Independent peer review of stormwater benchmarking report (PDF

UniServices

Status – Draft 2014-07-07 Project Number – 7480

CENTRE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE RESEARCH

Independent Peer Review of

Stormwater Benchmarking Report

Prepared for:

Sarah Sinclair

Chief Engineer

Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Auckland Council

July 2014

Dr Jim Bentley and Tony Miguel

Status – Final Page i Project Number – 7480 11 July 2014

Quality Assurance Statement

Department of Civil and

Environmental Engineering

The University of Auckland

Private Bag 92019

Auckland 1142 New Zealand

Project Manager: Dr Jim Bentley

Prepared by: Dr Jim Bentley and Tony Miguel

Reviewed by: Dr Jim Bentley

Approved for issue by: Dr Jim Bentley

Revision Schedule

Rev. No Date Description Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by

1 7/7/2014 Draft Dr Jim Bentley and Tony

Miguel

Dr Jim Bentley Dr Jim Bentley

2 9/7/2014 Final Draft Dr Jim Bentley and Tony

Miguel


3 11/7/2014 Final Dr Jim Bentley and Tony

Miguel


Status – Final Page ii Project Number – 7480 11 July 2014

Executive Summary

The Stormwater Unit of Auckland Council commissioned the Australian Government’s Co-operative

Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities (CRC) to deliver an independent benchmarking

assessment of Auckland’s stormwater management practice against the Urban Water Management

Transitions Framework (the Framework). The CRC has met the agreed scope of the brief they were

given, however given that very few cities which have been benchmarked against the Framework

have progressed far beyond the mid-range of the scale, we would question how helpful it is as a tool

to help Council prioritise water sensitivity with all the competing pressures for funding. Decision

makers need to consider the recommendations made in the report in the context of the Auckland

situation and bearing in mind the limitations of the approach adopted. We are not satisfied that

either the local context or the limitations of the approach are covered in the report sufficiently to

support good decision making.

The CRC report includes some helpful observations, including that there would be benefit in helping

stakeholders understand the linkages between liveability and water sensitive management.

However, in our view the report places too much emphasis on the significance of water sensitivity as

a contributor to liveability, sustainability and resilience. We agree that it is a contributor, but it is not

the only one and it is not necessarily the one of highest priority. For Auckland Council’s vision to be

the world’s most liveable city to be realised, progress needs to be made on a range of factors, and

local context needs to be taken into account in choosing between conflicting priorities. The report

does not acknowledge the importance of other priorities or local factors such as Auckland’s relative

abundance of water.

The authors of the report have experience and expertise in the use of the Framework for assessing

the extent of water sensitivity in cities. However, we find the assessment to be somewhat more

negative than our observations of what has been happening ‘on the ground’. We would expect a

report containing an assessment of this type and significance to include the analysis to enable the

reader to have confidence in the assessment.

We question whether it is reasonable to state that since amalgamation Auckland has “returned to

the ‘shared understanding and issues agreement’ phase” (p.5). It may be the case that since

amalgamation, the Council has needed to work at achieving this shared understanding, but prior to

amalgamation the individual authorities were not all aligned with each other. It could be argued that

the region is more aligned than it was before the amalgamation. The timing of this work is also of

concern, particularly with the methodology adopted. We consider that interviews being conducted

during a period of a significant internal reorganisation process, directly affecting some employees of

the Stormwater Unit, could have led to bias. We would expect this to have been noted in the report

if the authors were aware of it. This also makes the need for the report to include more details of

the data analysis even more significant.

The CRC report proposes three recommendation packages, namely recommendations for strategic

positioning, network capacity and learning, and enabling structures and tools. However, the report

does not provide evidence on how these recommendations were derived, the options or the decision

framework or criteria by which the options were considered. The authors suggest that the majority

of the recommendations in the first two packages could be implemented within existing structures

Status – Final Page iii Project Number – 7480 11 July 2014

but that the third package would “require the introduction of more formal institutional reforms”

(p.50) to “integrate water cycle responsibilities within a common organising framework” (p.57). If

this means that the authors recommend organisational integration of the management of water

supply, wastewater and stormwater into one unit then we have concerns about how such a

significant change could be recommended without consideration in the report of other options and

of the benefits and costs associated with each. There are many factors to be considered in making

such a decision and there would be other options for achieving good integration in the management

of the three waters.

We agree that further progress in implementing a coordinated approach to water management

would be beneficial and acknowledge the recent initiatives of Auckland Council to establish ‘clusters’

across the Council group (including the Council Controlled Organisations) and the commitment to

review the Three Waters Strategy. Any further moves toward more coordinated management

should consider the wide range of relevant factors, including water sensitivity.

Status – Final Page 1 Project Number – 7480 11 July 2014

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... ii

Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2

2. A Review of the Methodology .......................................................................................................... 2

2.1. The Use of Benchmarking ........................................................................................................... 2

2.2. A Review of the Research Methods Used .................................................................................... 3

3. A Review of the Assessment of Auckland’s Stormwater Management Practice and Key Challenges .. 4

3.1. The State of Stormwater Management Aspirations, Policies and Actions Across Auckland .......... 4

3.2. Transition Process ....................................................................................................................... 7

3.3. Key Challenges ............................................................................................................................ 8

4. A Review of the Recommendations ................................................................................................ 13

5. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 14

6. References ..................................................................................................................................... 15

CRC Report with CIR Comments .................................................................................... 19 Appendix 1

Singapore on the Pathway to Become a Water Sensitive City ........................................ 20 Appendix 2

The Extent of Urban Water in Auckland ........................................................................ 21 Appendix 3

State of the Auckland Environment ............................................................................... 22 Appendix 4

Auckland’s Statutory and Policy Framework .................................................................. 26 Appendix 5

Auckland’s Current Stormwater Management Practice ................................................. 40 Appendix 6


1. Introduction

Auckland Council commissioned the Centre for Infrastructure Research (CIR) at the University of

Auckland to peer review the report ‘Benchmarking Auckland’s Stormwater Management Practice’

authored by Dr Briony Ferguson, Professor Rebekah Brown and Lara Werbeloff from the Australian

Government’s Co-operative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities (CRC). The review was led by

Dr Jim Bentley of the CIR and utilised the specialist services of Tony Miguel, formerly Group Manager,

Asset Management at Waitakere City Council, who has specific experience in this field.

The purpose of this peer review is to provide Auckland Council with an independent review of the

methodology followed, and the conclusions and recommendations presented in the report. To enable

this, CIR also reviewed documents referenced by the authors of the report, and other documents, as

appropriate.

2. A Review of the Methodology

2.1. The Use of Benchmarking

Benchmarking can be a useful assessment tool, however limitations of benchmarking have been

recognised, as comparisons between cities with distinct elements and strategic priorities are complex

and difficult to capture using a ‘one-size-fits-all’ methodology (Meares & Owen, 2012; Biswas &

Tortajada, 2009). In this exercise, Auckland’s stormwater management practice was benchmarked

against the Urban Water Management Transition Framework (the Framework), which was developed

through historical, contemporary and futures research involving Australian cities (Brown, Keath, &

Wong, 2009). Yet, there are significant contextual differences between Australian cities and Auckland,

particularly given Auckland’s comparatively low risk of water scarcity.

Few cities have progressed beyond the mid-range of the benchmark scale and no city has achieved the

goal of becoming a ‘Water Sensitive City’; “a fully developed example is yet to be realised” (p.14).1

Only Singapore is on the path to fully achieve the status of a ‘Water Sensitive City’ and it may be

considered that there is a strong and specific driver in Singapore, that is the need to reduce

dependence on water from Malaysia (ADB, 2010). More detail on the drivers for Singapore’s strategy

is provided in Appendix 2.

The brief given to the CRC by Auckland Council was to benchmark Auckland’s stormwater

management practice against the Framework and provide a diagnostic assessment to advance

Auckland’s transition to more water sensitive practices. The authors have met the agreed scope of the

brief. However, we question whether benchmarking against the Framework provides sufficient

1 Where page numbers are provided in this report without a full citation, we are referring to the CRC’s

Benchmarking Auckland’s Stormwater Management Practice report.


information to enable decision makers to consider the significant recommendations made in the

report.

