Water New Zealand National Performance Review 2021/2022

Acknowledgements

This report has been authored by Lesley Smith of Water New Zealand, with the assistance of Zoe Hubbard. A special thanks to Miles Wyatt of AECOM who has audited the Review since it began fifteen years ago. Editorial review by Clare Whatmough of Grammatica Ltd, and design imagery provided by Nina Velleman of Bunkhouse design. The design work draws on the images provided by the talented photographers entered in the 2022 Water New Zealand photo competition. Wellington Water and the 32 councils listed in this report have contributed time, resources and expertise that underpins the report. This has been undertaken during an exceptionally busy time for water service delivery staff. Our sincere thanks to the participating staff and organisations.

Foreword

Ka mua,ka muri - walking backwards into the future

This whakataukī embodies the idea that we should look to the past to inform the future.

This year marks the final year of the National Performance Review (the Review), an annual performance review of drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater service delivery. The Review commenced in 2008, and has been undertaken voluntarily by councils, or council-controlled organisations, to understand and improve their performance over this time.

From this year, many of the measures covered by the Review will now be reported in Taumata Arowai’s Network Environmental Performance Measure Rules. Over time, we expect that these measures will be complemented by further reporting by an economic regulator. At the time of publishing this report, a Parliamentary Select Committee is considering a Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill. The Bill provides the legislative framework for the implementation of an economic regulation and consumer protection regime, which will be overseen by the Commerce Commission. In time, the economic regulator will address performance measures not within the remit of Taumata Arowai, such as customer charges and complaints.

At this time of change, the whakataukī kamua,kamuri speaks to the need to carry learnings the sector has developed over the life of the Review into the new regime. The Review provides a basis for the establishment of consistent reporting frameworks that will help facilitate knowledge sharing into the future. It also helps identify where opportunities exist to improve the services we deliver, reflected in the Executive Summary of this report.

This year’s report has been developed with support from 33 of the country’s 64 service providers. We acknowledge the 32 councils and Wellington Water for their ongoing commitment to transparent information and performance improvement during a time of significant workload.

Over the life of the Review, Watercare and an additional 27 councils have contributed data to the Review, encompassing all but four of the country’s water service providers. Where there was benefit in including information on service provision from these authorities, we have included it in this report.

Drawing on our past knowledge, collective wisdom will position us well for uplifting the health of the environment and communities, which we as a water sector serve. To this end, we are pleased to offer Water New Zealand’s final National Performance Review report.

Gillian Blythe, Chief Executive, Water New Zealand

Disclaimer

Water New Zealand endeavours to provide data that is as consistent and accurate as possible. Reliability is limited by the data that individual participants have made available.

Our quality review process is outlined in the companion document NationalPerformanceReview:QualityAssessmentProcess (Water New Zealand, 2022). In addition to our internal quality review checks, Water New Zealand has collaborated with AECOM to provide third party external review that covers ~20% of participating councils. The audits cover selected performance measures which are either new, or pose difficulty in reporting. Our auditor estimates that, on average, 7% of performance measures it reviewed were adjusted following the audits. Further information is contained in the AuditReportforWaterNZ's2021/2022NationalPerformanceReview (AECOM, 2023). Large annual variations in some performance metrics also suggest limitations on the accuracy of data. For this reason, participants provide data confidence grading. These are indicated throughout this report in areas where data quality is generally low.

Performance outcomes for water services are subject to influences outside of an organisation’s control. Influencing variables that should be considered when evaluating performance include:

• Service area characteristics (density of connected properties, the split of residential versus non-residential users)

• Environmental factors (including topography, quality of source water and receiving environments, and soil types)

• Weather conditions

• Historic design practices

Performance outcomes are also influenced by data collection and reporting systems. Service providers’ systems range from pen-and-paper-based data collection to comprehensive data management technologies. This can mean participants with robust reporting methods rank comparatively poorly against those with less sophisticated methods. For example, a comprehensive customer complaints management system is likely to record more complaints than a pen-and-paper-based system, due to more accurate data capture.

Contacting water service managers in order to understand data limitations or performance drivers is recommended when making decisions based on information contained in this report.

Executive Summary

The National Performance Review (the Review) is a voluntary performance reporting exercise for drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater services. Drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater services are essential for human health, the environment, and economic development. Proper management of these services helps to ensure that people have access to clean drinking water, wastewater and stormwater is managed to prevent water pollution, and communities are protected from flooding. The importance of these services has been underscored by the devastation wrought by cyclone Gabrielle, which has caused service disruptions to several regions in the North Island as this report is being prepared.

To be effective in protecting environmental and public health, water services must be customer focused, resource efficient, reliable, and resilient. This report aims to build understanding of how effectively these outcomes are achieved, as well as providing information on the workforce and asset base that underpin service delivery. Many regions in New Zealand are beginning to turn their attention to how we can build resilience in our infrastructure following cyclone Gabrielle. Considering our current and desired future state for each of these outcome areas will be critically important.

The Review commenced in 2008. At the time, the primary goal was “publicly confirming the standing of the [water services] industry and the value delivered from public investment in those assets”. Information gathered through the Review shows that our water infrastructure provides critically important water and wastewater services to more than 80% of New Zealand’s population through the management of an infrastructure base worth around $50 billion.

The Review’s pilot was based on a benchmarking exercise undertaken by what was then the Auckland Water Group, and performance indicators tailored from those in the Water Services Association of Australia reporting framework. Over time, the measures have iteratively evolved with the guidance of water suppliers to reflect New Zealand priorities, ways of working, and a growing understanding of how the differing service delivery arrangements could be reflected in a single framework. The focus of the Review is now on providing transparent access to service delivery performance to inform decisions. Collated information and trends from service providers participating in this year’s Review, and individual participant data, are provided in a publicly available series of dashboards on the Water New Zealand website.

Water service delivery has undergone significant changes since the Review commenced, including the establishment of Taumata Arowai, New Zealand’s dedicated Drinking Water Services Regulator. The Water Services Act 2021 requires Taumata Arowai to monitor and report on the environmental performance of drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater service delivery. Taumata Arowai has taken a broad interpretation of environmental performance measures, which covers much of the information provided in the National Performance Review. The Government also agreed in 2021 to implement an economic regulation and consumer protection regime following sector reform. Remaining measures covered by the Review will fall under this new regime, superseding the Review. Accordingly, this will be Water New Zealand’s final year of delivering the National Performance Review.

Further changes are expected over the coming year. While the future structure of water service delivery is still the subject of much debate, the Water Service Entities Act was passed into legislation in December 2022. The Act establishes four publicly owned water services entities that will take over provision of water services from local authorities from June 2024. The transition to the new entities has generated a significant body of work for the sector. Reflecting these workload pressures, participation in the Review has declined from previous years. Of the 64 providers of municipal water services, this Review covers 32 councils and Wellington Water.

As we stand at an inflection point for the sector, there is value in building a collective understanding of New Zealand’s water services sector. Over time, data has been provided by 60 of 64 service providers. In a break from previous years, we have chosen to include historically collated information, where its currency is not overly diminished, to provide an overall sector snapshot. All authorities that have participated in the Review, and the recency of their information, is provided in the Introduction and Appendix I to this report.

Thanks to the contribution and continuous commitment of participants over the life of the Review, a sufficient body of information has been drawn together to identify crosscutting sector trends and themes, outlined here. Many of these are ongoing themes that have been reflected in previous years’ Reviews. We have restated issues that are critically important to the wellbeing of New Zealanders and our environment.

Growing water abstraction volumes could be countered with demand side measures.

An estimated 550 million cubic metres of water a year is withdrawn across New Zealand to supply water networks. Since 2018, water use (among suppliers continuously contributing to the Review) has increased by 4.2%. While water use is not climbing as fast as the number of new connections, which increased 11% over the same period, these water supplies are drawn from a finite freshwater resource.

There is much that could be done to reduce the amount of water drawn from these networks before they approach the limits of what can be abstracted from the environment. In the 2022 fiscal year, nearly 20% of all water supplied to networks was lost through leakage. Only four of 32 water suppliers achieved water loss levels beyond which opportunities to further reduce leakage may not be economic.

Residential water use comparisons suggest there are opportunities for individuals to reduce their use. The New Zealand district average of 213kL/property/year was significantly higher than all Australian centres other than the hot and arid regions of Perth (227kL/property) and Darwin (360kL/property). Water use in other Australian centres ranged from 147kL/property in Melbourne to 196kL/property in Adelaide.

Water meters are proven to incentivise lower water use and help address leaks. Water meters are installed at over half New Zealand’s residential properties, and nearly three quarters of non-residential premises. By providing information on how much water is being consumed, network operators are better able to determine and manage water loss. Information on usage also enables consumers to identify leaks more easily and, when combined with volumetric charging, incentivises lower usage. The relationship between metering and efficient usage is reflected in residential usage statistics. All bar three, districts without residential water meters in this year’s Review had above average water usage.

Expenditure on stormwater networks trails that of water supply and wastewater networks.

Stormwater networks have a critical role in managing urban runoff and preventing flood risks, however expenditure was roughly a third of that spent on water supply and wastewater networks across participants in the 2022 year (36% and 33% respectively).

Revenue to manage these networks is raised via council rates, which varied from $33.54 to $409.12. The exact rating mechanism varies across the country, with seven different rating approaches identified. One council stated it did not have in place a rating mechanism for stormwater, and several others were not able to clearly distinguish what proportion of rates collected was allocated to stormwater.

Funding challenges for the river management and flood protection schemes, managed by the regional sector, have also been raised by Te Uru Kahika (Regional and Unitary Councils Aotearoa). Their proposal for co-investment in river management and flood protection (Te Uru Kahika, 2023) makes the case that “Given the upcoming resource management reforms, alongside the growing flood risk, it is timely to revisit the matter of co-investment that will provide pathways to long-term solutions for Aotearoa.”

Water charges are hugely variable outside of our main centres.

The median charge for a residential property using 200m3 of water in the 2021 fiscal year was $465, and $564 for wastewater. This would take a worker, working at the 2022 New Zealand minimum wage, a week and a half of work to pay. This is equivalent to 47% of the average residential electricity bill of $2,194 per year (MBIE, 2023).

Charges around New Zealand vary significantly. The highest water supply charges ($1,209/year) are over eight times higher than the lowest ($244/year). The range for wastewater charges is nearly as large (from $360/year to $1,108/year). Charges are less variable in urban centres (with population greater than 90,000), with the highest charge in a major centre not exceeding $617 for water supply, and $654 for wastewater.

There are weaknesses in environmental regulation of water and wastewater networks.

Environmental regulation of wastewater and stormwater networks helps to ensure systems are operated in a manner that protects public health and the environment. In New Zealand, this is achieved by the issuing of consents for discharges from wastewater and stormwater networks. While all wastewater treatment plants have discharge consents, these are not all current. Nearly 10% of treatment plants that provided information to this year’s Review were operating on expired consents, however the majority of these had lodged new consent applications, and one was under appeal. This situation points to the lengthy consultation processes of obtaining new discharge consents.

While all wastewater treatment plant discharges are consented, this is not the case for overflows of wastewater from elsewhere in the network. While it makes sense to prohibit wastewater overflows that occur because of equipment or maintenance failures, it is often unrealistic to expect overflows caused by rainfall inundation of the sewage system to cease. In the last financial year, 1,154 such overflows were reported. For much of New Zealand, there is no regulatory approach for managing wet-weather overflows. Only five wastewater service operators held consents for wet-weather overflows, a further seven treated them as emergency discharges, and one treated them as a permitted activity. The absence of resource consents elsewhere reduces both the drivers for understanding the true extent of overflow, and opportunities for putting interventions to reduce them in place.

The coverage of stormwater discharges with consents is also piecemeal, however it is steadily increasing. Proposals for stormwater catchment management plans in the Water Services Legislation Bill will help address this gap. Only seven of the 33 stormwater service providers in this report had all stormwater discharges covered by a resource consent. Such consents act as a driver for monitoring and management practices that improve the quality of stormwater discharges. Nonetheless, stormwater catchment management plans, and stormwater quality monitoring, have gradually become more prevalent. Three quarters of participants had stormwater catchment management plans in place, and 70% undertook monitoring.

Where resource consents are in place there is a long-running trend of little regulatory compliance action in response to non-conformance with consent conditions. In the 2022 fiscal year 412 non-conformances with wastewater treatment plant consents where reported, however only 36 compliance actions were taken in response. For stormwater consents 191 non-conformances were reported with only seven corresponding compliance actions.

The water sector has a growing workforce with lots of opportunities.

At least 3,200 staff are employed by water service providers in New Zealand, with at least 50% more contracting directly to those service providers on a full-time basis. Over the previous five years, the number of staff (among repeat participants) has grown by 30%. As of June 2022, 17% of roles were vacant, 120% higher than the proportion of vacancies five years ago.

