision, which is significant given the scale and complexity of many of the projects listed (although suspensions are provided for and there is the ability to extent that timeframe). Appeal rights are available to the High Court on a point of law only. Rights of judicial review are not affected by the Bill. The road ahead The Bill still refers to Schedule 2A and 2B (with provisions for Part A listed projects and Part B listed projects), despite the Minister’s announcement on 6 October 2024 that “Because of the unprecedented level of interest in this process, it became clear that so many projects were suitable for 2A that having a separate list for Schedule 2B became unnecessary, so it will be deleted from the Bill.” Presumably this will be amended as the Bill progresses through Parliament. For listed projects, the immediate issue will be resourcing the processing of those. With 149 projects selected for listing in the Bill, it remains to be seen how many will convert into lodged applications (and how quickly). There is also a mandatory requirement to consult specified persons before lodging the substantive application with the EPA. Once applications are lodged, Experts Panels will need to be formed to process applications. Overall, the fast-track process is likely to be resource intensive for all participants. Seeking referral for fast tracking is still possible (as was the case with the COVID-19 (Fast-track) Consenting Act 2019). However, the question will be the extent to which there is capacity within the system for the processing of referral applications, and referred projects, in light of the volume of listed projects. The Bill is expected to become law before the end of the year. For any questions, please contact one of the below who all have experience with fast-track applications.
Read more
Phase three of the Resource Management Reforms
Last week, the Government has announced that two new laws are to be developed to replace the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), with the enjoyment of property rights as their guiding principle. Replacement of the RMA is part of the final phase (phase three) of the Government’s reform of our resource management system. The Government’s intention with a property rights focused system is to allow people to do more on their own property more easily, so long as it does not harm others.  Where harm to others results from an activity, the intention is that the new system should step in to protect a property owner’s rights from being compromised by unreasonable activities occurring around them. Cabinet has agreed on ten core design features of the new resource management system.  These features are still at a high level and more detail will be required before the effectiveness of these methods can be assessed in achieving the Government’s aspirations.  The ten features are as follows: Narrow the scope of the resource management system to focus on managing actual effects on the environment. Establish two acts with clear and distinct purposes – one to manage environmental effects arising from activities and the other to enable urban development and infrastructure. Strengthen and clarify the role of environmental limits and how those are to be developed. Provide for greater use of national standards to reduce the need for resource consents and simplify council plans. Shift the focus away from consenting before activities can get underway, and towards compliance, monitoring and enforcement of activities’ compliance with national standards. Use spatial planning and a simplified design process to lower the cost of infrastructure. Realise efficiencies by requiring one regulation plan per region, jointly prepared by regional and district councils. Provide for a rapid low cost resolution of disputes between neighbours and between property owners and councils, with the potential for a new Planning Tribunal (or equivalent). Uphold Treaty of Waitangi settlements and the Crown’s obligations. Provide faster and cheaper processes with less reliance on litigation, contained within shorter and simpler legislation that is more accessible. An expert advisory group has been appointed to assist with the development of the new system, whose expertise includes resource management law, planning and te ao Māori.  The Government expects key aspects of the new system to go before Cabinet for agreement before the end of the year with the intention for legislation to be passed before the next election.
Read more

Start typing and press enter to search

Scroll to Top