Given the significance of the assessment and recommendations in the report, we have provided

further information in the appendices, which should be considered alongside the assessment included

in the CRC report when decision makers review the CRC report recommendations. In particular,

decision makers need to consider the wider Auckland context, and findings based on interviews and

documentation review identified in the CRC report need to be compared with a more thorough review

of ‘on the ground’ progress.

2.2. A Review of the Research Methods Used

An overview of the qualitative research methods used is given in Section 2.5 of the CRC report.

Insufficient information is provided to enable readers to independently assess the reasonableness,

strength, and consistency of the conclusions and consider the level of bias.

While we have no reason to suggest that the CRC team would not have carried out their research with

sufficient rigor, the lack of detail provided regarding the data collection and analysis methods used

means that we are unable to comment on this aspect of the work. We would expect such a qualitative

study to provide sufficient detail to enable the reader to be satisfied that the approach was sufficiently

systematic and transparent (Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, & Spiers, 2002; Chenail, 2011). This is

especially the case for this report because the research was carried out at a time of significant internal

reorganisation within the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Department, directly affecting

some employees of the Stormwater Unit of Auckland Council.

To enable us to comment on the research methods used we would expect to see the sampling

strategy for stakeholders interviewed, including how the level of stakeholder knowledge and

understanding was considered, why no Māori representatives were interviewed and how potential

bias in the data collection process was addressed. We would also expect to see information on how

the data was managed and assessed and how the recommendations were derived, the decision

framework or criteria by which options were considered and the advantages and disadvantages of

each option. We would also expect to see evidence of the validation process, the extent of the

feedback and how feedback was incorporated.

Status – Final Page 4 11 July 2014 Project Number – 7480

3. A Review of the Assessment of Auckland’s Stormwater Management Practice and Key Challenges

The authors of the report have experience and expertise in the use of the Framework for assessing the

extent of water sensitivity in cities. However, for those not familiar with the Framework, the criteria

for transitioning from one phase to another are unclear and we find the assessment to be somewhat

more negative than our observations of what has been happening ‘on the ground’. Given the

significance of the assessment and the recommendations, we would expect more information in the

report on how data was analysed and whether stakeholder perceptions were tested and validated and

acknowledgement of the potential limitations of the approach taken.

3.1. The State of Stormwater Management Aspirations, Policies and Actions Across Auckland

3.1.1. Aspiration

Section 3.1 of the CRC report benchmarks the current stormwater management aspirations, policies

and actions across Auckland. The report states: “Interview and documentary evidence shows that

current aspirations coalesce around the Waterways City” (p.24). However, it is unclear how the

authors arrived at this conclusion from the data. The criteria by which Auckland’s aspirations are

evaluated are not clear and there is limited analysis provided in the report. Three quotes from the

interviews are provided in the report to demonstrate this aspiration, however it is unclear whether

these quotes are representative.

The authors conclude that “Stakeholder representatives outside the stormwater space, including

Council-Controlled Organisations, other water practitioners, urban designers or city planners,

generally do not have explicit or prioritised aspirations for water sensitivity” (p.24). However, we are

aware of explicit and prioritised aspirations for water sensitivity and urban design that improves

Auckland’s amenity. There is emphasis on water sensitive design (WSD) in the Proposed Auckland

Unitary Plan (PAUP), which is more aligned to at source attenuation and treatment and the use of

natural systems for stormwater management compared to previous stormwater management plans

(Cranfield, Colibaba, & Grierson, 2014). WSD is also incorporated in the draft Auckland Transport

Code of Practice (ATCOP). Two current significant projects demonstrate explicit aspirations for water

sensitivity. Firstly, the Dominion Road project, where various stakeholders including Council and

Auckland Transport in conjunction with Iwi, are working collaboratively to deliver on improved public

transport and cycling provision aspects of Auckland’s liveability, incorporating low impact design (LID)/

WSD solutions that provide for improved environmental and amenity outcomes. Secondly, the North

West Transformation Area is also an example where various stakeholders are working collaboratively

to implement WSD/LID solutions for liveability outcomes.


3.1.2. Policy

Figure 6 in the CRC report shows that Auckland’s policy has just crossed into the ‘Waterways City’

phase whereas the commentary says that Auckland’s “stormwater policy space is currently in

development, with the potential to drive Waterways City related outcomes” (p.24). The lack of data

analysis makes it hard for the reader to understand the basis of the assessment and the apparent

discrepancy between the illustration in Figure 6 and the commentary. We do not agree with the

authors’ assessment of Auckland’s stormwater policy that “positive environmental outcomes are

pursued when the opportunity arises, rather than as a mandatory requirement” (p.24). The draft

Strategic Plan sets out a proactive approach to good environmental outcomes. One paragraph in the

previous draft Stormwater Strategic Direction may have been misleading and has subsequently been

revised. The statement in the previous draft was:

“Our key responsibility is to develop and manage the public stormwater network to convey

rainfall from developed areas to manage and reduce risk of flooding to people and property

and enable the city to function in rain events now and as the city grows. In doing so, we must

also manage the impact of stormwater to maintain and enhance waterways, particularly

streams, groundwater and coastal waters and contribute to other important priorities for

Auckland (such as biodiversity, public open space and amenity).”

Council has removed the term ‘in doing so’ as it could have given the impression that Council only

carry out work to enhance waterways when flood management work is undertaken. This does not

reflect current practice.

The report states that “the enforceability of some [stormwater] provisions may be limited” (p.24-25).

However, no evidence is provided to support this perception. Council enforces its policies, objectives

and rules for stormwater management. For example, the section of Council that deals with regional

resource consents, issued in the last financial year 66 infringement notices, 45 abatement notices, 18

formal warning letters, and is currently going through six prosecutions. Regarding consents being

applied for, 104 stormwater consents have been lodged in the last financial year. The stormwater

provisions are being enforced across Council, for example the Housing Project Office (HPO) is

implementing these provisions.

We are not aware of any evidence that “emphasis is placed on private land developers, with less

attention given to capital projects of Auckland Council or CCOs” (p.25). From our experience, the

same standards have been applied for the capital projects of Auckland Council and other CCOs,

although the consenting process is different. Council and CCOs need to obtain consents as private

developers do. If Council applies for consent, it will be reviewed by an independent commissioner to

ensure all internal applications are assessed correctly. The Stormwater Unit alone applied, in the last

financial year, for around 70 consents, which demonstrates the seriousness Council applies to its

plans.

3.1.3. Action

Auckland’s stormwater management on the ground is assessed in the report to be at the ‘Drained City’

phase. However, there is limited analysis in the report of Auckland’s action. There is also little

description of the tangible progress that has been made. The report provides two examples of


individual projects that demonstrate ‘Waterways City’ principles, namely the La Rosa Gardens Reserve

Daylighting Project and the Long Bay development on the North Shore. However, we are aware of a

number of additional examples and some of these projects have received awards including the La Rosa

project. The following awards have been made to Auckland Council since amalgamation:

The La Rosa Reserve Project was a finalist of the 2014 Ministry for the Environment Green

Ribbon Awards in the ‘Caring for our water’ category

The Martyn Wilson Reserve Stormwater Upgrade and Wetland Project was awarded an

Ingenium Excellence Award in 2013 and a New Zealand Engineering Excellence Award for

excellence in environmental practice in 2013

The Eden Park Stormwater Project was awarded an Ingenium Excellence Award in 2012

The Lucus Creek Streambank Protection Project was awarded an Environmental Award in

2011.

Our recent experience of public infrastructure projects has not reflected a ‘Drained City’ approach.

Certainly flooding issues in the region do need to be addressed, however there are a number of

examples of work demonstrating a more water sensitive approach, where water sensitive strategy is

being turned into action across Auckland. Since amalgamation, the successes of the Waitakere City

Council’s Project Twin Streams have been rolled out. The regionalisation of Project Twin Streams has

brought to bear the regional Sustainable Catchments programme, which incorporates water sensitive

planning and design, green infrastructure, place-making, environmental enhancement and sustainable

outcomes coupled with community engagement and learning opportunities to elevate community

awareness. The North West Transformation Area and the Dominion Road projects clearly show that a

collaborative and integrated approach is being taken towards stormwater management practice

across Council Sectors and its CCOs. Other examples include Hobsonville Point, New Lynn

redevelopment, Addison Development in Takanini and Massey Library. Council’s partnering with local

community organisations (e.g. EcoMatters) and investment in research is another example of

intentionality to drive change.