Workforce, growth, and need for staff has mirrored increases in capital expenditure on water services, which has increased by 70% over the last five years. This has been driven primarily by increased spending on water supply networks.

Health and safety performance trends are a cause for concern.

In the 2022 fiscal year, a total of 462 days of lost-time injuries occurred due to a workplace incident causing illness or injury. Among these was a fatality resulting from a head injury on a construction site. The number of days of lost time has progressively increased, and is now 70% higher than five years ago.

The NPR also records information on near misses, which provides an indication of how proactively potential safety risks are being identified and, we expect, subsequently managed. In the 2022 fiscal year, 1,837 near misses were reported. Nearly half of those where attributable to just two organisations. Seven of the 33 participating organisations either indicated they had no near misses, or did not supply data. Amongst those continuously supplying data, near-miss reporting had reduced by 55%.

The increase in lost-time injuries, and corresponding rise in near miss reporting, indicates that health and safety in the water sector is regressing.

Action is needed to ensure adequate maintenance of water supplies for firefighting.

The provision of water is crucial for firefighting. Water requirement flows and volumes are outlined in the FirefightingWaterSuppliesCodeofPractice (Standards New Zealand, 2008). Most participating water suppliers (26 of 32) had adopted the code, however only four of these had met the hydrant testing requirements. There were also differences evident in the functions seen as the responsibility of FENZ versus the water supplier. The requirements of the code, and implementation responsibilities, need reviewing to ensure that adequate water is available for firefighting when it is needed.

Table of figures

Figure

1 Introduction

1.1 Information covered by the Review

1.1.1 Water service providers included in the Review

The National Performance Review is a voluntary performance assessment, with participants committing their time, information, and expertise to enable its delivery. This year’s Review covers information provided by 33 of New Zealand’s 64 drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater service providers.

This year’s report also selectively includes information from an additional 27 service providers where it is relevant to help build a national picture of water service delivery. For those not participating in this year’s Review, the most recent year’s data provided to the Review has been used in figures. Figure 1, illustrates data recency for each district and a full list of current and historic participation in the Review is provided in Appendix I:Reviewparticipants. Four districts shown in light have not been included in the report.

Most water service providers participating in the Review are territorial or unitary councils, with responsibility for the supply of drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater services. Exceptions are in Auckland and Wellington.

Auckland is the only region of New Zealand where stormwater services are provided by a separate organisation from that of water and wastewater. In Auckland, Stormwater services are provided by Auckland Council, which contributed data from the 2022 fiscal year. Drinking water and wastewater services are provided by Watercare, which provided data based on information from the 2021 fiscal year, and is only included where historic data is drawn on.

In the Wellington region, Wellington Water provides services on behalf of six councils: Greater Wellington Regional Council (which owns bulk water assets), Porirua City Council, Wellington City Council, Hutt City Council, Upper Hutt City Council, and South Wairarapa District Council. Information for these councils is reported as Wellington Water, except that for South Wairarapa. While managed by Wellington Water, South Wairarapa is the only district to operate on a separate network, and so is reported separately in this report.

Figure 1: ParticipantsintheNationalPerformanceReview showingmostrecentyearof informationprovision

As the Review is voluntary, participation has varied over time. In addition to the annual information reported, this report also collates information obtained from all authorities to provide a sector snapshot. This means that the number of water service providers varies depending on information availability. Reported information is covered by three categories, each with different water service provider coverage. The water service providers included in each category are shown in AppendixI:Reviewparticipants. The categories are:

• Current Information: based on data related to the 2022 fiscal year, from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022 (33 of 64 service providers)

• Trended Information: based on data from the 2022 fiscal year and for five years prior (26 of 64 service providers)

• Sector overview: based on the most recent year’s data supplied by participants and shown in Figure 1 (60 of 64 service providers)

Figure 2:ProportionofNewZealandpopulationsuppliedbyjurisdictionscoveredbycategoriesofinformationintheNationalPerformanceReview

Juristictions in FY 2022 reporting Juristictions included in trended data Juristicions in the NPR across all time

1.1.2 Performance information in the Review

Drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater services are essential for human health, the environment, and economic development. Proper management of these services helps to ensure that people have access to clean drinking water, that wastewater and stormwater is properly managed to prevent water pollution, and that communities are protected from flooding. To be effective in achieving these aims, services need to be resilient, reliable, customer focused, and resource efficient. This report provides performance measures to support understanding of how effectively these outcomes are achieved, as well as information on the workforce and asset base that underpin service delivery.

Drinking water and freshwater quality reports provide information on the effectiveness of water supplies in ensuring that public health and the environment are protected. The DrinkingWaterRegulationReport (Taumata Arowai, 2022) and Our freshwater 2020 (Ministry for the Environment, 2020) address each of these issues respectively. The public health and environmental performance section of the Review addresses information not already contained in either of these reports.

Performance information in the Review is broken into the eight focus areas, with associated performance measures, shown in the Figure below. Each of the focus areas is addressed in a separate section of this report. Dashboards showing performance and trends for water service providers participating in the 2022 Review can be accessed online at: https://www.waternz.org.nz/NPRdashboard.

The Review collects information related to 260 data points. A full list of the data collected, and associated definitions, are provided in the National Performance Review 2021/22DefinitionGuidelines (Water New Zealand, 2022).

Performance measures in the Review were developed in 2008, based on those established by the Auckland Water Group and the Water Services Association of Australia reporting framework. Over time, the measures have iteratively evolved, with the guidance of water suppliers, to reflect New Zealand priorities and ways of working.

This year’s performance measures have been adjusted to align with the first round of Taumata Arowai’s Network Environmental Performance Measure Rules, which relate to drinking water. Wastewater and stormwater measures have been adopted from previous years, with only minor adjustments to reflect changes made to corresponding drinking water measures, or suggestions from previous years’ audits. A list of all changes to the performance measures from previous years is provided in an Appendix to the NationalPerformanceReview2021/22DefinitionGuidelines (Water New Zealand, 2022).

References to definition guidelines are provided in figures and tables using indicator codes delineated with brackets. Codes relate to the data definition guidelines, and adhere to the following format:

• Characters 1-2: Denotes whether the data is related to Water Supply (WS), Wastewater (WW), or Stormwater (SW).

• Character 3: Denotes whether information refers to Background (B), Asset (A), Social (S), Environmental (E), or Financial (F) characteristics.

• Characters 4-5: Delineates between the different data points. For example, indicator SWB1 relates to stormwater background data, and is the first data point listed in the definition guidelines.

• Firefighting water

• Critical assets

• Climate change adaptation

• Flood design standards

• Flooding events

• Staffing levels

• Lost time injuries, near miss reports

• Training and qualifications

• Water sources

• Water abstractions

• Wastewater overflows

• Stormwater quality management

• Trade waste management

• Resource consent compliance

Public health and environmental protection

• Energy generation

• Energy use

• Assets under operation

• Service cover levels

• Connection density

• Pipeline condition grading

• Above ground asset condition grading

• Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) coverage

Resource efficiency Resilience

Assets

Workforce Customer focus

Economic sustainability

• Greenhouse gas emissions

• Residential water efficiency

• Water abstractions

• Water restrictions

• Water metering

• Customer education

• Wastewater sludges

Reliability

• System interruptions

• Pipeline age

• Inflow and infiltration

• Waterloss

• Service charges

• Fault response times

• Complaints

• Revenue

• Operational expenditure

• Capital expenditure

• Depreciation

• Cost coverage

• Debt servicing

• Balanced budget

1.2 Data quality and availability

Compliance with data definitions is reviewed by an external auditor, AECOM, whose recommendations are used to provide an understanding of data accuracy. The external audits focus on new data points or those that have previously been identified as problematic. Twenty percent of participants are covered by the audits. Audit participants are selected to provide a nationally representative sample of both entity size and location.

External audit findings are available in the Audit Report for Water New Zealand's 2021/2022 National Performance Review (AECOM, 2023), available from: www.waternz.org.nz/NationalPerformanceReview. They are the primary mechanism for identifying data inconsistencies, which are reflected in the information limitation sections throughout this report.

Other mechanisms in place to ensure data quality are outlined in the Review’s QualityAssessmentProcess (Water New Zealand, 2022).

Data quality is limited by the information participants have available. A self-assigned quality rating is assigned to data points to provide an indication of their reliability. Data confidence gradings are shown in areas of this report where data confidence is commonly rated as less reliable. These are illustrated using figures which draw on a composite of relevant data confidence metrics. The quality and completeness of each participant’s data are included in AppendixI:Reviewparticipants.

For the first time this year, service providers were given the opportunity to report some water supply performance metrics for individual networks, rather than reporting at a whole-of-district level. This applied to 14 water supply metrics, where Taumata Arowai Network Environmental Performance Measure Rules applied. The number of participants providing information at a network level is shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Thenumberofparticipantsproviding information at a network level forrelevantperformancemetrics

www.waternz.org.nz/assets

Central Interceptor Crane lifting 12m long shaft

Photo by Antoine Foulon

2.1 Asset overview

Assets covered by this Review are used for the supply of drinking water, the treatment and disposal of wastewater, and the management of stormwater runoff. Water supply assets used to supply clean drinking water to residents and businesses include reservoirs, treatment plants, pipelines, and pumps. Wastewater assets used to collect, treat, and dispose of wastewater include treatment plants, pipelines, and pump stations. Stormwater assets used to manage the flow of stormwater runoff and prevent flooding include catch basins, detention ponds, and pipelines.

Across the life of the Review, the assets managed by participating water service providers have a total value of nearly $50 billion. The 33 entities participating in the 2022 Review collectively manage assets worth $35 billion of this. A breakdown of assets managed, and their value, is shown in Table 2.

2:Assetsundermanagement

2.1.1 Limitations with information on assets

Network length is not always directly comparable between service providers. Data definitions specify that data should be included up to private property boundaries. Previous audits found this is not always the case, and identified differences in whether rural schemes were included.

Reporting on stormwater network lengths varies based on interpretations of the definition of a stormwater network. Definition guidelines specify that this should include all pipes, culverts, and lined channels that form part of the primary stormwater network, but not ditches, unlined channels, swales, and streams (which in the past have proven difficult to consistently quantify). Previous audits have found this definition is not always followed in reporting.

Asset values are reported as the closing book value of water supply treatment plants and facilities. Changes in year-on-year data indicate variation in the assumptions and methods used to determine asset value. Some change in asset value year on year is to be expected. This could be due to capital invested in assets, depreciation, or changes in the anticipated useful life of assets, which may vary for a variety of reasons. At a gross national level, the year-on-year percentage change for each asset class has varied between 5% and 30%. For individual authorities, variations were sometimes much larger. Large variations suggest changes in the valuation approach, or errors in data reporting.

Information on the sector overview draws from the historical Review data set. For the 27 service providers not providing data to this year’s review, this draws on information that is up to nine years old.

2.2 Properties receiving services

2.2.1 Service coverage

The number of residential and non-residential connections to water supply and wastewater networks is shown in Table 3. Based on the most recent year’s data for all districts covered by the Review, 84% of residential properties are connected to water networks, and 82% connected to wastewater networks. For participants supplying data in 2022, this figure is higher at 88% and 86% respectively. The difference between the proportion of properties connected to a network is largely owing to fewer small rural districts participating in this year’s Review.

Figure 3 illustrates the proportion of residential households connected to reticulated water supply and wastewater networks, with each district represented as a circle. The figure includes the most recent data from participating service providers. Water supply service coverage ranges from 29% and 32% in Kaipara and the Far North to 100% in the major cities of Hamilton and Christchurch. Wastewater service coverage is similarly variable, ranging from 28% of residential properties with service connections in Otorohanga, and 36% in the Far North, to 100% in major cities.

Table 3:Populationandpropertiesservicedbyparticipants’networks

Figure 3:Proportionofresidentialpropertiesconnectedtodrinkingwaterandwastewater networks

2.2.2 Limitations with service coverage data

Residential water supply and wastewater connections are unlikely to correspond exactly to the number of residential properties in a district, as multi-unit dwellings (such as apartments and retirement villages) are generally serviced via a single connection. Reporting definitions request that participants account for multi-unit dwellings in their connections data. Audits have found they do not always do so, as service providers often do not have ready access to this information.

The information on the total number of dwellings in a district is generally drawn from Stats NZ, rating databases, or GIS systems. Participants have commented anecdotally that these information sources do not always reconcile with each other. Stats NZ and rating databases are more likely to account for multi-unit dwellings than asset management databases when measuring the number of water supply connections. This means a systemic under-estimation of service coverage is likely, particularly in districts with high population densities where multi-unit dwellings occur more frequently.

