inspection round. Problems usually peak early in the inspection round, and a clearer picture of the compliance rate will emerge as the inspections are completed around May, the Committee was told. The Council’s inspectors are visiting every dairy farm in the region, with repeat visits if non-compliance is found. It’s vital that farmers stay on top of their systems to ensure they comply with consent conditions and avert environmental impacts, the Committee was told. Next steps for new Coastal PlanThe
During the 2023/24 monitoring year, the Council also collected one water sample from Te Kiri o Rauru
Spring. The Company supplied records of their own monitoring, as well as records of the volume of water
abstracted and the volume of wastewater discharged.
No breaches of the daily abstraction volume limits were recorded for the production bores during the
monitoring period. There were occasional exceedances of the instantaneous abstraction rate that were above
the permitted measurement error
Monitoring is carried out by both the Company and the Council. The Company monitors water abstraction
rate, effluent flow rate and composition, receiving water quality, odour at the plant boundaries, effluent
loadings and soil and herbage for irrigation areas. The Council undertakes inspections of the plant site and
irrigation areas. Monitoring includes effluent quality checks and inter-laboratory comparisons, surface water
and ground water quality monitoring, air quality and biological monitoring.
improvements are required, and how success is measured.
Dairy non-compliance up slightlyThe 2016/2017 round of dairy effluent system inspections has been completed, with 1721 farms inspected, the Consents and Regulatory Committee was told. The overall non-compliance rate was 7.4%, up from 5.8% the previous season and reflecting a wetter summer. Most of the breaches were relatively minor, with just 0.9% classed as ‘significant non-compliance’ in terms of their environmental effects. Enforcement action
Policy and Planning Committee Agenda 4 February 2025
at a number of sites, overall trends remain positive as time passes. Year-by-year fluctuations are natural and to be expected, the Committee was told. By almost all measures at most sites most of the time, the region’s water quality is ‘fit for purpose’, and especially when compulsory national criteria are considered. The exception was ‘swimmability’ criteria, where most sites fell below the strict 95% compliance rate required. However, most of these sites are too shallow, cold and/or small for
than one consent. Overall, the Council found a high level of environmental performance and compliance for 76%, with another 20% rated ‘good’ and the remainder requiring improvement. The monitoring reports are prepared by, and based on the work of, the Council’s experienced and qualified scientific staff. Consent compliance monitoring reports Getting with the planUseful initiatives promoting farm environmental plans have sprung from increased national interest in the concept, the Policy & Planning
enforcement programmes have been rated very favourably in peer reviews, and the Council is working with iwi to develop its mātauranga Māori processes and capacity in this and other areas. Wastewater treatment plant compliance monitoring reports Coastal charges not for TaranakiThe Council does not intend taking up an opportunity to introduce a new occupation charges covering coastal structures such as moorings, jetties, wharves, sheds or boat ramps. An amendment to the Resource Management Act allows
for 864 (89%) of a total of 967 consents monitored through the Taranaki
tailored monitoring programmes, while for another 75 (8%) of the consents a good level of environmental
performance and compliance was achieved. A further 26 (3%) of consents monitored required improvement
in their performance, while the remaining two (<1%) achieved a rating of poor.
In terms of overall environmental and compliance performance by the irrigation water consent holders over
the last several years, this
Calibration Overview 7
3.3 Calibration Data 10
3.3.1 June 2015 10
3.3.2 June 2018 11
3.4 Calibration Method 13
3.4.1 Detailed Calibration of Surface Roughness and Model Losses 14
3.4.2 Criteria 18
3.4.3 Rating Curves 18
3.4.4 Time of Concentration 21
4 RESULTS 22
4.1 June 2015 Results 22
4.1.1 Water Levels 22
4.1.2 Flows 23
4.1.3 Discharge Volume 23
4.1.4 Timing of Peak 24
4.1.5 Summary 24
4.2 June 2018 Results 25
4.2.1 Water Levels 25