There is no evidence that “processes and structures for environmental protection…are typically poorly

resourced compared with other priority areas” (p.27).

Action: The ‘Loss of Streams’

In depicting Auckland’s stormwater management practice, the report states: “Wastewater overflows

to receiving waterways occur in some parts of the (sic) central Auckland and each year up to 10

kilometres of natural streams are piped to enable land development” (p.5). However, there is no

verifiable data to substantiate this statement. Auckland Council’s (2010b) State of the Auckland

Region report describes stream disturbance in the Auckland region. The length of stream disturbance

does not equate to the length of stream being ‘piped’:

“Stream disturbance often accompanies urban land use and expansion. Common stream

disturbances include piping, lining and channelling. In rural areas, streams are often ‘cleaned’,

where vegetation and sediment are removed from the channel to ‘improve’ the water flow,

channels straightened and culverts installed to allow the passage of stock and vehicles.

Damming is also common, both to ensure a reliable supply of water for irrigation and for

amenity value…Between 2000 and 2008, about 80km of streams (an average of 8.9km each

year) were subject to a resource consent for stream disturbance [shown in Table 3 in


Appendix 4 of this report]. This figure does not include the large number of stream

disturbance activities that can be undertaken without a resource consent. Consequently the

total amount of stream disturbance in the Auckland region is underestimated” (p.47).

Until now, the Air Land Water Regional Plan gave a significant level of protection to permanent rivers

or streams, largely controlling activities (including structures, piping and reclamation) in, over or under

the bed of a river through resource consents. In contrast, the management of intermittent stream

reaches was largely unregulated, with most activities permitted subject to controls relating to how

works are undertaken. This resulted in infilling and loss of these channels as part of urban

development, which has not been quantified. This issue has been addressed by Auckland Council in

the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP), which gives equivalent status to the protection of

intermittent streams in the management of freshwater systems. This demonstrates a proactive

approach by Auckland Council in protecting streams (Auckland Council, 2013d). See Appendix 4 of this

report for more information.

Action: River, Stream and Harbour Health

The report states: “Indicators of stream and harbour health reveal continued degradation” (p.26).

However, we are aware of improvements that have been made in river, stream and marine water

quality.

Data from Auckland Council’s long-term river water quality monitoring programme throughout the

region shows there have been improvements in river and stream water quality. In the latest State of

the Environment reporting, data shows that four sites had excellent water quality, seven sites had

good water quality, 18 sites had fair water quality and only five sites had poor water quality (Lockie &

Neale, 2013). In comparison, 12 sites were classified as having poor water quality in 2010 (Neale,

2012).

The marine water quality programme has seen mixed results; there has been deterioration since 2009,

although some improvements have been made more recently. Data from the 2010 and 2011 Marine

Water Quality Annual Reports show that 17 sites changed quality class from 2010 to 2011, the

majority (76 percent) of which were improvements. In 2009, only four sites (out of 35) had poor

water quality, this number increased to 14 sites in 2010, but there were some improvements with 12

sites having poor water quality in 2011 (Walker & Vaughan, 2013a; Walker & Vaughan, 2013b). More

information on Auckland’s river, stream and harbour health is provided in Appendix 4.

3.2. Transition Process

We question whether it is reasonable to state that since amalgamation Auckland has “returned to the

‘shared understanding and issues agreement’ phase” (p.5). There is limited evidence to substantiate

this assessment. It may be the case that since amalgamation, Council has needed to work at achieving

this shared understanding, but prior to amalgamation the individual Territorial Local Authorities (TLAs)

were not all aligned with each other. The report acknowledges this by referring to the “different

starting points” (p.34). It could be argued that the region is more advanced in this aspect than it was

before the amalgamation.

The report provides a table on the process indicators currently present as Auckland transitions

towards a ‘Waterways City’ on page 29, which leads to the authors’ conclusion that Auckland is


positioned in the ‘shared understanding and issues agreement’ phase. However, the table shows that

most of the elements in the ‘shared understanding and issue agreement’ phase have double ticks and

there is some progress in the ‘knowledge dissemination’ phase. There is limited evidence of the

assessment underpinning Table 1 in the CRC report.

A review of Codes of Practice before and after amalgamation suggests that there has been an

adoption of WSD in Auckland, which had not been possible due to the fragmented nature of local

government prior to amalgamation. Appendix 6 provides information on the state of Auckland’s

water sensitive stormwater management practice before and after amalgamation including an

assessment of previous Codes of Practice and the current Auckland Council Code of Practice for Land

Development and Subdivision and the draft Auckland Transport Code of Practice.

3.3. Key Challenges

This section provides a review of the challenges, as identified in the CRC report, and the key issues

identified within each challenge, as set out in the CRC report.

3.3.1. Auckland’s Overarching Challenge

The authors of the CRC report state that the overarching challenge is a lack of strategic alignment

across key stakeholders. Within this challenge, there are specific issues for water sensitive

stormwater management in relation to strategic positioning, network capacity and learning, and

enabling structures and tools (p.35). However, there is limited evidence of data analysis that led to

these findings. The key challenges appear to be based on what the majority of the interviewees raised

as issues but the limitations and potential bias associated with evidence based on perceptions,

particularly in group interviews, have not been acknowledged in the report.

Some of the documentation that was reviewed by the authors regarding the overarching challenge

may be less relevant since the amalgamation and reorganisation within the Infrastructure and

Environmental Services Department. Findings of previous studies need to be compared with the

recent steps that have been taken by the Stormwater Unit to address the identified gaps.

The report suggests that Auckland’s stormwater management practice is fragmented and that this

intensified with the amalgamation. However, the amalgamation of the individual TLAs, which were not

all aligned with each other, has reduced fragmentation. Since amalgamation, progress has been made

toward a shared vision and joined-up strategy. The Unitary Plan (Part 2: 5.15.1) outlines objectives for

stormwater management which includes a chapter that specifies “the adoption of water-sensitive

design as a core development approach”. Since amalgamation, there has been ongoing reinforcement

of the collaborative approach between Council and Watercare and Auckland Transport. Successes

have continued to strengthen; over the last few months, steps have been taken toward greater

integration and alignment including the Council initiative to introduce ‘clusters’, in particular the Civil

Infrastructure Cluster which brings together the responsible people from areas across the Council and

its CCOs, and also the Integrated Consents Process.


3.3.2. Specific Challenges for Strategic Positioning

Key Issue: Disconnection of Narrative from the Liveability Agenda and Broader Benefits of

Stormwater Management

We agree there may be limited understanding regarding the link between the benefits of stormwater

and water sensitive stormwater management to Auckland’s liveability; Auckland’s vision to be the

world’s most liveable city will depend on many factors. We agree there needs to be a strong political

and business case for the beneficial use of stormwater and water sensitive stormwater management.

Key Issue: Lack of Strategic Vision and Plan that is Shared Across Organisational Units

The authors draw on perceptions of the interviewees regarding the lack of a strategic vision and plan

that is shared across organisational units. However, there is no acknowledgement of the potential

impact of the timing of the interviews or how potential bias was managed. In particular, the authors’

state:

“There was a concern expressed by many participants that recent structural changes within

Auckland Council’s Infrastructure and Environmental Services has resulted in a reduced

emphasis on holistic catchment planning, preferring a project-by-project approach in

accordance with the priorities articulated in the Stormwater Unit’s draft Strategic Directions

report” (p.37).

Given the timing of the study, perceptions could have been influenced by the internal reorganisation

within the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Department, which focused on moving functions

and responsibilities to the most suitable places within the Department. The reorganisation involved

shifting the regional Sustainable Catchments programme from the sole responsibility of the

Stormwater Unit, to the responsibility of the Department. It is intended that this reorganisation will

ensure better integrated management, a more direct focus and more resources.