It is not possible to estimate the service coverage of stormwater networks with the information currently available. Some districts maintain reticulated stormwater networks that do not have properties directly connected to them. For example, in Taupō and the South Wairarapa, soakage is relied upon to drain water from private properties. Such districts generally maintain a stormwater network which is predominantly used for roading drainage. As all residents in a district benefit from drainage to transport corridors, the Review defines a stormwater service property as one which contributes to stormwater network operation through its rates bill. Misinterpretation of this definition is common.

2.3 Pipeline condition assessments

2.3.1 Pipeline condition grades

Pipeline condition is assessed to inform asset management and renewal planning. Pipelines are generally assigned a grade on a one to five scale based on their condition. The proportion of pipelines receiving a poor or very poor grading in each service district participating in the 2022 Review is illustrated in, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6.

Figure 5:Percentageofwastewaterpipelinesinpooror very poorcondition

Figure 6:Percentageofstormwaterpipelinesinpoororvery poorcondition

Figure 4: Percentageofwaterpipelinesinpoororverypoor condition

2.3.2 Limitations with pipeline condition information

Comparability of pipeline condition data is limited, as there is a variety of frameworks used for categorising condition, differing proportions of the network are assessed, and differing methods are used to assess condition. Condition is commonly inferred via a desktop inspection often based on age, and sometimes other factors as well. For example, Dunedin commented that its pipeline conditions are “determined through analysis of age profile, material characteristics and known ground conditions”.

Direct inspection methods provide a more accurate assessment of condition, but are rarely economically feasible for all assets. Pipelines are, therefore, often partially surveyed, and sometimes complemented with inferences based on other metrics. For example, in Christchurch, “condition grades are based on a lab assessment of pipe samples or an estimate based on age where there is no lab assessment.”

CCTV is a commonly employed direct inspection method for determining the condition of wastewater and stormwater pipelines (not water supply or other pressure pipes). The proportion of wastewater and stormwater pipelines surveyed using CCTV in the last five years is shown in Figure 7. Each service district is represented as a circle. Corresponding circles are labelled where there has been a high proportion of the network surveyed.

Confidence ratings that participants have assigned to their data are available via the data portal. Only slightly over half the data provided on pipe condition was rated as reliable.

In some networks, pipeline condition gradings are not available for the entire network. The proportion of water supply, wastewater, and stormwater networks that have been assigned a condition grading is illustrated in Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11.

Figure 7:Theproportionofthenetworksurveyedusingclosedcircuittelevision(CCTV)

Figure 9: Proportionofdistricts’watersupplypipelinesthathavebeenassignedaconditiongrading

Figure 10: Proportionofdistricts’wastewaterpipelinesthathavebeenassignedaconditiongrading

Figure 11: Proportionofdistricts’stormwaterpipelinesthathavebeenassignedaconditiongrading

2.4 Above-ground asset condition assessments

Above-ground assets include reservoirs, treatment plants, pump stations, and telemetry units. Some service providers have in place formalised condition inspection programmes to assist with management and renewal planning for above-ground assets, however this is not always the case. For example, Timaru commented that they use “an informal approach to above ground asset condition grading. The sites are visited regularly as part of the day-to-day programming, and staff are able to monitor condition in this way”.

For pipelines assessed, the proportion of assets within a service district that have received a poor or very poor condition grading is shown in Figure 12, Figure 13, and Figure 14. The proportion of above-ground assets that have received a condition grading per service provider is shown in Figure 15, Figure 17, Figure 16.

Figure 12: Proportionofabovegroundwatersupply assetsinpoororverypoorcondition

Figure 13: Proportionofaboveground wastewater assetsinpoororverypoorcondition

Figure 14: Proportionofaboveground stormwater assetsinpoororverypoorcondition

Several participants have in place regular inspection programmes, but do not complete formal condition gradings as part of their assessment of above-ground assets. For example, Marlborough commented that above-ground assets have “regular maintenance inspections and scheduling but [are] not officially graded”.

As with pipelines, there is not a uniform approach adopted for inspecting above-ground assets. For example, in Waimakariri “[condition] grading [is] based on remaining useful life in renewals model”, whereas in Rotorua all facilities had been inspected the previous year.

There is also variation in the types of assets included in above-ground inspections. For example, Clutha District Council’s above-ground asset information related only to the water treatment plant, whereas Invercargill provided data related to all assets other than the treatment plant. In Whanganui, above-ground asset condition data related to only above-ground pipelines and bridge crossings.

Some participants commented that their stormwater networks do not have above-ground infrastructure, or that condition grading of above-ground stormwater infrastructure is not relevant to the assets they have. For example, Whanganui commented that “based on definitions [we have] no above-ground stormwater assets except a rain garden in Castlecliff and wetlands. These have not been given a condition rating”. Water New Zealand is not aware of guidance for formally assigning condition gradings to watersensitive urban design features such as wetlands and rainwater gardens.

Figure 15: Above-groundwatersupplyassetsthat have received a conditiongrading

Figure 16: Abovegroundwastewaterassetsthat havereceivedaconditiongrading

Figure 17: Abovegroundstormwaterassetsthat havereceivedaconditiongrading

2.5 Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Systems

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems use software and hardware to monitor and control processes locally or at remote locations.

The average proportion of water networks controlled and monitored using SCADA systems has been increasing over time, illustrated in Figure 18. The Figure shows the average number of assets controlled or monitored using SCADA for participants who have continuously supplied data to the Review over the previous five years.

Older SCADA systems transmit over analogue communication systems, such as radio, modem, or dedicated serial lines. More modern systems use digital local area networks. The average proportion of participant networks using analogue systems has been gradually declining, with corresponding increases in digital communications, indicated in Figure 19. Carterton, South Waiprarapa, Waipa, and Western Bay of Plenty all commented on SCADA upgrade to their systems. Taupō and Christchurch noted their use of the Internet of Things within their networks.

Reporting on SCADA and the Internet of Things generally relies on expert judgement rather than quantitative figures.

Figure 19:TheproportionofthenetworkonSCADA analoguecontrols

Figure 18: Theaverageproportionofnetworksthatcanbe controlledusingSCADA

Wastewater pipe weld in South Auckland

Photo by Ben Lunjevich

3.1 Staffing and vacancy levels

Table 4:Staffemployedinwaterservicedelivery

2022 participants Sector overview

Internal staff (CB10) 1,747 3,212

Contracted staff (CB11) 1,333

Staff vacancies (CB10a) 305

The number of people employed in water services is increasing, as is the number of vacancies. Trends for those participants supplying five years of continuous data to the Review are shown in Figure 20 and Figure 21. Since the 2019 fiscal year, the number of staff working on water service provision has grown by 30%.

Participants in this year’s Review had 1,747 full-time employees on their payrolls. Based on their latest reported results, 3,212 staff were employed across all participants. This is likely an underestimate, however, given increasing employment trends.

The total number of staff employed by water service providers varies significantly. Number of water service staff directly employed by service providers in this year’s Review ranged from 4.5 full-time employees at Mackenzie District Council, to 272 at Wellington Water. Watercare (which is not included in this year’s Review) employs over 1,000 staff. Comparative information of staff per serviced connection is available via the data portal.

A further 1,333 contractors were reported as being involved exclusively in water service delivery. The proportion of the workforce made up of contractors varies, as illustrated in Figure 22. The figure shows the proportion of staff who are contractors for each service provider in this year’s Review. This is an inexact estimate, as interpretation of how contractors are accounted for varies across participants and over time. Information limitations are covered in Section 3.1.1

Figure 20:Internalemployees

Figure 21: Vacancies

3.1.1 Limitations with information on staffing numbers

Internal staffing numbers are meant to account for both water service operations and supportive functions such as accounting, administration, customer service, and planning. The Review definition states that internal staffing numbers include only support staff who spend more than 50% of their time on water service delivery. However, past audits showed that determining the number of internal staff who meet this threshold can be difficult. The accuracy of staff counts varies based on a council's organisational structure. Councils with dedicated water units tend to only report staff within those units, while others report all staff, based on their HR/payroll system.

The definition for contracted staff includes roles such as maintenance and construction, but anecdotal evidence suggests that these definitions are often not followed.

Figure 22: Proportion of staff who are contractors

3.2 Training

Twenty-nine service providers reported information on staff training. The highest level of qualification of employees reported is shown in Figure 23. Where possible, contractor qualifications are included in this figure.

At the time of reporting, 420 staff (among 24 participants providing this information) were enrolled in training towards the qualifications listed in Figure 23.

An additional 290 staff (among 28 providing this information) were enrolled in continuous professional development programmes. Programmes identified in the comments were:

• Engineering New Zealand

• Water New Zealand

• Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia

• Local Government New Zealand

• Institution of Civil Engineers

• The Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management

• Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA)

On average, 56 hours was spent in professional training or development activities (among 22 providing this information). Less than a third of the information provided on training hours was rated as reliable.

Previous audits found many organisations have no formal systems for recording staff qualifications. It is not possible to determine, for staff with no reported qualifications, whether this is attributable to gaps in information or the absence of qualifications. Figure 23

Figure 23: Qualificationsofwaterservicepersonnel

Staff with a relevant Bachelors degree [CB15a], 25.80%

Staff with a NZ Diploma [CB15b], 11.09%

Staff with a NZ Certificate [CB15c], 17.08%

Staff with completed apprenticeships [CB15d], 6.73%

3.3 Health and safety

Lost-time injuries are measured as the number of full-time employment days off work by staff because of a workplace incident causing illness or injury. In the 2022 year, a total of 462 days were lost. The majority related to two major injuries: 117 days of work was lost in an incident involving a staff member in Dunedin, and another 180 days was lost when a contractor was fatally injured during the construction of Wellington Water’s Omāroro reservoir.

Near misses provide lead indicators for understanding health and safety performance. They are used to identify and, in doing so, prevent the causes of future accidents or incidents. In the 2022 fiscal year, 31 of 33 participants reported a total of 1,837 near misses, while five reported zero. This suggests that identification and reporting processes in place at these organisations are inadequate.

Thames-Coromandel and Central Hawkes Bay accounted for nearly half of all near misses, reporting 428 and 452 respectively. This was significantly more than much larger organisations, and provides an exemplar for health and safety near-miss reporting.

The reason for the decrease in reported near misses, as shown in Figure 24, cannot be determined with certainty, but it could be due to either improved health and safety practices or less diligent reporting. However, the combination of fewer reported near misses and a rising number of lost-time injuries is a cause for concern.

Figure 24: Trend in number of nearmissesanddaysoflost-timeinjuries

Morning view of Blenheim ponds

Photo by Antoine Foulon

4.1 Water sources

Drinking water is abstracted from underground aquifers, lakes, rivers, streams, and springs. Water abstracted from underground aquifers is brought to the surface via bores, and these sources are therefore referred to as bores in this report (as in Figure 25). The proportion of water abstracted from various sources is shown in Figure 25.

Data on the number of water abstraction points was also requested in line with the Taumata Arowai Network Environmental Performance Measure Rules. Information on abstractions was provided for 183 of the 241 networks listed in the report. Among these, a total of 377 abstraction points were listed, while 108 networks drew from a single abstraction point. Where bores were used to source water from aquifers, more abstraction points were common, with up to 10 bores being used to source water for a single network.

Figure 25: The number and volume of water drawn from various water sources

4.2 Water abstractions

In 2022, water service providers participating in this report supplied 300 million cubic metres of water. 1 This is slightly more than half the estimated 547 million cubic metres of water withdrawn every year from water supply networks. 2

Water use has been gradually increasing in districts that have continuously supplied data, however not at the same pace as new connections to the water network. Since 2018, water use has increased by 4.2% (from 261 million cubic metres to 272 million cubic metres), while the number of connections to these water supply networks has grown by 11% (from 652,000 to 727,000 connections). The year-on-year trend is illustrated in Figure 26. Information for individual water suppliers is included in the online data portal.

Water is supplied to both residential and non-residential users. In rural districts, water use can include water for livestock. The proportion of water supplied to non-residential users varies largely, with higher proportions of non-residential water use in rural water schemes. Nine of the 32 water suppliers did not report information on non-residential water use to this year’s Review. For those who did report data, the proportion of water supplied to non-residential use is shown in Figure 27.

WATER NEW ZEALAND | National Performance Review 2021-22

1 Excluding Christchurch and Invercargill, which did not provide data on water supplied to their networks.

2 The total volume of water supplied has been estimated based on the most recent year’s data supplied to the Review. It is likely an underestimate, as water use generally increases alongside increases in population.

Figure 27: Non-residentialwateruseasaproportionoftotalwateruse

Figure 26: Watersuppliedtonetworkofparticipantscontinuouslysupplyingdata

4.3 Wastewater overflows

The primary function of wastewater networks is to protect public health and the environment from untreated sewage. A wastewater overflow occurs when untreated sewage spills, surcharges, or is otherwise discharged from the wastewater network. The total number of overflows reported by participants in the 2022 fiscal year is shown in Table 5.