Key Issue: Unclear Political and Business Case for Water Sensitive Stormwater Management

We agree that the business case for some aspects of water sensitive stormwater management is

unclear. For example, the third pipe system at Stonefields has been found to be economically

unviable. The business case might be stronger if water scarcity was an issue. Council has to balance

competing objectives. If it does not manage within appropriate financial constraints, the region’s

development will not be sustainable.

The report states that there is a “recurring perception…that water sensitive management practices

conflict with the urban development goals of the Auckland Plan” (p.39). The Auckland Plan is Council’s

overarching strategy to make Auckland the world’s most liveable city. To achieve this purpose, the

Plan sets a strategic direction for Auckland and its communities, integrating social, economic,

environmental, and cultural objectives. The Auckland Plan recognises that the region must develop

sustainably and that a transformational shift is required to “strongly commit to environmental action

and green growth” (Auckland Council, 2012b).

Progress has been made toward building an evidence base and methodology to assess the costs and

benefits of different types of water infrastructure in Auckland, but we agree that further development

of such methodologies would be helpful. For example, Auckland Council's Technical Report

TR2013/043: Auckland Unitary Plan Stormwater Management Provisions: Cost and Benefit Assessment


– Appendix (Kettle & Kumar, 2013) and draft Guidance Document GD2013/04: Water Sensitive Design

for Stormwater (Lewis et al., 2013). The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is

funding the Urban Planning that Sustains Waterbodies (UPSW) project that uses the four interests

approach (environmental, social, economic and cultural). This research project has developed a pilot

decision support system (DSS) to enable urban planners and stormwater managers to consider

holistically the impacts of urban development on indicators of environmental, social, economic and

cultural wellbeing, including the impact on receiving water bodies (Moores et al., 2013).2

Key Issue: Risk of Loss of Corporate Knowledge

We agree that improvements could be made to learn from both the successes and failures of

individual water sensitive projects. However, the report states that the “individual water sensitive

projects...are yet to be scaled up” (p.41). Since amalgamation, the successes of the Twin Streams

project have been rolled out with the regionalisation of the Twin Streams project, which has brought

to bear the regional Sustainable Catchment programme. The regionalisation of the Twin Streams

project incorporates water sensitive planning and design, green infrastructure, place-making,

environmental enhancement and sustainable outcomes coupled with community engagement and

learning opportunities to elevate community awareness.

Key Issue: Lack of Consensus on Stormwater Related Issues and Solutions

The report states that widespread monitoring and reporting of local conditions and community

perceptions of water sensitive approaches could also be strengthened. We agree that more

monitoring and reporting would be helpful. However, progress has been made, that is not

acknowledged in the report. For example, Wai Care is an Auckland Council run water quality

monitoring, education and action programme for community groups, individuals, businesses and

schools across the Auckland region. In addition, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric

Research (NIWA) has environmental monitoring programmes which includes water quality monitoring

and reporting.

3.3.3. Specific Challenges for Network Capacity and Learning

Key Issue: Overly Narrow Professional Network

The report states that “the current stakeholder network does not yet include a broader coalition of

actors working across multiple domains and sectors, which means mutually reinforcing shifts in

different areas of practice are difficult” (p.42). We agree that more progress in this area would be

beneficial. However, progress to date has not been acknowledged in the report, including:

the establishment of clusters, including the Civil Infrastructure Cluster, which brings together

the responsible people from areas across the Council and its CCOs

the Integrated Consents Process across Council and CCOs

2 The Urban Planning that Sustains Waterbodies (UPSW) project is part of a wider multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary collaboration, the ‘Resilient Urban Futures’ research programme, and involves the development of a pilot decision support system (DSS). The current version of the DSS incorporates indicators of environmental, economic and social wellbeing. An aim of its further development is to also incorporate indicators of cultural wellbeing. The DSS links a number of distinct models and other methods in order to make predictions of outcomes under alternative urban development and stormwater management scenarios (Moores et al., 2013).


the draft Auckland Transport Code of Practice, which provides a set of standards that apply to

infrastructure across Auckland including guidelines and recommendations that represent best

practice, particularly related to public transport infrastructure and stormwater outcomes,

with an emphasis on integrated planning, sustainability and urban design including

stormwater outcomes

Watercare’s water sensitive environmental sustainability initiatives since amalgamation, as

outlined in Appendix 6

the Dominion Road project, where various stakeholders including Council and Auckland

Transport in conjunction with Iwi, work collaboratively to deliver on improved public

transport and cycling provision aspects of Auckland’s liveability, incorporating WSD/LID

solutions that provide for improved environmental and amenity outcomes

the North West Transformation Area, where various stakeholders work collaboratively, and

have delivered a 24ha stormwater/open space network incorporating LID solutions (with

provision for monitoring of long-term benefits), high amenity areas, place-making features

and restoration of the riparian corridors, with resulting benefits to stormwater management

and liveability outcomes

The Stormwater Unit’s draft Strategic Direction (2012-15) and Strategic Asset Management

Plan (2012-32), which set out an integrated approach to working with stakeholders to achieve

a sustainable and environmentally responsible approach to reduce flood risk and enhance

waterways and water quality of receiving environments.

Key Issue: Lack of Multi-Sectorial Champions and Political Leadership

We agree that driving water sensitive approaches typically requires strong leadership and

commitment and that initiatives to foster water sensitive champions would be beneficial. However,

current leadership should be recognised and built on. Council is collaborating with local community

organisations, investing in research and pursuing pilot projects, taking a ‘leadership by example’

approach with resulting positive outcomes. The Waterfront development, Hobsonville Point,

Dominion Road project and the North West Transformation Area provide examples where Council is

providing both leadership in this area and proactively working to support knowledge creation on

water sensitive approaches and to disseminate this learning to the community.

Key Issue: Lack of Knowledge and Trust in Water Sensitive Technologies

The report refers to the need for technical knowledge, implementation capacity and institutional

structures to evolve, and the lack of a dedicated learning and demonstration programme,

underpinned by secure long-term funding. We agree that there would be benefit to improve these

aspects however the report does not acknowledge the progress to date, which is highlighted in the

previous sections of this report.


3.3.4. Specific Challenges for Enabling Structures and Tools

Key Issue: Structural Separation and Lack of Clear and Joined-Up Total Water Cycle Management

Roles

Some of our project experience would support the view that there needs to be more progress made in

an accountability framework that optimises a total water cycle management approach. The agreed

review of the Three Waters Strategy provides an opportunity to improve this.

The authors propose that “investment in capital works and the ongoing operations and maintenance

of infrastructure can be more efficiently managed through consolidated financial models that allow for

the income generating water services (e.g. water supply, sewerage) to offset other aspects of service

delivery (e.g. environmental protection, drainage)” (p.46). However, this does not reflect the local

context where it has been agreed not to cross-subsidise. This is based on the experience of

Metrowater and the Auckland City Council which faced strong opposition to partially funding

stormwater investments from surpluses generated from water and wastewater services, and the

current legislative framework which requires Watercare to be a minimum cost provider of water and

wastewater services. Watercare is required to meet its business objectives while keeping costs to

customers (collectively) at minimum levels and is prohibited by statute from returning a dividend or

surplus to its owner Auckland Council. More information on Council’s legislative framework is

provided in Appendix 5.

Key Issue: Lack of Statutory Tools and Mandates

We agree addressing the lack of statutory tools, mandates and incentives would be helpful. However,

it is important to acknowledge the successes, such as the already established Integrated Consenting

Process across Council and CCOs and an existing pilot decision support system (Moores et al., 2013).

The report states: “Achieving Auckland’s vision to be the world’s most liveable city will require the

environment and water sensitivity to be prioritised and integrated within development and

infrastructure decisions” (p.48). Under the Local Government Act 2002, Auckland Council is

empowered to adopt a water sensitive approach, if it wishes to, but in doing so, it must consider a

sustainable development approach and also prioritise stormwater drainage and flood protection.

Council must balance stormwater management with other activities and affordability, which in turn

determines the rate of progress towards becoming a ‘Water Sensitive City’. While we agree that

water sensitivity is a contributor to liveability, we would suggest that it is not the only one and it is not

necessarily the one of highest priority in the Auckland context. It is important to recognise that

Council has to balance competing objectives. If Council does not manage within appropriate financial

constraints, the region’s development will not be sustainable.


4. A Review of the Recommendations

The CRC report states that the recommendations are based on a critical analysis and interpretation of

interview data, analysis of current initiatives, experience reported in other jurisdictions and

contemporary social science research theory and empirical evidence on transition and change

processes (p.49). However, there is no evidence of how the recommendations were derived. There is

no acknowledgement of options or the decision framework or criteria by which the options were

considered.

The report proposes three recommendation packages, namely recommendations for strategic

positioning, network capacity and learning, and enabling structures and tools. Regarding the first

package, we agree that more could be done. It will be important to be clear on which elements of

water sensitive stormwater management are critical to Auckland’s liveability and are aligned with

Auckland’s priorities. The final recommendation of the first package to develop a stormwater strategy

should be considered in the revision of the Three Waters Strategy that is currently being led by the

Planning Division of Auckland Council.

Regarding the second package of recommendations, we agree that there would be value in improving

knowledge and trust in water sensitive technologies. This is necessary as there has been criticism and

scepticism regarding the performance and feasibility of WSD in stormwater management.3 We are

aware that Auckland Council has made progress towards capacity building that targets a wide range of

actors, including for example the development of ‘clusters’ across the Council group (including the

CCOs), Wai Care community waterway education, monitoring and action programme, and working

with Iwi to ensure Māori values are considered in stormwater decision making. It is important to

acknowledge the progress that has been made, as identified in earlier sections, which will significantly

contribute to improving network capacity and learning.

The authors of the CRC report suggest that the majority of the recommendations in the first two

packages could be implemented within existing structures but that the third package would “require

the introduction of more formal institutional reforms” (p.50) to “integrate water cycle responsibilities

within a common organising framework” (p.57). If this means that the authors recommend

organisational integration of the management of water supply, wastewater and stormwater into one

unit, then we have concerns about how such a significant change could be recommended without

consideration in the report of other options and of the benefits and costs associated with each. There

are many factors to be considered in making such a decision and there would be other options for

achieving good integration in the management of the three waters.

3 For example, see

Achleitner et al. (2007). Local infiltration devices at parking sites—Experimental assessment of temporal changes in hydraulic and contaminant removal capacity. Water Science and Technology, 55: 193–200.

Bergman et al. (2011). Evaluation of two stormwater infiltration trenches in central Copenhagen after 15 years of operation. Water Science and Technology, 63: 2279–2286.

Zhou, Q et al.(2013). Adaption to extreme rainfall with open urban drainage system: An integrated hydrological cost-benefit analysis. Environmental Management, 51: 586–601.

Holman-Dodds, J., Bradley, A and Potter, K. (2003). Evaluation of hydrologic benefits of infiltration based urban storm water management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 39: 205–215.


5. Conclusion

The CRC report includes some helpful observations, including that there would be benefit in helping

stakeholders understand the linkages between liveability and water sensitive management. However,

in our view the report places too much emphasis on the significance of water sensitivity as a

contributor to liveability, sustainability and resilience. We agree that it is a contributor, but it is not

the only one and it is not necessarily the one of highest priority. Auckland Council’s vision to be the

world’s most liveable city will only be realised if progress is made on a range of factors. The report

does not acknowledge the importance of other priorities or local factors such as Auckland’s relative

abundance of water.

The authors of the report have experience and expertise in the use of the Framework for assessing the

extent of water sensitivity in cities. However, we find the assessment to be somewhat more negative

than our observations of what has been happening ‘on the ground’. The report does not provide

sufficient information regarding data collection and analysis methods used such as the sampling

strategy for interviews, to enable us to comment on these aspects of the work, other than to note

that, given the qualitative nature of the work and the significance of the recommendations made, we

would expect to see more detail on the research and analysis methodology in the report.

Given that few of the cities benchmarked against the Framework that are identified in the report have

progressed beyond the mid-point of the scale, we question how helpful the benchmark tool is for

enabling decision makers to consider the recommendations in the report. Given the significance of

the assessment and recommendations made, we would expect to see more analysis directly relevant

to the Auckland context and more comparison of the perceptions of the stakeholders interviewed

with real progress ‘on the ground’.

The report proposes three recommendation packages, namely recommendations for strategic

positioning, network capacity and learning, and enabling structures and tools. However, the report

does not provide evidence on how these recommendations were derived, the options or the decision

framework or criteria by which the options were considered. The authors suggest that the majority of

the recommendations in the first two packages could be implemented within existing structures but

that the third package would “require the introduction of more formal institutional reforms” (p.50) to

“integrate water cycle responsibilities within a common organising framework” (p.57). If this means

that the authors recommend organisational integration of the management of water supply,

wastewater and stormwater into one unit then we have concerns about how such a significant change

could be recommended without consideration in the report of other options and of the benefits and

costs associated with each. There are many factors to be considered in making such a decision and

there would be other options for achieving good integration in the management of the three waters.

There is limited economic analysis provided in the report. For example, the report refers to the

potential use of stormwater as an alternative water supply but does not take into account that owing

to the relative abundance of water in Auckland, this could be unsustainable from an economic point of

view in the urban reticulated system. The report does not recognise the fact that Council has to

balance competing objectives. If Council does not manage within appropriate financial constraints,

the development of the region will not be sustainable.


6. References

ADB. (2010). Every Drop Counts: Learning From Good Practices in Eight Asian Cities. Mandaluyong City:

Asia Development Bank.

AECOM. (2012). Gap Analysis of Stormwater Asset Management Practices. Auckland: AECOM New

Zealand Limited.

ARC. (2000). Low Impact Design Manual for the Auckland Region. Auckland: Auckland Regional Council

Technical Publication 124.

Auckland City Council. (2008). Auckland City Council – Isthmus District Plan Review 2007/08. Auckland:

Auckland City Council.

Auckland City Council. (2010a). Future Planning Framework Version 3. Auckland: Auckland City

Council.

Auckland Council. (2010b). State of the Auckland Region. Auckland: Auckland Council.

Auckland Council. (2012a). Auckland Council Stormwater Asset Management Plan. Auckland: Auckland

Council.

Auckland Council. (2012b). The Auckland Plan. Auckland: Auckland Council.

Auckland Council. (2012c). Long-Term Plan 2012-2022. Auckland: Auckland Council.

Auckland Council. (2013a). Auckland Council Annual Report 2012/2013. Auckland: Auckland Council.

Auckland Council. (2013b). Auckland Council Code of Practice for Land Development and Subdivision.

Auckland: Chapter 4 - Stormwater, Version 1, Auckland Council.

Auckland Council. (2013c). Little Shoal Bay Stormwater Catchment Management Plan. Auckland:

Auckland Council.

Auckland Council. (2013d). Intermittent Streams and Riparian Margins - Section 32 Evaluation for the

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Auckland: Auckland Council.

Auckland Council. (2013e). The Proposed Unitary Plan. Auckland: Auckland Council.

Auckland Council. (2014a). Auckland Stormwater Unit Draft Strategic Direction. Auckland: Auckland

Council.

Auckland Council. (2014b). Stormwater Quality and Flows Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan: Fact Sheet.

Auckland: Auckland Council.

Auckland Transport. (2014). Draft Auckland Transport Code of Practice. Retrieved July 4, 2014, from

Auckland Transport: https://at.govt.nz/about-us/auckland-transport-code-of-practice/


Australian Government Productivity Commission. (2008). Towards Urban Water Reform: A Discussion

Paper. Canberra: Productivity Commission Research Paper, Australian Government.

Bennett, J., & Megaughin, M. (2008). Model Codes of Practice: Enhanced Stormwater Management

and Improved Uptake of Low Impact Design. Prepared by URS New Zealand Ltd for Auckland

Regional Council. Technical Report TR2008/045. Auckland: Auckland Regional Council.

Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices. Tampa: Textbook

Collection, University of South Florida.

Biswas, A., & Tortajada, C. (2009). Water Supply of Phnom Penh: A Most Remarkable Transformation.

Singapore: Institute of Water Policy, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University

of Singapore.

Blackbourne, S., Vigar, N., Ansen, J., Green, N., Mayhew, I., Kettle, D., et al. (2014). The Proposed

Auckland Unitary Plan: Technical Basis for Stormwater Management Provisions. Water New

Zealand's Stormwater Conference 2014. Hamilton: Auckland Council, Andrew Stewart Ltd and

DB Kettle Consulting Ltd.