4.3.1 Dry-weather wastewater overflows

Dry-weather wastewater overflows (i.e. wastewater overflows not related to the system’s capacity being exceeded during rainfall) can be caused by network pump failures or network blockages.

Plant failures can be caused by pump station ragging, failure of mechanical equipment, or power station failures.

Blockages can be caused by build-up of fats, oils, and grease, foreign bodies such as wet-wipes and sanitary items or tree root intrusions, or pipeline collapse.

Table 5: Wastewater overflows

Figure 28: Dry-weather wastewater overflow trend

4.3.2 Wet-weather wastewater overflows

Wastewater overflows occur during wet-weather events when rainfall that makes its way into sewers exceeds the capacity of the network. This forces diluted wastewater to escape into the environment at either constructed overflow locations, or other uncontrolled points in the network such as manholes and gully traps. The diluted sewage enters either the stormwater network or other water courses such as streams, rivers, or ocean. For this reason, the occurrence of wet-weather overflows is closely coupled with rainfall. Wet-weather overflows increased in 2022, likely because of above-average rainfall in several regions.

Sewage capacity and inflow and infiltration volumes are key determinants of wastewater overflows. Remediating these issues is generally costly, meaning the ability to finance upgrades needs to be balanced against public health and environmental outcomes. The recently developed Good Practice Guide for AddressingWetWeatherWastewaterNetworkOverflowPerformance (GHD, 2022) provides a framework to assist with these decisions.

Historic design practices have meant wastewater and stormwater are conveyed through the same pipes in some regions of Aotearoa, New Zealand: 196km in Auckland, 40km in Gore, 16km in the Grey District, and 7km in Whanganui. As a result, wastewater overflows from these networks are significantly more common, and have been accounted for separately. Whanganui is the only participant in this years Review with combined stormwater and wastewater pipelines. They did not report any combined network overflows, so combined network overflows are absent from this year’s reporting. Historically, overflows from combined water and wastewater pipelines accounted for nearly 20% of all wet-weather overflows recorded.

4.3.3 Limitations of information on the number of wastewater overflows

The number of wastewater overflows reported depends on the recording mechanisms in place. Overflows can be reported by community members or staff. Their occurrence from controlled overflow points can be monitored by the SCADA network. Hydraulic models can be used to identify overflows, both controlled and uncontrolled, across the network. These models can be made more accurate through calibration with real-life monitoring results. Of the 32 wastewater service providers contributing information to this year’s Review, the number with each of these approaches in place is shown in Table 6. The more sophisticated the approach, the more likely it accurately reflects the number of overflows occurring.

There are differences in the interpretation of what constitutes a wastewater overflow. Some service providers record an overflow any time wastewater escapes the sewer, regardless of whether it is bunded or otherwise contained. For others, it is likely that overflow reports only capture events where wastewater has entered the external environment.

Table 6Approachesusedformonitoringwastewateroverflows

Figure 29: Wet-weather overflow trend

4.3.4 Regulatory approaches to wet-weather overflows

Figure 30 shows the approaches in place for regulating wet-weather overflows. For much of New Zealand, there is no regulation governing their management. The multiple routes by which rainwater can enter the sewerage network means complete elimination of wet-weather related wastewater overflows is often unlikely to be a realistic expectation. Several interventions can be applied, however, to reduce and/or ensure their safe management. The absence of regulatory frameworks reduces drivers for implementing these.

Tasman noted that overflows are a prohibited activity within its regional plan. Resource consents for wet-weather related network discharges were reported by Carterton, Christchurch, Dunedin, Clutha, and Wellington Water. In addition, Marlbourough District Council had consent for wetweather oveflows from pump stations in Picton, with treatment prior to overflow. Whangārei had wastewater overflow conditions associated with individual resource consents (presumably for wastewater treatment plants), and Tauranga City followed Regional Best Practise Guidelines for managing wet-weather overflows from its network.

4.3.5 Sewage containment standards and levels of service

Permitted activity under regional plan, 1

No regulatory approach, 16

Treated as emergency discharge, 7

Resource consent held for wet weather discharges, 5

Service providers commonly have in place a prescribed set of design standards for specifying sewage containment. Eleven wastewater service providers based these on New Zealand Standard 4404:Landdevelopmentandsubdivision (Standards New Zealand, 2010). A further 16 had internal codes of practice.

Less commonly specified are levels of service for containing wastewater within the existing network. Twenty-one service providers did not list any levels of service for sewage containment. The remaining 11 mainly responded with detail on design standards (for example, pump stations designed to have 12 hours of storage). Specific reported sewage containment levels of service included:

• Selwyn District Council commented that this was not an issue for its network, however the network has been modelled to confirm sewer capacity.

• Dunedin City Council’s targeted level of service was containment of a 1 in 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event, however this was currently not met.

• New Plymouth was developing levels of service based on hydraulic models.

• Whangārei District Council’s level of service was containment of five times average dry-weather flows.

Figure 30: Number ofwastewaterserviceproviderswithoverflows regulatedbytheapproachesshowninthefigure.

4.4 Wastewater treatment

There are an estimated 325 municipal wastewater treatment plants in Aotearoa. Collectively, these wastewater treatment plants process an estimated 520 million cubic metres of wastewater annually (roughly the volume of lake Rotorua at mid volume, which varies from 261m3 to 883m3 depending on lake level (Ellery, 2004)). Information on these treatment plants is collated via the Water New Zealand Wastewater Treatment Plant Inventory, available at www.waternz.org.nz/WWTPInventory.

The inventory records information shown in Table 7. Records shown in blue were updated with data from service providers participating in this year’s Review, which collectively manage 136 of these wastewater treatment plants. Other information in the inventory has been obtained from previous years’ reports, and supplemented with information from the NationalStocktakeofMunicipalWastewaterTreatmentPlants (GHD, Boffa-Miskell, 2019).

Tikao Bay and Governors Bay, Luggate, Waitahanui, Kakanui, Weston and Marybank wastewater treatment plants were previously included in the inventory, but have subsequently been decommissioned, with wastewater now pumped to larger treatment facilities.

Table 7:Informationrecordedinthewastewatertreatmentplantinventory

Receiving environments and levels of treatment are shown in Figure 32 and Figure 31. Comprehensive reporting on all New Zealand’s wastewater treatment plants is provided in the National Stocktake of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants (GHD, Boffa-Miskell, 2019) and the New Zealand Wastewater Sector Report (Beca, GHD, Boffa Miskell, 2020).

WATER NEW ZEALAND | National Performance Review 2021-22

Figure 32: Receivingenvironmentsforwastewaterdischarge

Figure 31: Leveloftreatmentemployedfordifferentreceiving environments

4.4.1 Wastewater treatment plant consents

Wastewater treatment plant consents are issued to wastewater service providers by regional authorities, providing a legal authorisation for the discharge of treated wastewater into the environment. Each consent sets out conditions that the plant must meet in order to protect public and environmental health. A stocktake of consent conditions is provided in the Nationalstocktakeofmunicipalwastewatertreatmentplants (GHD, Boffa-Miskell, 2019).

Consents are reviewed and updated periodically, with consent periods ranging from two to 35 years, and costing at least hundreds of thousands, but sometimes millions, of dollars (GHD, Boffa-Miskell, 2019). Wastewater treatment plants sometimes operate under a single consent, but there are many instances where multiple consents are held related to a single treatment plant. The number of consents per treatment plant (where information was available in the wastewater treatment plant inventory) is illustrated in Figure 33.

Both parameters monitored, and consent conditions, are highly variable, meaning it is not possible to compare treatment plant efficacy. Development of standardised consent conditions is needed to enable meaningful comparisons. Standardised consent conditions would also assist in understanding impacts on water bodies, improve community engagement, lower reconsenting costs, and assist consent compliance and enforceability (GHD, Boffa-Miskell, 2019).

The expiry date of effluent discharge consents for the 170 wastewater treatment plants in this year's Review is shown in Figure 33. With 20% of wastewater treatment plant consents up for renewal in the next five years, urgent action is needed to realise the benefits of standardised treatment plant consent conditions.

Sixteen treatment plants, nearly 10% of those providing information, were operating on expired consents. Of these, five were of an unknown status, 10 were lodged, and one was under appeal, pointing to the lengthy and often difficult consultation processes involved in obtaining a new discharge consent.

Figure 33:Numberofconsentsassociatedwithwastewatertreatmentplants

Figure 34: Expirydateofwastewatertreatmentplanteffluentdischarge consents

4.5 Trade waste management

Trade waste refers to the wastewater generated by commercial and industrial activities, such as those of factories, offices, and shops. Because trade waste can contain a range of contaminants not present in residential wastewater, trade waste agreements or bylaws are used to put in place controls to protect public health and the environment.

Conditions for the collection, treatment, and discharge of trade waste into the public sewer system are specified in bylaws and/or individual trade waste agreements. The number of wastewater service providers employing these management approaches is shown in Figure 36.

Contaminant-based charges can also be used to recover costs of treating trade waste, and incentivise cleaner production. These charges are levied on industrial or commercial waste discharge based on the levels of pollutants present in the waste. The number of wastewater service providers with contaminant-based charges in place is shown in Figure 35.

Contaminant based charges in place,

Figure 36: Tradewastemanagementapproaches

Figure 35: Contaminantbasedchargesinplacefortradewastecustomers

Trade waste conditions are breached when a business exceeds the limits for pollutants in its wastewater, fails to comply with monitoring and reporting requirements, or discharges trade waste in a manner that causes harm to the environment or public health.

Half of the wastewater service providers reported breaches of consents, with 335 condition breaches reported in total.

Reported responses to trade waste breaches varied:

• Christchurch undertook investigations of tankered waste sources, and issued warnings. Increased sampling to check for compliance. Increased pretreatment maintenance. Required dosing of pre-treatment with enzymes to breakdown contaminants. Forced sites to stop diluting waste source. Forced waste management site to stop accepting a waste source. Requested a full Trade Waste system review by outsourced company.

• Palmerston North charged penalty fees for days when consent limits were exceeded.

• Napier charged for monitoring costs if sites were non-compliant. Required management plans outlining steps to achieve compliance. Reviewed their Trade Waste Bylaw to increase scope of trade waste consent triggers and bring in new charging model to financially incentivise good performance.

• Tauranga reviewed trade waste licence conditions or trade waste management plans, and charged for infrastructure damage and clean-up.

• Waimakariri implemented performance management measures.

• Western Bay of Plenty recovered costs for maintenance line hydro jetting.

• Whakātane undertook a review of the frequency of servicing of pretreatment devices where problems had been experienced and adjusted trade waste consents accordingly, and undertook follow-up investigation of complaints made by the public.

• Wellington Water worked collaboratively with customers to ensure they understood legal obligations for sampling/monitoring and pre-treatment.

Figure 37: Reportedtradewastebreachesperserviceprovider

4.6 Stormwater quality management

Aquatic environments are impacted by stormwater runoff which can contain elevated levels of nutrients, metals, pesticides, plastics, and other organic contaminants. Catchment plans and monitoring are put in place to minimise impacts. There is a slowly growing trend to employ these approaches, which are now more common than not, with 25 stormwater operators (75%) having in place stormwater catchment management plans, and 23 (70%) undertaking regular monitoring of the quality of stormwater discharges. This year, Ashburton and Palmerston North joined the group of stormwater service providers regularly monitoring discharges, and Clutha put in place a stormwater catchment management plan.

4.6.1 Limitations of stormwater quality information

Management of stormwater quality involves a broad range of interventions, ranging from pollutant and litter prevention strategies to water-sensitive urban design. The performance measures here provide a rough indication of whether such practices are in place. The presence of stormwater network catchment management plans and monitoring does not guarantee the success of stormwater quality management practices. Conversely, organisations which do not have quality monitoring or catchment plans in place may be taking practical steps to manage quality. Improved performance measures are needed to assess the efficacy of stormwater quality management.

Figure 38:Numberofserviceproviderswithstormwatercatchmentandmonitoringinplace

4.7 Stormwater resource consents

The extent to which stormwater discharges are consented varies around New Zealand. Seven service providers have all their stormwater discharges covered by a consent, often via one universal consent. Four reported no consents whatsoever, and others reported a range of different consenting approaches.

Four providers had work underway to obtain stormwater discharge consents:

• Ashburton District Council was to apply for a global stormwater discharge consent for Methven and Rakaia.

• New Plymouth District Council was working with the Regional Council to identify what discharges require consent, and/or have a single stormwater consent for each stormwater network.

• Rotorua Lakes District Council had an Urban Area Comprehensive Stormwater Discharge consent lodged.