Brown, R., Keath, N., & Wong, T. (2008). Transitioning to Water Sensitive Cities: Historical, Current and

Future Transition States. Proceedings from the 11th International Conference on Urban

Drainage. Edinburgh.

Brown, R., Keath, N., & Wong, T. (2009). Urban Water Management in Cities: Historical, Current and

Future Regimes. Water, Science & Technology, 59(5), 847-855.

Chenail, R. (2011). Interviewing the Investigator: Strategies for Addressing Instrumentation and

Researcher Bias Concerns in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 16(1), 255-262.

Cranfield, C., Colibaba, A., & Grierson, H. (2014). Stormwater Management Under the Proposed

Auckland Unitary Plan. Water, 184, 40-41.

Department of Conservation. (2010). New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010. Wellington:

Department of Conservation.

Fassman-Beck, E., Voyde, E., & Liao, M. (2013). Defining Hydrologic Mitigation Targets for Stormwater

Design in Auckland. Technical Report, TR 2013/024. Auckland: Auckland Council.

Furguson, B., Brown, R., & Werbeloff, L. (2014). Benchmarking Auckland's Stormwater Management

Practice Against the Water Sensitive Cities Framework. Technical Report TR2014/024.

Prepared by Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities for Auckland Council.

Auckland: Auckland Council.

Future Proof. (2012). Draft Sub-Regional Three Waters Strategy. Hamilton: Hamilton City Council,

Waipa District Council and Waikato District Council.

Gabe, J., Trowsale, S., & Vale, R. (2009). Achieving Integrated Urban Water Management: Planning

Top-Down or Bottom-Up? Water Science and Technology, 59(10), 1999-2008.


Green, M. (2008). Shoal Bay Contaminant Mitigation Options. Task 1A - Major Sources of

Contaminants. NIWA Client Report HAM2008-104. Prepared for Auckland Regional Council.

Auckland: Auckland Regional Council.

Hauraki Gulf Forum. (2011). State of our Gulf Tikapa Moana – Hauraki Gulf State of the Environment

Report 2011. Auckland: Hauraki Gulf Forum.

Henning, T. (2013). Watercare Asset Management Plan – Investment Programme Review. Auckland:

Centre for Infrastructure Research, The University of Auckland.

Howard, M., & Kilmartin, B. (2006). Assessment of Benchmarking within Government Organisations.

Boston: Accenture.

Kelly, S. (2013). Waitematā Harbour Consolidated Receiving Environment Catchment Management

Plan. Prepared by Coast and Catchment Ltd for Auckland Council. Auckland: Auckland Council.

Kettle, D., & Kumar, P. (2013). Auckland Unitary Plan Stormwater Management Provisions: Cost and

Benefit Assessment. Technical Report TR2013/043. Auckland: Auckland Council.

Lewis, M. et al. (2013). Draft Water Sensitive Design for Stormwater. Draft Guideline Document

GD2013/04. Prepared by Boffa Miskell for Auckland Council. Auckland: Auckland Council.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Local Government Infrastructure Efficiency Expert Advisory Group. (2013). Report of the Local

Government Infrastructure Efficiency Expert Advisory Group. Wellington: Department of

Internal Affairs.

Lockie, S., & Neale, M. (2013). State of the Environment Monitoring River Water Quality Annual Report

2012. Technical Report TR2013/032. Auckland: Auckland Council.

Meares, C., & Owen, P. (2012). City Benchmarking: A Technical Report. Auckland: Auckland Council

Research, Investigations and Monitoring Unit.

Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco: John

Wiley & Sons.

Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ministry for the Environment. (2011). National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011.

Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.

Miselis, P. (2009). Contaminant Mitigation Options for Shoal Bay, Task 1B – Analysis of Existing

Catchment Management Plans and Preliminary Assessment of Potential Pollutant Removal

Alternatives. Prepared by AECOM for Auckland Regional Council. Auckland: Auckland Regional

Council.

Moores et al. (2013). A tool for evaluating stormwater management outcomes across the four

wellbeings. Water New Zealand's Eighth South Pacific Stormwater Conference and Exp.

Auckland: Water New Zealand.


Morphum Environment. (2012). Catchment Scale Water Quality and Ecological Monitoring in

Auckland's Meola Creek and Coastal Environment. Water New Zealand Stormwater

Conference. Wellington: Water New Zealand.

Morse, J., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification Strategies for Establishing

Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,

1(2), 13-22.

National Infrastructure Unit. (2011). National Infrastructure Plan. Wellington: The Treasury.

Neale, M. (2012). State of the Environment Monitoring: River Water Quality Annual Report 2010.

Technical Report 2012/006. Auckland: Auckland Council.

NIWA. (2009). An Assessment of the Lengths of Permanent, Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams in the

Auckland Region . Technical Report TR 2009/028. Auckland: Auckland Regional Council.

Pere, R. (1982). Ako: Concepts and Learning in the Maori Tradition. Hamilton: Unpublished manuscript.

Reese, A. (2014). Ten Reasons Managing Stormwater is Different from Wastewater. Retrieved May 8,

2014, from the Water Environment Federation: http://stormwater.wef.org/2012/11/ten-

reasons-managing-stormwater-is-different-from-wastewater/

State of Oregon Water Resources Department. (2012). Oregon's Integrated Water Resource

Management. Salem: State of Oregon Water Resources Department.

Tortajada, C. (2006). Water Management in Singapore. Water Resources Development, 22(2), 227-240.

UNESCO. (2009). IWRM Guidelines at River Basin Level. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific

and Cultural Organisation.

Walker, J., & Vaughan, M. (2013a). Marine water quality annual report: 2010. Technical Report

TR2013/030. Auckland: Auckland Council.

Walker, J., & Vaughan, M. (2013b). Marine Water Quality Annual Report: 2011. Technical Report

TR2013/031. Auckland: Auckland Council.

Warercare. (2008). The Three Waters Final 2008 Strategic Plan. Auckland: Watercare Services Limited.

Watercare. (2011). Asset Management Plan. Auckland: Watercare Services Limited.

Watercare. (2012). Watercare Services Limited Water and Wastewater Code of Practice for Land

Development and Subdivision. Auckland: Watercare Services Limited.

Waterfront Auckland. (2012). The Waterfront Plan. Auckland: Auckland Council.


CRC Report with CIR Comments Appendix 1

Benchmarking Auckland’s Stormwater Management Practice

Report for Auckland Council Stormwater Unit

28 March 2014

January 2014

Benchmarking Auckland’s Stormwater Management Practice: Final Report | 2

Executive Summary

Why benchmark stormwater management practice?

Stormwater management in Auckland has experienced considerable flux in recent years. The

amalgamation of regional and district councils to establish Auckland Council as a unitary authority

marked a significant change in the institutional arrangements for stormwater, requiring new

accountabilities, policies, procedures and guidelines. The Auckland Plan now presents the region’s

long-term strategic direction.

It is timely to consider how stormwater management practice can contribute to the articulated

vision of Auckland as the world’s most liveable city. This project was commissioned by Auckland

Council’s Stormwater Unit to inform the development of the 2015-45 Stormwater Asset

Management Plan and other stormwater management activities of Auckland Council.

This report, by the Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities1, presents an assessment

of stormwater management practice in Auckland, benchmarking the region’s current aspiration,

policy and on-ground action against scientifically accepted world’s best practice for sustainable

water management. It analyses Auckland’s transition towards its aspired city-state, identifies key

challenges and proposes a strategy and suite of recommendations for advancing Auckland’s

stormwater management towards a Water Sensitive City.

What is a Water Sensitive City?

Water management in 21st century cities has become increasingly challenging. The need to cater for

population growth in the context of climate change projections, resource constraints, environmental

degradation and evolving community expectations requires cities to look to more innovative

responses in order to ensure continued liveability and resilience. The concept of a Water Sensitive

City has emerged as a guiding vision for cities seeking to address these various challenges in a way

that delivers a liveable and resilient city.