• South Wairarapa had lodged a global resource consent for all stormwater discharges.

Less than half of stormwater discharges are covered by a resource consent

More than half of stormwater discharges covered by a resource consent

All discharges covered by resource consents

Figure 39: Proportionofserviceproviders’stormwaternetworkscoveredbydischarge consents

4.8 Resource consent compliance

Resource consents were held for wastewater treatment plant discharges and, in some cases, wastewater network overflows and stormwater discharges.

Fifteen of 32 wastewater service providers reported resource consent non-conformances in wastewater treatment plants, and five in the piped network.

Reasons for wastewater non-conformances were sometimes administrative, relating to including sampling errors, sampling frequency, outdated or insufficient records, late reporting, delays in updating operation and maintenance manuals, and delays in undertaking biological surveys. Non-conformances reported with environmental impacts related to discharge volumes, exceedance of consented quality limits, unauthorised discharges, and odour.

Reasons for non-conformances with stormwater consents included insufficient records, failure to submit reports on time, failure to investigate exceedance of contaminant limits in sediment, and contamination of the stormwater network.

The number of compliance actions taken in relation to breaches of wastewater and stormwater consents in 2022 is illustrated in Table 9. This continues a long-running trend of low numbers of regulatory compliance action in relation to reported numbers of non-conformance, illustrated in Figure 41.

Table 8: Non-conformance with wastewater resource consents

Table 9: Regulatoryactionstakenin2022

Figure 40:Regulatoryactioncomparedwithnonconformance of wastewater consents

Figure 41: Trends inregulatoryaction

[WWE4e+WWE4f], 477

Otis

Photo by Lesley Smith

5.1 Complaints

Customer complaints are recorded using categories shown in the Non-Financial Performance Measure Rules 2013 (Department of Internal Affairs, 2022). Figure 42 shows all complaints recorded over the reporting year, scaled by their frequency of occurrence. Less frequently occurring complaints related to authorities’ responses to issues and drinking water taste and odour are not shown.

5.1.1 Limitations with complaints information

Service providers’ complaint management systems are at various levels of maturity. This makes it difficult to determine whether high complaint levels reflect robust complaint reporting processes or high customer dissatisfaction. Overall, service providers considered that less than two thirds of the information was reliable or better.

Figure 42:Complaints receivedbycomplainttype

Figure 43:Confidenceratingsassignedtocomplaintsdata

5.2 Fault attendance and resolution times

5.2.1 Water and wastewater fault attendance and resolution

Water supply fault attendance and resolution times are reported using categories in the Non-Financial Performance Measure Rules 2013 (Department of Internal Affairs, 2022). Median times across all districts are shown in Table 10. Variation in response times for individual districts are shown in Figure 44.

Table 10: Median fault attendance and resolution times

water supply faults

water supply faults

faults

Figure 44:Faultresponseattendanceandresolutiontimes

5.2.2 Information limitations

Two thirds of participants rated their information on fault attendance and resolution times as reliable. In some instances, the target response time from contracts is being reported, rather than basing values on actual fault attendance and resolution times that were delivered in the field.

5.2.3 Flooding response

Participants are requested to supply information on flood response times in line with the Non-Financial Performance Measure Rules 2013 (Department of Internal Affairs, 2022). Fourteen participants supplied data on this metric. Their average response times took between 10 minutes and 57 hours, with a median of three hours and 40 minutes. Auckland Council noted that its response times did not reflect flooding that occurred during an extreme event on 21st March 2022.

Twelve stormwater service providers reported a zero response, and a further seven did not respond, suggesting there was no flooding in their district to which they were required to respond. The reasons for this are likely to be twofold: firstly, because not all districts will experience flooding every year, and secondly, because it is often the responsibility of agencies other than territorial authorities to respond to floods. Participant comments reflected this. Whanganui, for example, noted that "[Customer response management systems] record Veolia’s response only, when flooding other parties may be first responders. Several parties are out and about during heavy rainfall. Some interpretation used to define”.

5.3 Charges

5.3.1 Residential charges

Service providers in this Review levy water, wastewater, and stormwater charges using council rates and volumetric charges (where meters are in place). Charges sometimes apply to a whole district or are sometimes applied separately across different networks. A summary of the most common rating types used for water supply and wastewater networks, and whether they apply to districts or discrete networks, is included in the 2020-2021 National Performance Review (Water New Zealand, 2021).

The median charge for a residential property using 200m3/year of water across all service districts was $466, and $564 for wastewater. This would take a worker, working at the 2022 New Zealand minimum wage, 58 hours of work to pay. This is equivalent to 47% of the average residential electricity bill of $2,194 per year (MBIE, 2023).

However, charges around New Zealand vary significantly. The highest water supply charges, at $1,209/year, are over eight times higher than the lowest of $244/year. The range for wastewater charges is nearly as large, from $360/year to $1,108/year. Charges are less variable in urban centres (with population greater than 90,000), with the highest charge in a major centre not exceeding $617 for water supply, and $654 for wastewater.

The median charge across participants supplying data for the previous five years has not changed markedly. However, there have been charge increases of more than 20% for water supply in four districts, and in three for wastewater. These increases were offset not by reduction of charges in other districts, but by changes in the way that average charges were represented in regions with multiple charging approaches.

Wastewater

Water charge

Figure 46:Variationinannualchargesforwater services

Figure 47: Trendinmedianresidentialwastewatercharges

5.3.2 Non-residential charges

Non-residential customers can consume significantly more water than residential customers. In addition, they often also discharge more wastewater, and can have different sewage characteristics, which in turn impact sewers and wastewater treatment plants differently. Some service providers adopt different charging regimes to reflect the different service costs associated with non-residential customers. Further information on whether there is a distinction between charges for residential and non-residential properties is included in the 2020-2021 National Performance Review (Water New Zealand, 2022).

Volumetric charging is generally common practice. Only three of 32 water suppliers did not charge non-residential customers a volumetric charge. Volumetric charges for nonresidential wastewater customers were also more common than not, with volumetric wastewater charges in 17 of 32 districts. In addition, some 16 wastewater service providers also charged contaminant-based charges. The range of fixed and volumetric charges applied for non-residential customers is shown in Figure 48. Further information on non-residential charges within each district is provided in the supporting online dashboards.

Figure 48: Non-residentialchargerange

5.3.3 Stormwater charges

There is significant variation in the charges applied to stormwater, as well as the rating approach for collecting them. For participants in the 2022 Review, these are listed in Table 11. Targeted rates, a fixed price that is set generally across all ratepayers or to specific ratepayers in certain areas, is the most commonly used mechanism. Others include stormwater as a proportion of the general rate, which is levied across all rate payers based on the unimproved value of all rateable land, or the uniform general rate, which is a fixed rate across all rate payers.

These rating structures are occasionally used in combination. Where possible, average property values in districts have been used to estimate the average stormwater charge. In these districts, the charges range from $33.54 to $409.12.

Table 11:Approachestostormwatercharging

Figure 49:2022stormwaterchargesindifferentdistricts

Economic sustainability

www.waternz.org.nz/economicsustainability

Drinking water pipes at the Dury Sub Division

Photo by Ben Lunjevich

6.1 Revenue

The predominant source of operating revenue for water, wastewater, and stormwater systems is a combination of rates and volumetric charges. Over the previous two years, grants have also provided an injection of revenue into the sector, related to the central government’s stimulus and reform funding.

There is large variation in the annual revenue of water service providers, correlating with their size. For participants in this year’s Review, annual water service revenue ranged from $3.7 million in Mackenzie to $280.7 million at Wellington Water.

Wastewater and water supply in Auckland managed by Watercare is not included in the figure, however stormwater expenditure in Auckland is, so spending in this region is illustrated separately in Figure 50. Per capita expenditure on stormwater is slightly higher in Auckland than in other regions, however not significantly so. Of the $474 million in revenue collected for stormwater systems in the 2022 fiscal year, Auckland Council accounts for $210 million (44% of all stormwater revenue). Over the same period, there were 1,695,000 people living in Auckland, 41% of the 4,113,260 million covered in the Review. The supporting online dashboard shows revenue per connected property per year for each participating service provider.

Figure 51:Scaledimageoftotalannualrevenue receivedperparticipant

Figure 50: 2022waterserviceprovidersrevenuebysource

6.2 Expenditure

Annual expenditure in 2022 across service providers in the Review was over $2 billion. A breakdown of expenditure is provided in Figure 52. Wastewater and water supply in Auckland managed by Watercare is not included in the figure, however stormwater managed by Auckland Council is, so spending in this region is illustrated separately in the figure.

For other service providers whose information covered all three waters, expenditure on water supply and wastewater was three times more than on stormwater networks.

Total expenditure on stormwater across these service providers was $283 million. This was only 36% of the $782 million spent on water supply networks, and 33% of the $850 million spent on wastewater networks.

Figure 52: 2022fiscalyearexpenditureonwatersupplyservices

Water supply Wastewater Stormwater: exc. Auckland Council Stormwater: Auckland Council

Capital expenditure (WSF20, WWF21, SWF17) Operating expenditure (WSF12, WWF13, SWF9) Interest (WSF15a, WWF16a, SWF12a)

6.2.1 Capital expenditure

Capital expenditure by authorities providing information for the 2022 fiscal year totalled over $1.2 billion. The leading reason for capital expenditure on water supply and wastewater networks was to replace existing assets. For stormwater networks, the most common reason for capital works was to improve levels of service. In many instances, improving levels of service, for example upsizing a stormwater pipe to increase capacity in an existing area, would also entail the replacement of an existing asset.

Capital expenditure on water supply and wastewater networks has gradually increased amongst service providers submitting five years’ continuous data.

Wellington Water accounted for the greatest increase in capital expenditure from the previous year, with capital works on water supply increasing from $49 million in 2021 to $76 million in the 2022 fiscal year, accounting for more than half of the increasing expenditure on water supply. Across the same period, wastewater expenditure at Wellington Water increased from $43 million to $82 million, accounting for $39 million of the additional $102 million increase on previous years.

Increases in stormwater expenditure were more evenly spread across districts, with notable expenditure in Queenstown Lakes, Invercargill, and Rotorua.

Table 12:Capitalexpenditure2022bypurpose

Figure 53Capitalexpendituretrend

6.2.2 Actual versus budgeted capital expenditure

Water service providers spent an average of 86% of the capital expenditure budgeted for water supply, wastewater, and stormwater services in the 2022 fiscal year. However, for some service providers actual expenditure was as low as 24% of that budgeted for, and for others 212% more. Figure 54 illustrates this range, with each water service provider’s ratio of actual to budgeted expenditure represented as a circle.

Figure 54:Waterserviceproviders’actualexpenditureasaproportionofbudgetedcapitalexpenditure

6.2.3 Operating expenditure

Service providers in the 2022 Review reported operating expenditure of $741 million. Average operating expenditure per property increased from the previous year by 11.5% for water supply, 6.7% for wastewater, and 13.9% for stormwater. This compares with a 7.3% rise in the Consumer Price Index over the same period.

Variation in operating expenditure normalised on a per-property basis is large. Per-property water supply expenditure ranged from $168 to $994 dollars, from $191 to $685 for wastewater, and from $15 to $480 for stormwater. Figure 55 55 illustrates this, showing individual service providers as circles. Variations in individual participants’ operating expenditure, and year-on-year trends, are available via the data portal.

Figure 55:Operatingcostperpropertyacrossservicedistricts

6.3 Financial prudence benchmarks

Water suppliers are required to disclose financial information in line with the LocalGovernment(FinancialReportingandPrudence)Regulations2014 (New Zealand Government, 2022). The regulations include a range of benchmarks, some of which provide useful comparisons of the financial management of water services. However, a council’s overall financial approach may balance out financial performance across business units when considered as a whole.

The Local Government(FinancialReportingand Prudence) Regulations benchmarks on rates affordability, debt affordability, debt control, and operations control are not easily directly related to water services, and so are not included in this report. There are also differences between the definition of the essential services benchmark provided in the regulations, and that included in this report, as discussed in Section 6.3.4.

6.3.1 Debt servicing

A local authority meets the LocalGovernment(FinancialReportingand Prudence)Regulations 2014 (New Zealand Government, 2022) debt servicing benchmark if its borrowing costs for the year equal or are less than 10% of its revenue (excluding development contributions, financial contributions, vested assets, gains on derivative financial instruments, and revaluations of property, plant, or equipment). However, a high-growth local authority meets the benchmark if 15% is achieved. The figure is calculated using the following formula:

performance=borrowingcosts÷revenue

Performance in relation to debt servicing for each of the three waters services is illustrated in Figure 57 with each service provider represented as a circle.

Figure 56: Annualinterestpaymentsasaproportion of revenue for different service provider networks

Some service providers’ water services carry higher levels of debt than the overall benchmark for council operations. This may be attributable to the long life of water assets, meaning capital used to finance them is commonly funded through debt, in adherence with principles of intergenerational equity. The significant value of water assets may also be a factor. Information on the total levels of debt is available through the LocalAuthorityFinancialImpactTool (Te Tari Taiwhenua | Department of Internal Affairs, 2022).

As reported in Section 6.1 revenue for stormwater networks is significantly lower than for water supply and wastewater, which has an influence on the relative proportion of networks falling outside of the debt servicing benchmark set by the financial prudence regulations.

Figure 57:Interestasaproportionofrevenuefordifferentwaterserviceproviders

6.3.2 Balanced budget benchmark

A local authority meets the LocalGovernment(FinancialReportingandPrudence)Regulations 2014 (New Zealand Government, 2022) balanced budget benchmark if its annual revenue (excluding development contributions, financial contributions, vested assets, gains on derivative financial instruments, and revaluations of property, plant, or equipment) exceeds its annual operating expenses (excluding losses on derivative financial instruments and revaluations of property, plant, or equipment).

Operational cost covered, illustrated in Figure 59 with each service provider represented as a circle, is calculated using the following formula:

performance=revenue÷operatingexpenses(includingdepreciationandinterestpayments ondebt)

This figure shows depreciation instead of capital costs, as this (in theory) provides an average indication of the capital needed to invest in assets to maintain service delivery. There are uncertainties associated with depreciation, discussed further in Section 6.3.5.

If the operational cost coverage benchmark is met, this ratio will be 100% or above. Figure 58 shows that revenue was insufficient to meet costs for 7 of 29 (24%) water supply networks, 9 of 31 (29%) wastewater services, and 12 of 32 (38%) stormwater services. This suggests that these service providers are electing to not fully fund depreciation, and/or do not have charges that cover the full costs of operating the respective networks. Revenue collected was in excess of costs for 11 of 29 (55%) water supply networks, 4 of 31 wastewater networks, and 11 of 32 stormwater networks.

Figure 59:Revenueasaproportionofoperationalcostsforwaterserviceproviders

Figure 58: Number of networks for which revenues meet costs

6.3.3 Essential services benchmark

A local authority meets the essential services benchmark if its capital expenditure on network services equals or exceeds depreciation on network services for the year. The essential service benchmark is calculated using the following formula:

performance=capitalexpenditure÷depreciation

Capital expenditure by purpose over the 2022 fiscal year is shown in Figure 60. The purpose of capital expenditure is illustrated in the figure, as capital expenditure related to new growth does not address asset depreciation. Expenditure to improve levels of service may sometimes contribute to the renewal of assets.

Capital expenditure is inherently lumpy, with large outlays in some years, and low activity in others. This is evident in Figure 61 which shows data for participants providing it across five years, with each service provider’s expenditure-todepreciation ratio shown as a circle. The figure shows the average of this ratio across five years to smooth out variations in expenditure.

Figure 61 illustrates that, on average, spending by service providers continuously participating in the Review has, over the last five years, been adequate to address water supply depreciation, but inadequate to meet wastewater and stormwater depreciation.

There is a range of methods for determining asset depreciation. Depending on which method is used, asset depreciation may be overcompensated for, or its estimate of an asset's useful life may be exaggerated. Uncertainty in how depreciation has been applied, and the accuracy of these values, should be considered when interpreting balanced budget and essential services benchmarks.

Stormwater capital expenditure

Depreciation

Wastewater capital expenditure

Depreciation

Water supply capital expenditure

Depreciation

Depreciation

Capital to replace existing assets

Capital to improve levels of service

Capital to meet additional demand

Figure 60: Essential services benchmark for different water services

Figure 61:Serviceproviders’capitalexpendituretoreplaceassetsorimprovelevelsofserviceasaproportionofdepreciation

Waitakere Dam sunset

Photo by Antoine Foulon

7.1 Water demand management

7.1.1 Residential water efficiency

Average residential water consumption across water-serviced districts averaged 668 Litres/connection/day. This value was a mean average determined using the formula below. Residential water efficiency was previously reported as Litres/person/day. This has changed to Litres/connection/day to align with the Taumata Arowai network performance rules.

In Australia, the residential water use of each state is reported as kL/connection/year. Average residential use in New Zealand equates to 213 kL/property/year, significantly higher than the average of most Australian centres, which ranged from 147kL/property in Melbourne to 196 kL/property in Adelaide. The two Australian states with higher water use than New Zealand were Perth (227kL/property) and Darwin (360kL/property).

Median water use has been shown to more accurately represent average water use, which can be skewed by a few large water users (Dr Colin Whittaker, Teresa Scott, Professor Kobus van Zyl, 2022). Participants were, therefore, requested to supply median water use if a more accurate determination of customer use had been made based on meter reads. This was only supplied by two participants.

The relationship between residential water consumption and metering is illustrated in Figure 62. Each circle represents a service district (those with no data on non-residential use are excluded). Districts are colour coded based on the percentage of residential properties with water meters. This provides an indication of the likely accuracy of the data, as widespread residential water metering provides a more accurate understanding of water use. All districts, except one, with residential water meters used at or below the average district use.

Figure 62:Residentialwaterefficiencyfordifferentservicedistricts

Proportion of residential connections with water meters

7.1.2 Water meters

Water meters assist in water demand management by providing accurate information about water usage. The number of metered properties in service districts covered by the Review is listed in Table 13, both for the current fiscal year and as a sector. Sector data draws on the most recent year’s information provided to the Review, meaning metering levels may have increased since information was collected.

More than half the residential properties in New Zealand are metered, however this is skewed by full metering coverage in Auckland, which accounts for a third of New Zealand’s population. Where data was available, the percentage of connections with water meters in different water supplier districts using the most recent years data supplied to the Review is shown in Figure 63 and Figure 64. A comparison of individual service districts providing information to this year’s Review is available via the online data portal.

Table 13:Numberofmeteredproperties

Figure 63: Percentageof non-residentialpropertieswith water meters

Figure 64: Percentageofresidentialpropertieswithwatermeters

7.1.3 Water restrictions

Water restrictions were used by sixteen water suppliers to place limits based on water scarcity. An additional water supplier used restrictions to curb demand in response to a water discolouration issue.

Figure 65 shows the number of days that water suppliers had water restrictions in place. Two districts had all year round restrictions: Ashburton had three water networks with a permanent hosing ban, and South Wairarapa had restrictions to the days and times that sprinkler and irrigation systems could be used.

The thresholds at which water restrictions are applied differ across regions, as do the restrictions themselves. Restrictions vary in severity with some districts placing time restrictions on outdoor water use, and others a complete ban of outdoor water usage. The absence of uniformly agreed levels of restrictions prevents a comparison of the severity of impacts on customers.

Figure 65: Number of dayswaterrestrictionswereputinplace

7.1.4 Water education programme

Twenty-one of 32 providers have in place education programmes designed to increase public awareness about water-related issues, and promote responsible water usage. Carterton, Palmerton North, and Waipa commented that their water education programmes were linked to resource consent requirements. Central Otago and Timaru were both in the process of developing consumer education programmes.

There were various interpretations of what a water conservation programme entailed. For example, both Rotorua and Tasman delivered water conservation messages via a variety of channels, but did not consider these to be part of an education programme.

Whanganui and Waipa were collaborating with other councils to deliver water conservation programmes. In Waipa and Hamilton, the Smart Water education programme was delivered by Co-Lab/Shared Services, which also included Waitomo District Council. Whanganui attended some school visits, and Horizons carried out water education programmes on Whanganui’s behalf. In Ashburton, the waste minimisation service provider delivered content that included water conservation.

Other initiatives provided in responses are listed here:

• Clutha District Council: Water restriction guide tips on website.

• Horowhenua District Council: Water Saving Tips flyer, and information and video on how to check your property for leaks.

• South Wairarapa District Council: A smart meter trial with an educational component, and water conservation and water restrictions as part of a broader regional education/awareness programme.

• Tauranga City Council: Waterline education and advisory service, and Waterwatchers management plans.

• Waimakariri District Council: Water Conservation Strategy and Education Contract.

• Whakātane District Council: Water conservation and saving tips on website and via water billing, but no other education programme.

• Wellington Water: Multiple campaigns and website materials.

• Central Hawkes Bay District Council: Sustainable Water Management Plan.

7.2 Energy use

Energy is used in the treatment and conveyance of water and wastewater, as well as in supporting operations. Supporting operations also consume energy, i.e. in the operation of vehicles and offices. Such energy use can be significant, however it is not included in the NPR as it is difficult to disaggregate from other council functions. A summary of energyusing components, and an indication of the contributions these make to water services greenhouse gas emissions, is available in NavigatingtoNetZero (Water New Zealand, 2021).

Nearly a quarter of service providers, including main centres, were unable to supply information on energy use. While many rated information as reliable or very reliable, the scope was sometimes limited, with some only supplying information related to treatment plants. This prevents a nationally representative picture or meaningful comparison of energy use across service providers. Information that has been reported is provided in the online data portal.

The national electricity grid is the predominant energy supply for operating pumps and treatment facilities. Other fuel sources include natural gas, biogas, biomass, and diesel. Four participants provided information on alternative fuel use associated with their water supplies. Energy use in these instances was negligible, and all comments on its use related to diesel for standby generators. Eight instances of energy use from other fuels in wastewater systems were reported, generally for backup or drying purposes. In Dunedin, New Plymouth, Whangārei, and Wellington, fuels other than electricity formed a substantial proportion of overall energy use.

Some, but not all, stormwater systems are also energy users. In general, stormwater networks rely on gravity to convey stormwater; however sometimes topography necessitates the use of pumping. Sixteen of 33 stormwater service providers reported energy use associated with stormwater systems. Only Invercargill reported any stormwater-related energy use other than electricity.

Figure 67:Energyuseper cubic meters of water delivered or wastewater treatedperservicedistrict

Figure 66: Confidencegradingsassignedtoenergydata

7.2.1 Energy generation

Onsite renewable energy sources are increasingly employed to offset grid electricity. Solar has been deployed at some treatment plants and pump stations. Renewable energy is also generated from the networks themselves; some wastewater treatment plants utilise biogas produced during processing, and other water supply networks generate electricity by harnessing extra pressure in the network.

In the 2022 fiscal year, water supply networks generating energy included New Plymouth, Palmerston North, Tasman, Whangārei, and Wellington Water. Collectively, these networks reported generation of 5,846GJ. Nearly four times more energy, 21,360GJ, was generated by wastewater networks in Christchurch, Hamilton, Palmerston North, and Tauranga. All service districts reporting energy generation over the life of the NPR are shown in Figure 69 and Figure 68.

Figure 69:Watersupplynetworksgeneratingenergy

Figure 68: Wastewater networksgeneratingenergy

7.3 Greenhouse gas emissions

Greenhouse gas emissions from water supply, wastewater, and, to a lesser extent, stormwater networks are generated by energy use, materials used in network operation and construction, and through treatment and disposal of wastewater and associated sludges. Further detail on emissions sources is provided in NavigatingtoNetZero (Water New Zealand, 2021). The document provides a framework for producing emissions, the first step of which involves developing an emissions baseline.

7.3.1 Greenhouse gas emissions baseline

An emissions baseline provides a reference point, or starting point, to measure the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced by an organisation or set of activities over a specific period of time. It provides a baseline against which progress can be measured, and helps to identify areas for improvement in reducing emissions.

An emissions baseline had been developed for all three water networks in Dunedin, Marlborough, and Thames Coromandel. Western Bay of Plenty had developed baselines for its water supply networks; Palmerston North, Waimakariri, and Tasman for their wastewater networks, and Whanganui for its stormwater network.

7.3.2 Wastewater process emissions

Methane and nitrous oxide are both potent greenhouse gases produced as by-products of wastewater and sludge treatment and disposal. Emissions reporting categories for wastewater process emissions are aligned with the CarbonAccountingGuidelines for Wastewater Treatment: CH4 And N2O (Water New Zealand, 2021). Three service providers referenced the Guidelines when describing their method for determining emissions. The number of wastewater service providers providing data in each requested reporting category is shown in Table 14.

The wide range of values, and other comments supplied, indicate that a range of methods are being used to determine wastewater emissions, some of which suggest energyrelated emissions have been included in the figure. The information is not considered reliable enough to provide an indicative value of process emissions-related greenhouse gases. Estimates of wastewater treatment plant process emissions are included in the New ZealandWastewaterSectorReport (Beca, GHD, Boffa Miskell, 2020).