A Water Sensitive City is based on holistic management of the integrated water cycle to protect and

enhance the health of receiving waterways, mitigate flood risk and create public spaces that harvest,

clean and recycle water. It uses water management as a means of delivering better liveability

outcomes more broadly, and recognises that a water sensitive approach to urban development and

regeneration processes can help deliver on a range of objectives critical to the liveability of a city,

such as biodiversity, public green space, healthy waterways, connected communities, and cultural

significance. Ultimately, a water sensitive approach is underpinned by a recognition that water can

contribute to the creation of connected, vibrant and liveable communities.

Stormwater and the Water Sensitive City

Historically, stormwater was regarded as a nuisance and traditional drainage systems were built to

swiftly channel stormwater away from cities and into receiving waterways in order to mitigate flood

risk. However, it is increasingly recognised that this approach creates a range of environmental

vulnerabilities and, in particular, has severely degraded the health of urban waterways waterways

and disconnected communities from their amenity and recreational opportunities.

1 The CRCWSC is an AUD$100 million applied interdisciplinary research program funded by the Australian

Government and more than 70 research, industry and government partners (watersensitivecities.org.au)

3 | Benchmarking Auckland’s Stormwater Management Practice: Final Report

In a Water Sensitive City, stormwater is instead regarded as a resource that can be managed not

simply to mitigate flood risk but to help deliver a range of desirable outcomes. Water sensitive

planning and design can improve the health of urban waterways while simultaneously creating green

corridors through the city, providing recreation spaces and improving amenity for the community.

Stormwater presents an alternative water source that can be harnessed to avoid energy-intensive

and costly infrastructure. Ultimately, a Water Sensitive City is a liveable city, and good stormwater

management is critical for ensuring growth that maintains and enhances a city’s liveability.

Transitioning to a Water Sensitive City

Industrialised cities typically feature large-scale centralised infrastructure, which has historically met

critical needs of water supply, public health protection and flood management in response to urban

growth. However, it is now acknowledged that this style of service delivery has also led to increased

environmental and social vulnerabilities, and as society’s demands and expectations evolve, a more

complex and challenging policy and management context for water servicing is driven.

The Urban Water

Management

Transitions

Framework

represents these

evolving socio-

political drivers and

service delivery

functions as six

distinct

developmental ‘states’

that cities typically

move through, or are

expected to move

through, in response

to society’s increasing

liveability, sustainability and resilience aspirations for urban water management. These city-states

form an embedded continuum, culminating in the Water Sensitive City. The framework was

developed as a benchmarking tool for understanding a city’s present water management approach

and defining its short and long-term goals. It has been employed by UNESCO-IHE, the Asian

Development Bank, UN-HABITAT and CRCWSC to benchmark water management in cities globally.

The more complex socio-political drivers on the right side of the framework requires new

infrastructural and institutional capacities, which means the shift across the halfway point of the

continuum constitutes a significant transition. Transitions research makes clear that this shift is

challenging, since the framework of existing technologies, institutions and people’s knowledge

typically create a path dependency that is difficult to overcome. A combination of technological lock-

in, institutional inertia and fragmentation and the challenge of reorienting professional and

organisational capacity towards a new approach all serve as barriers to sector-wide transformation.

Success therefore requires concerted and ongoing effort, requiring ongoing commitment,

monitoring and investment to steer change in desirable directions.

Liveability and the Urban Water Management Transitions Framework (Brown et al., 2009)

Comment [CIR1]: A Water Sensitive City is only one component of a liveable city. Competing pressures for investment cannot be ignored.

Comment [CIR2]: Depends on the local situation. We agree that large-scale centralised infrastructure can contribute to increased environmental and social vulnerability, but it does not follow that this is always the case. If the economics are strong enough this can enable other investment.

Comment [CIR3]: Note that for ‘Water Cycle City’ the socio-political driver is stated as ‘Limits on natural resources’. As the prominent resource focused on here is water, this is a weak driver for a location such as Auckland where water is, on the whole, viewed as being abundant. Is this the appropriate tool for benchmarking Auckland?

Comment [CIR4]: What are the limitations of benchmarking against the Framework rather than directly against other cities?

Comment [CIR5]: Does this support the use of the Urban Water Management Transitions Framework as an appropriate tool for benchmarking Auckland’s stormwater management practice?


How was Auckland’s stormwater management practice benchmarked?

Two benchmarking assessments formed this project. First, the Urban Water Management

Transitions Framework was used to benchmark Auckland’s stormwater management practice

against scientifically accepted world’s best practice for sustainable water management.

Second, the transition progress for Auckland’s stormwater management practice was assessed, using

a framework derived from contemporary research that charted six distinct phases of change in the

transition from a Drained City to a Waterways, Water and Water Sensitive City, from the initial issue

emergence through to the eventual embedding of the new practice as business-as-usual.

The assessment methodology was qualitative, drawing on the deep experience and perspectives of

38 representatives of key stakeholders within and outside of Auckland Council, as well as key policy

and organisational materials.

Where is Auckland’s stormwater practice now?

Auckland aspires to a Waterways City and is developing policy in this direction; however, the

majority of on-ground action reflects the Drained City.

Aspiration: The region’s harbours and beaches are highly valued by the community and their

preservation is fundamental to the vision of Auckland as the world’s most liveable city, as articulated

in the Auckland Plan. Māori’s have strong cultural values of healthy waterways also suggests a strong

driver for managing stormwater from a Waterways City perspective. Interview and documentary

evidence shows that current aspirations across the sector coalesce around the Waterways City. The

language of water sensitivity is becoming increasingly adopted across Auckland and some individual

stakeholder representatives aspire to a Water Sensitive City in itself. Water cycle management, fit-

for-purpose supply and integrated planning for water and land use are not identified as an aspiration.

Policy: The stormwater policy space is currently in development, with potential to drive Waterways

City related outcomes. The Stormwater Unit has clear environmental health objectives within a

hierarchy of priorities, in which positive environmental outcomes are pursued when the opportunity

arises on specific projects, rather than requiring it as standard practice. Important steps forward are

being made with the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and the proposed amendments to the

National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. However, many stakeholders anticipate that

they developments are likely to be softened to accommodate the priority of affordable land

development. Auckland Council has obligations to co-manage land and water resources with iwi,

grounded in their values associated with ecosystem guardianship.

Assessment of Auckland’s current aspiration, policy and action for stormwater management practice

Water Supply

City

Sewered

City

Drained

City

Waterways

City

Water Cycle

City

Water Sensitive

City

Policy

Action

Individual

stakeholder

representativesAspiration

Individual

projects

Comment [CIR6]: What are the references?

Comment [CIR7]: To what extent was the level of experience of the various stakeholders taken into account?

Comment [CIR9]: It could be confusing that the current dominant aspiration is to manage stormwater from a ‘Waterways City’ perspective, yet it is indicated that some of the individual stakeholders aspire to a ‘Water Sensitive City’. How was the bias from these stakeholders addressed as they may have a more negative view of stormwater management in Auckland than other stakeholders?

Comment [CIR8]: Presentationally, using bars rather than circles as used in the other comparative assessments (p.15-17) and the dark shading of the ‘Action’ bar highlights the most negative part of the assessment.

Comment [CIR10]: It is grammatically incorrect to use the term Māori’s. No Māori representatives or experts on Iwi values were interviewed.

Comment [CIR11]: The previous draft Stormwater Strategic Direction has been revised as one statement implied that waterways related work is only pursued when flood management work is carried out, which does not reflect current practice. The Stormwater Unit’s draft Strategic Direction and Strategic Asset Management Plan set out an integrated approach to working with stakeholders to achieve a sustainable and environmentally responsible approach to reduce the risk of flooding, and enhance waterways and water quality of receiving environments. However, Council's work programme must be prioritised. It is important for the Stormwater Unit to be fiscally prudent and ensure that the Council gets the best value for money.

Comment [CIR12]: Is there evidence to support this view?


Action: Drainage services and flood mitigation are the major drivers for on-ground stormwater

initiatives. While individual projects have adopted waterways city principles, mainstream practice is

in the Drained City. Sediment control is a consenting requirement for new land developments;

however, indicators of stream and harbour health reveal continued degradation. Integrated

catchment solutions and comprehensive source control of stormwater pollution are limited in

practice. Wastewater overflows to receiving waterways occur in some parts of the central Auckland

and each year up to 10 kilometres of natural streams are piped to enable land development.