Table 14:Numberofserviceprovidersreportingwastewaterprocess emissions

Figure 70: Numberofparticipantswhohavedevelopedan

7.4 Wastewater sludges

7.4.1 Sludge disposal routes

Wastewater sludges are produced as a by-product of wastewater treatment, with at least 311,000 tonnes of wet sludge produced annually in New Zealand. With appropriate processing, sludge can be used as fertilizer for crops, converted into biogas for energy production, used for land reclamation to improve soil quality, and processed into fuel or material for manufacturing products. Commonly, however, sludges are often disposed of to landfill, or stockpiled on site at wastewater treatment plants.

Reuse of wastewater sludges requires appropriate management of contamination and treatment processes. Treatment requirements and limits are outlined in the draft GuidelinesforBeneficialUseofOrganicMaterialsonProductiveLand (Water New Zealand, WasteMINZ, the Center for Integrated Biowaste Research (CIBR) and the New Zealand Land Treatment Collective, 2017).

Over the life of the NPR, information has been provided on the annual sludge volumes produced by 153 wastewater treatment plants. A further 172 are pond, septage, or wetland-based systems, which would not be expected to produce sludge annually. Sludge volumes, and disposal routes for individual wastewater treatment plants are available via the wastewater treatment plant inventory at https://www.waternz.org.nz/WWTPInventory.

An estimate of total sludge disposal and end routes is shown in Figure 71 based on the most recent year’s information provided. The majority of wastewater in the “Other” category is associated with Mangere wastewater treatment plant (118,000 wet tonnes). The sludge from the treatment plant is being used to rehabilitate a former quarry at Te Motu a Hiaroa to Mana Whenua (Puketutu Island). The most commonly used “Other” disposal route was for sludges to be transported to larger treatment plants for further processing.

Figure 71: Volumeofwetsewagesludgebydisposalroute

7.4.2 Desludging

Waste stabilisation ponds are commonly used for treating domestic sewage in New Zealand. It is estimated (based on information in the Wastewater Treatment Plant Inventory (Water New Zealand, 2022) that 62 of the treatment plants included in this year‘s Review employ pond or septage-based treatment. These systems require regular desludging to ensure their effectiveness. Sludge accumulation can affect pond operation, increasing the likelihood of odour, and reducing treatment plant performance. In the last year, the number of these ponds desludged is indicated in Figure 72.

Recommendations on desludging methods and frequencies are provided in the Waste Stabilisation Ponds:DesignandOperationGoodPracticeGuidelines (Water New Zealand, 2017). Sludge accumulation varies based on a range of factors, so there is no set frequency at which ponds should be desludged. The regularity of desludging does, however, provide a loose indication of whether treatment ponds are being adequately maintained. It is unclear whether the treatment plants that have not provided data were missing information, or had not recently been desludged (the latter significantly more concerning than the former).

Figure 72:Lastyearofdesludgingforpond-basedwastewatertreatmentplants

Outlet control valve at Dannevirke Wastewater Treatment Plant

Photo by Terry Lamb

8.1 Interruptions

Water supply interruptions can occur because of maintenance work, broken pipes, natural disasters, or equipment failure that leads to partial or complete loss of supply.

Wastewater interruptions are less common. Failures within the wastewater system are generally managed using overland pipe alternatives, which minimises service disruptions to customers.

The likelihood of an interruption occurring varies significantly among service providers. Figure 74 illustrates the number of supply interruptions per 1,000 properties, with each service district represented as a circle. A comparison of the frequency of supply interruptions in different service districts is available via the online data portal.

Figure 73:Interruptionstowaterandwastewaternetworks

Figure 74: Waterandwastewaternetworkinterruptionsperproperty7

8.1 Pipeline age

The age of water pipelines is generally considered to be a significant factor in determining their reliability. As pipelines age, they are more likely to experience problems such as corrosion, leaks, and structural degradation, which can reduce their efficiency and increase the likelihood of water supply disruptions.

The average age of pipes in each service district is represented as a circle in Figure 75. Individual district data is available via the online data portal.

Figure 75:Averagepipelineageperwaterserviceprovider

8.2 Inflow and infiltration

Inflow and infiltration refers to the processes by which stormwater and groundwater enter the wastewater system. Inflow generally relates to incorrectly connected stormwater sources, or damage to entry points to the sewer system. Infiltration generally relates to cracks in pipes, joints, or other wastewater structures.

Excessive inflow and infiltration reduces effective wastewater system capacity, and increases the likelihood of wastewater overflows when it rains. The New Zealand Standard forLandDevelopmentandSubdivisionInfrastructure, NZS 4404:2010 (Standards New Zealand, 2010) requires sewer design to account for an infiltration factor of two during wet weather. If peaking flows that occur in practice exceed the design capacity of a sewer, sewage will overflow from the network.

The Inflow and Infiltration Control Manual (Water New Zealand, 2015) suggests a range of Key Performance Indicators for determining inflow and infiltration, and suggests these be calculated on an individual flow monitor or pump station catchment basis. Peak wet- to average dry-weather flow ratios at wastewater treatment plants provide a rough indication of levels of inflow and infiltration, often covering many catchments. The ratio for the 70 treatment plants reporting this information in the 2022 fiscal year is summarised in Figure 76Figure 76. Information per district, and historic trend information, is available in the reliability section of the online data portal.

Figure 76: Peakwettoaveragedryweatherflowratioenteringwastewatertreatmentplants

8.3 Water loss

Water loss comprised a total of 57,058,151m3 in the 2022 fiscal year, which was nearly 20% of all water supplied to networks.

In some districts, percentage losses were significantly higher than others. Considering water loss in percentage terms can, however, be misleading, as system input volumes vary year on year, and input and outputs included in a water balance can vary. For this reason, the Infrastructure Leakage Index, which shows the ratio of current annual real losses to unavoidable annual real losses, is recommended for making water loss comparisons between networks.

Infrastructure Leakage Index values (for participants that had calculated them) are shown in Figure 77. Water loss levels per service district are available via the online data portal.

Figure 78 illustrates the variation that exists in service districts showing an estimate of the real losses per connection, with average losses in each service district represented as a circle.

Large annual variation, audit responses, and self-assigned data confidence ratings suggest low confidence in estimates of the volume of water lost from the network. Data confidence issues are exacerbated in non-metered supplies, which generally rely on default values provided in the Water Loss Guidelines (Allan Lambert and Richard Taylor, 2010), last revised in 2010.

Figure 78: Current annual real lossesperservicedistrict

Figure 77: Numberofparticipantsineachcategoryofthe Infrastructure Leakage Index

Lower Huia Dam drought cracks

Photo by Antoine Foulon

9.1 Critical assets

Critical assets are those for which the financial, business, or service level consequences of failure are sufficiently severe to justify more rigorous policies for proactive inspection, maintenance, and renewal. They are defined in the InfrastructureAssetGradingGuidelines1999 as assets where failure would have significant consequences, either in the ability of the system to provide services to customers, or the effect on the environment.

In line with the recently introduced Drinking Water Network Environmental Performance Measures (Taumata Arowai, 2023) participants were asked to indicate whether they had undertaken an assessment to identify critical water supply assets.

Figure 80:Assessmenttoidentifycriticalassets

9.2 Climate change adaptation

Climate change poses significant risks to drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure. For example, rising temperatures and changing precipitation patterns can lead to water scarcity, causing strain on water treatment and distribution systems. Intense rain events and flooding can overwhelm stormwater and wastewater networks, leading to flooding and contamination, and discharge of untreated sewage. Increased frequency and intensity of storms and droughts can damage drinking water treatment and distribution systems, wastewater treatment plants, and stormwater infrastructure. These risks pose serious threats to public health and the environment, and underscore the importance of building resilience in our water systems.

In line with the recently introduced Drinking Water Network Environmental Performance Measures (Taumata Arowai, 2023) participants were asked to indicate whether they had undertaken an assessment to identify climate change related risks to their infrastructure, and whether plans were in place to respond to these. Responses are indicated in Figure 82 and Figure 81. Several participants commented that risk assessments and adaptation planning had commenced, but was not completed. Others reflected that, while there were no formal risk assessments or plans in place, climate risk was being addressed. For example, Tasman District Council commented that climate risks are well known, and adaptation planning is included in the Council‘s Long Term Plan; and Waimakariri had a risk assessment underway.

Figure 82:Climatechangeriskassessmentsundertaken

Figure 81: Climatechangeadaptationplansinplace

9.3 Firefighting water

The provision of water is crucial for firefighting. Water requirement flows and volumes are outlined in the FirefightingWaterSuppliesCodeofPractice (Standards New Zealand, 2008). Most water suppliers, 26 of 32, had adopted the code. Clause G2 of the Code outlines responsibility for testing and inspecting:

To ensure operational effectiveness, the Fire Service needs to monitor the adequacy of the firefighting water supply and the condition of fire hydrants. The maintenance of fire hydrants is the responsibility of the water supply authority or for private fire hydrants, the owner... To comply with this code of practice, water supply authorities must ensure that fire hydrants are tested in accordance with [the] Appendix [in the Code].

Clause G4 of the Code outlines inspection requirements, and states that:

All fire hydrants must be inspected and flushed every five years by an approved tester. To achieve this, a progressive inspection programme must be agreed between the Fire Service and the Water Supply Authority.

Figure 83 shows the percentage of hydrants that have been assessed in different service districts. Only four water service districts have met the testing frequency requirements of the Code. Waimakariri and Rotorua noted that they regularly flush hydrants, however inspections are not completed in line with the Code.

Regional differences were evident in which functions were seen as the responsibility of FENZ versus those of the water supplier. In Marlborough, it was reported that the Council had not undertaken any hydrant testing, as this was carried out by FENZ. Tauranga noted that FENZ no longer undertakes tests in its district due to traffic management and compliance issues. Whanganui commented that FENZ only checks hydrants in response to call-outs, at which time it may test and report on several hydrants in the area of the call-out.

Figure 83: Proportionoffirehydrantstestedagainst the Code in different service districts

9.4 Flooding

9.4.1 Flooding events

Floods are caused either by heavy rainfall that inundates the stormwater network, rivers overtopping their banks, and/or storm surges. Only the first category of flooding is within the power of stormwater service providers to control.

For this reason, reporting in the Review distinguishes between the main causes of flood events. The number of habitable floors impacted by floods is also recorded, in line with the Stormwater Drainage System Adequacy Performance Measure in the Non-Financial Performance Measure Rules (Department of Internal Affairs, 2022). The number of reported flooding events and associated habitable floor impacts for service providers in the 2022 Review is illustrated in Table 15. For those who have provided continuous data, trends are shown in Figure 85 and Figure 84. The table only includes floods that have both led to the flooding of habitable floors and occur within stormwater-serviced districts.

These results are largely driven by rainfall, and tell us little about the adequacy of the stormwater service to prevent flooding. Improved metrics, such as peak flow reduction, runoff volume reduction, and floodplain storage capacity, are required to provide an indication of the level of protection the existing stormwater network is providing against flooding.

Table 15:Reportedfloodingeventsandhabitablefloorsimpacted

Figure 89:Numberoffloodingeventsimpactinghabitablefloors

Figure 86:Numberofhabitablefloorsimpactedbyflooding

9.4.2 Flood design standards

Flood design standards are often expressed as the annual exceedance probability (AEP). This is a statistical term used to describe the likelihood of a given flood event occurring in any given year. For example, a flood with a 1% AEP would be expected to occur, on average, once per 100 years. Different design standards are applied for the primary and secondary stormwater networks. The primary network generally refers to pipes and channels, while the secondary network typically includes drains and other overland flow paths through private property and along roadways, designed to convey excess stormwater from the primary network with a minimum of damage.

The annual exceedance probability targeted during the design of primary and secondary stormwater networks using the most recent year’s data provided to the Review is shown in Figure 86 and Figure 87. Design standards for each district participating in this year’s Review are available via the supporting online data portal. Flood design standards provide an indication of what outcomes are expected for the design of stormwater networks, however these do not account for historic design standards, existing performance, or future climate impacts.

The use of AEP as a design criterion assumes a constant rate of flooding over time, but with a changing climate, the likelihood of more frequent and intense floods may be greater in the future than indicated by existing AEP design standards. The future climate change scenarios, and time frames being considered in stormwater design in different service districts are shown in Figure 88 and Figure 89.

Figure 95: Floodcontainmentstandardstargetedduringthedesignof theprimarystormwaternetwork

Figure 92: Flooddesignstandardstargetedduringdesignofthe secondarystormwaternetwork

2030-2050 2051-2099 2100 2100+ Not indicated

Time horizon (s) new stormwater systems are designed to

2.6 (low emissions)

4.5 (medium stabilization)

6 (medium-high emissions)

8.5 (highemissions) Not indicated

RCP scenario (s) new stormwater systems are designed to

Some districts require stormwater attenuation in new developments to manage the impact of urbanization on the natural water cycle. Urbanization replaces natural surfaces with impervious surfaces, which increases the volume and speed of stormwater runoff and can cause flooding, erosion, and pollution. The attenuation requirements that district have in place help to mitigate these impacts are shown in Table 16.

Table 16:Attenuationstoragerequirementsfornewdevelopments

Participant Attenuation stormwater requirements for new developments

Auckland Council Requirement that post development flowrate less than or equal to predevelopment flowrate.

Dunedin Considered on a case-by-case basis depending on catchment risks.

New Plymouth Hydraulic Neutrality whereby post-development runoff shall not exceed pre-development for all events and critical duration from 20% to 1% AEP events. A Matrix of scenarios are tested and worst case selected for the respective site and receiving environment.

Palmerston North 18 L/m2

Tasman 50 L/m2 for additional impervious area.

Tauranga Case by Case Assessment

Timaru Varies

Waimakariri Estimated 61.5m2/L based on average impervious surface area, retention basin depth, and 5% site allocation for stormwater management.

Western Bay of Plenty Attenuation is only required where development causes increases peak flowrates downstream which may cause flooding, this is assessed on a case by case basis.

Whakatāne 19L/m2: Whakatāne has soakage areas but where ground is unsuitable then use 10% for 10 minutes attenuation storage with trickle discharge after the event.

Whangārei Post-development peak flow rate to be attenuated back to 80% pre-development peak flow rate for 1:5 and 1:100 year storm event and/or volume control for stream protection.

Wellington Water Up to 15-20L per m2 of additional impervious surface.

Figure 98:Timehorizonsnewstormwatersystemsaredesignedto Figure 101:RCPscenariosnewstormwatersystemsaredesignedto

10 References

AECOM. (2023). AuditReportforWaterNZ's2021/2022NationalPerformanceReview. Wellington: Water New Zealand.

Allan Lambert and Richard Taylor. (2010). Water Loss Guidelines. Wellington: Water New Zealand.

Beca, GHD, Boffa Miskell. (2020). The New Zealand Wastewater Sector. 2020: Ministry for the Environment.

Bradley, A. (2021, February 9). Revealed:Thecompaniesdumpingcontaminantsdownthedrain. Retrieved from Radio New Zealand: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/indepth/435111/revealed-the-companies-dumping-contaminants-down-the-drain

Department of Internal Affairs. (2022, January 21). Non-financialperformancemeasurerules. Retrieved from Department of Internal Affairs: https://www.dia.govt.nz/Resource-material-Our-Policy-Advice-Areas-Local-Government-Policy

Dr Colin Whittaker, Teresa Scott, Professor Kobus van Zyl. (2022). ResidentialWaterUseinNewZealandEndUseDisaggregation - FinalReport_v2.pdf. Auckland: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Auckland.

Ellery, G. (2004). Lake Level and Volume Summary of the Rotorua Lakes. In G. Ellery, LakeLevelandVolumeSummaryoftheRotoruaLakes (p. 8).

https://docs.niwa.co.nz/library/public/EBOPir2004-08.pdf: Environment Bay of Plenty.

GHD. (2022). GoodPracticeGuideForAddressingWetWeather Wastewater Network Overflow Performance. Wellington: Water New Zealand.

GHD, Boffa-Miskell. (2019). Nationalstocktakeofmunicipalwastewatertreatmentplants. Wellington: Department of Internal Affairs.

MBIE. (2023, January 13). Sales-basedelectricitycostsforresidential. Retrieved from Electricity cost and price monitoring: https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-andenergy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-statistics-and-modelling/energy-statistics/energy-prices/electricity-cost-and-price-monitoring/

Ministry for the Environment. (2020). Our freshwater 2020. Retrieved from Ministry for Environment: https://environment.govt.nz/publications/our-freshwater-2020/

Ministry of Health. (2021). AnnualReportonDrinking-waterQuality2019-20. Wellington: Ministry of Health.

New Zealand Government. (2022, 2 7). LocalGovernment(FinancialReportingandPrudence)Regulations2014. Retrieved from New Zealand Legislation: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2014/0076/latest/DLM5730401.html

Standards New Zealand. (2008, 2 8). SNZPAS4509:2008NewZealandFireServiceFirefightingWaterSuppliesCodeofPractice. Retrieved from Fire and Emergency NZ: https://www.fireandemergency.nz/assets/Documents/Business-and-Landlords/Building-and-designing-for-fire-safety/NZFS-firefighting-water-supplies-code-ofpractice.pdf

Standards New Zealand. (2010). NZS4404:2010Landdevelopmentandsubdivisioninfrastructure. Wellington: Standards New Zealand.

Taumata Arowai. (2022). DrinkingWaterRegulationReport2021. Wellington: Taumata Arowai.

Taumata Arowai. (2023, February 7). Drinkingwaternetworkenvironmentalperformancemeasuresandguidancematerial. Retrieved from Taumata Arowai: https://www.taumataarowai.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Network-Performance/Drinking-water-network-environmental-performance-measures-and-guidance-material.pdf

Te Tari Taiwhenua | Department of Internal Affairs. (2022, January 27). LocalAuthorityFinancialImpactTool. Retrieved from Three Waters Request for Information: https://www.dia.govt.nz/Three-Waters-Reform-RfI#local-authority-financial-impact-tool

Water New Zealand. (2015). Infiltration and Inflow Control Manual. Wellington: Water New Zealand.

Water New Zealand. (2017). Waste stabilisationponds:DesignandOperationGoodPracticeGudeline. Wellington: Water New Zealand.

Water New Zealand. (2021). 2019-2020 National Performance Review. Wellington: Water New Zealand.

Water New Zealand. (2021). CarbonAccountingGuidelinesForWastewaterTreatment: CH4 And N2O. Wellington: Water New Zealand.

Water New Zealand. (2021). NavigatingtoNetZero. Wellington: Water New Zealand.

Water New Zealand. (2022). 2020-2021 National Performance Review. Wellington: Water New Zealand.

Water New Zealand. (2022, February 21). NationalPerformanceReviewDataDefinitionGuidelines2021/22. Retrieved from www.waternz.org.nz/NationalPerformanceReview: https://12240-console.memberconnex.com/Attachment?Action=Download&Attachment_id=4377

Water New Zealand. (2022). National Performance Review: Quality Assessment Process. Wellington. Water New Zealand

Water New Zealand. (2022, 2 8). WastewaterWaterTreatmentPlantInventory. Retrieved from Water New Zealand: https://www.waternz.org.nz/WWTPInventory

Water New Zealand, WasteMINZ, the Center for Integrated Biowaste Research (CIBR) and the New Zealand Land Treatment Collective. (2017). Guidelines for Beneficial Use of OrganicMaterialsonProductiveLandDraft. Wellington: Water New Zealand.

Appendix I: Review participants

ZEALAND | National Performance Review 2021-22

Appendix II: 2022 participant data confidence

Appendix III: Taumata Arowai Network Environmental Performance Measures compared with NPR

The table below shows changes made to the 2022 definitions in the National Performance Review to align with Taumata Arowai’s Network Environmental Performance Measure Rules. Taumata

detail provided as to what constitutes an NPR definition, however same assets are captured A3 Number of reservoirs

Number of pump stations

A7 Drinking water network source type

Supply Reservoirs

Pump Stations

to sentence structure. Definition captures same assets.

to sentence structure. Definition captures same assets.

water network source type New to align with Taumata Arowai reporting.

EH1 Number of residential connections in the drinking water network WSB2 Water Serviced Properties: Residential Changes to sentence structure. Definition captures same assets. EH2 Number of non-residential connections in the drinking water network

Water Serviced Properties: NonResidential Changes to sentence structure. Definition captures same assets.

Water Serviced Population New approach for determining population. EH5 Water Supplied to the drinking water network (m3/year)

EH3 Total population served by the drinking water network

EH6 Water imported from other suppliers (m3/year)

EH7 Water exported to other suppliers (m3/year)

Water Supplied to Own System Changes to sentence structure. Definition captures same assets

Water imported from other authorities The same

Water exported to other authorities The same.

EH8 Non-residential water use (m3/year) WSB7 Non-residential Water Consumption The same.

EH9 Number of resource consents that are held WST4 Number of resource consents that are held New to align with Taumata Arowai reporting.

EH10 Type of resources consent (e.g., water take consent, discharge consents, etc.)

WST5 Type of resources consent New to align with Taumata Arowai reporting.

EH11 Resource consent reference numbers WST6 Resource consent reference numbers New to align with Taumata Arowai reporting.

EH12 Expiry dates for resource consents WST7 Expiry dates for resource consents New to align with Taumata Arowai reporting.

R1 Median hours to attend to an urgent fault WSS10a Attendance for urgent water supply fault call-outs

R3 Median hours to resolve an urgent fault WSS10b Resolution for urgent water supply fault call-outs

R2 Median hours to attend to a nonurgent fault WSS10c Attendance for non-urgent water supply fault call-outs

R4 Median hours to resolve a non-urgent fault WSS10d Resolution for non-urgent water supply fault call-outs

Exclusion added to faults which are false alarms. Further detail added on what constitutes an urgent fault.

Exclusion added for faults which are false alarms. Further detail added on what constitutes an urgent fault. Clarification added that full return to service does not necessarily imply asset reinstatement if full service has been restored.

Further detail provided on what constitutes an urgent fault.

Clarification added that full return to service does not necessarily imply asset reinstatement if full service has been restored.

R5 Planned interruptions (Number) WSS3 Planned Interruptions: Water Supply Changes to sentence structure. Definition captures same number of interruptions.

R6 Third party incidents (Number) WSS4 Third Party Incidents: Water Supply Changes to sentence structure. Definition captures same number of interruptions.

R7 % of pipelines that have received a condition grading WSA2f Percentage of pipelines that have received a condition grading

R8 % of pipelines in poor or very poor condition WSA2d Percentage of pipelines in poor or very poor condition

Previous definition was of water pipelines that have NOT had their condition graded.

Previous definition asked for 1 to 5 condition grades.

R9 Average age of water pipelines WSA3 Average Age of Water Pipelines The same

R10 % of above-ground assets that have received a condition grading WSA13c Percentage of above-ground assets that have received a condition grading

R11 % of above-ground assets in poor or very poor condition WSA13a Percentage of above ground-assets in poor or very poor condition

Previously NPR asked only if a condition grade had been undertaken.

Previously NPR asked only if a condition grade had been undertaken

R12 Average system pressure WSE2 Average system pressure The same.

R13 Has a reference level for water pressure been set?

R14 Number of days water restrictions applied

R15 Number of affected connections

R16 Have you adopted the FENZ Code of Practice (SNZ PAS 4509:2008)?

R17 Fire hydrants tested in the previous five years (%)

RE1 Estimated total drinking water network water loss (m3/year)

WST8 Has a reference level for water pressure been set?

WSS11

WST9

Number of days water restrictions applied

Number of affected connections

WST10 Have you adopted the FENZ Code of Practice (SNZ PAS 4509:2008)?

New to align with Taumata Arowai reporting.

Previous NPR asked the two components of these questions to be combined.

Previous measure was the multiple of affected connections and days affected. Split apart to align with Taumata Arowai

New to align with Taumata Arowai reporting.

WSS12a Fire hydrants tested in the previous five years The same.

WSE1a

Estimated total network water loss

Previously, NPR pointed to the previous definitions. Captures the same information, but states it explicitly

RE2 Current annual real loss (CARL) (litres/service connection/day or m3/km of mains/day)

RE3 Infrastructure Leakage Index (CARL/UARL)

WSE1d CARL (current annual real loss)

WSE1h ILI (Infrastructure Leakage Index (=CARL/UARL)

Previously, NPR pointed to the previous definitions. Captures the same information, but states it explicitly.

Previously, NPR pointed to the previous definitions. Captures the same information, but states it explicitly.

RE4 Median residential water consumption (L/day/connection) WSB8 Average Daily Residential Water Consumption Changed for metered areas to specify median, if available.

RE5 Do you have a water conservation education programme in place? WST10 Do you have a water conservation education programme in place?

RE6 Number of residential connections with water meters

New to align with Taumata Arowai reporting.

WSA9a Properties with Water MetersResidential Further clarity provided on how to account for meters on multi-unit dwellings.

RE7 Number of non-residential connections with water meters WSA9b Properties with Water Meters - NonResidential Further clarity provided on how to account for meters on multi-unit dwellings.

RE8 Electricity use (kWh) WSE3 Energy Consumption: Water Supply Previous definition included energy from fuel sources other than electricity.

RE9 Energy use from other fuels (GJ) WSE3a Energy use from other fuels (GJ) New to align with Taumata Arowai reporting.

RE10 Energy generation (GJ) WSE4 Energy Generation: Water Supply The same.

RL1 Have you undertaken an assessment to identify critical assets? WST11 Have you undertaken an assessment to identify critical assets

New to align with Taumata Arowai reporting.