What is Auckland’s transition progress?

Auckland’s current stormwater management transition is benchmarked to be at the ‘shared

understanding and issue agreement’ phase.

Auckland’s transition from a drained city began in the 1970s, when waterway health emerged as an

issue. Scientific research on the extent and causes of the problem then led to broad recognition that

stormwater has a major impact on receiving water environments. Efforts to advance stormwater

management have focused on establishing strategic frameworks, guidelines and catchment plans

intended to encourage best practice and intervention, leading to the ‘knowledge dissemination’

phase of the 2000s. Since 2010, Auckland Council’s attention and resources have been internally

targeted, as focus has been internally targeted to integrate the diversity of approaches from legacy

councils into a unified way forward in all the activities of the Auckland Council. Within this context,

Auckland has returned to the ‘shared understanding and issue agreement’ phase.

What are Auckland’s challenges for advancing stormwater management practice?

A lack of strategic alignment across key stakeholders is the overarching challenge for further

progress towards a Waterways City.

Stormwater management is an inherently complex topic, which has been intensified for Auckland

upon amalgamation, which represented a recent major reform to the institutional roles and

responsibilities for stormwater management practice. In the fragmented context for Auckland’s

stormwater management practice, a shared vision and joined-up strategy is critical for mobilising

individual stakeholder priorities, knowledge and resources towards a common goal.

Auckland’s progress from a Drained City to a Waterways City

Mid 1990s

Mid 1980s

Mid 1970s

Shared Understanding & Issue Agreement

Issue Definition

Issue Emergence

Knowledge Dissemination

Policy & Practice Diffusion

Embedding New Practice

WATERWAYS CITY

DRAINEDCITY 1950s

2000s

Solution Solution contested

Solution not viable

These new options are too expensive, not necessary & won’t work

Auckland in 2014

We have new stormwater technologies & practices

Comment [CIR13]: What is the evidence for this statement?

Comment [CIR14]: What is the evidence for this statement? We are aware of improvements that have been made. For example, Auckland’s long-term river water quality monitoring programme and marine water quality programme have seen improvements in water quality classes. See the 2010 and 2011 Marine Water Quality Annual Reports and the 2010 and 2011 River Water Quality Annual Reports.

Comment [CIR15]: Watercare is investing in a number of projects to reduce overflows.

Comment [CIR16]: The draft Stormwater Unit Strategic Direction refers to the Auckland Council’s (2010) State of the Auckland Region report, which describes stream disturbance in the Auckland region. “Common stream disturbances include piping, lining and channelling...Between 2000 and 2008, about 80km of streams (an average of 8.9km each year) were subject to a resource consent for stream disturbance. This figure does not include the large number of stream disturbance activities that can be undertaken without resource consent. Consequently the total amount of stream disturbance in the Auckland region is underestimated” (p.47). The length of stream disturbance does not equate to the length of stream being ‘piped’ as many consents were not for stream piping (some consents may have been for relatively minor engineering activity). Auckland Council (2010) State of the Auckland Region. Auckland: Auckland Council.

Comment [CIR17]: It may be the case that since amalgamation, the Council has needed to work at achieving this shared understanding, but prior to amalgamation the individual authorities were not all aligned with each other. It could be argued that the region is more aligned than it was before the amalgamation.

Comment [CIR18]: This diagram, particularly the labelling, is confusing. There is minimal colour distinction and the label ‘Auckland in 2014’ is the same colour as ‘Drained City’ at the start of the continuum. It could be misinterpreted that Auckland has returned to the 1950s. The criteria determining Auckland’s progression and digression is also unclear.


How can Auckland realise water sensitive stormwater management?

The following recommendations will enable Auckland Council to realise water sensitive stormwater

management. Their purpose is to secure and move beyond the current transition phase of ‘shared

understanding and issue agreement’ through to ‘embedding new practice’ as effectively as possible.

They are grouped into a suite of 3 packages, which may be implemented sequentially or in parallel.

Package 1: Strategic positioning, addressing Auckland’s overarching challenge by creating the

pathway and opportunity to develop a joined-up and shared vision and strategy for water sensitive

stormwater management across Auckland Council.

Key Issues Recommendations Disconnection of narrative from the liveability agenda and broader benefits of stormwater management

Lack of strategic vision and plan that is shared across organisational units

Unclear political and business case for water sensitive stormwater management

Risk of loss of corporate knowledge

Lack of consensus on stormwater related issues and solutions

1.1 Connect water sensitive stormwater management with Auckland’s liveability agenda

1.2 Conduct an independent assessment of the current state of knowledge for water sensitive stormwater management

1.3 Harness existing corporate knowledge about water sensitive stormwater management

1.4 Develop a shared strategic vision for stormwater management 1.5 Develop a value proposition for water sensitive stormwater

management 1.6 Synthesise outcomes from 1.1 to 1.5 to develop a stormwater

strategy

Package 2: Network capacity and learning, facilitating the most effective conditions for deepening

the knowledge base and expanding the professional and stakeholder network explicitly participating

in advancing water sensitive stormwater management.

Key Issues Recommendations Overly narrow professional network

Lack of multi-sectoral champions and political leadership

Lack of knowledge and trust in water sensitive technologies

2.1 Establish a sector-wide capacity building program that targets a wide range of policy, planning, decision-making and technical actors

2.2 Provide enabling platforms for technical, policy, planning and decision-making champions of water sensitivity

2.3 Develop a dedicated learning and demonstration program for Auckland as a Water Sensitive City

2.4 Form scientific and practice partnerships with local organisations and international networks

Package 3: Enabling structures and tools, facilitating the organising structures and enabling tools

that will expedite the on-ground practice of water sensitive stormwater management.

Key Issues Recommendations Structural separation and lack of clear and joined-up total water cycle management roles across Council

Lack of statutory tools and mandates

3.1 Develop bridging structures, processes and resources to support strategic alignment across relevant stakeholder groups

3.2 Integrate water cycle responsibilities within a common organising framework

3.3 Develop robust methodologies, evaluation tools and evidence for analysing the costs and benefits of stormwater management options

3.4 Implement statutory, non-statutory and practice tools for advancing water sensitive stormwater management practice

Comment [CIR19]: We agree that the business case for some aspects of water sensitive stormwater management is unclear e.g. Stonefields, where the business case might be stronger if water scarcity was an issue. Progress was made regarding the business case for water sensitive stormwater management in the draft GD04. Lewis, M. et al. (2013). Draft Water Sensitive Design for Stormwater. Draft Guideline Document GD2013/04. Auckland: Auckland Council.

Comment [CIR20]: We agree, it is important to be clear on which elements of water sensitive stormwater management are critical to Auckland’s liveability and are aligned with Auckland’s priorities.

Comment [CIR21]: The Unitary Plan (Part 2: 5.15.1) outlines objectives for stormwater management which includes a chapter that specifies ‘the adoption of water-sensitive design as a core development approach’.

Comment [CIR22]: The Auckland Design Manual is a new initiative by Auckland Council, which provides guidance, best practises for stormwater management for various types of new development. This would be a good platform to expand and introduce water sensitive technologies.

Comment [CIR23]: We agree there would be benefit in this. However Council needs to decide if that would be cost effective.

Comment [CIR24]: If this means merging the organisations for water, wastewater and stormwater, this would be an extreme solution which should only be implemented following detailed consideration of the issues and options.


Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 10

1.1 Why benchmark stormwater management practice? ....................................................... 10

1.2 CRC for Water Sensitive Cities .......................................................................................... 10

2 Water Sensitive Cities .............................................................................................................. 11

2.1 What is a Water Sensitive City? ........................................................................................ 11

2.2 Stormwater and the Water Sensitive City ......................................................................... 11

2.3 Urban Water Management Transitions Framework .......................................................... 12

2.4 Dynamics in the transition to Water Sensitive Cities ......................................................... 16

2.5 Benchmarking Auckland’s stormwater management practice .......................................... 20

2.5.1 Qualitative assessment ............................................................................................. 20

2.5.2 Interview data collection .......................................................................................... 21

2.5.3 Data analysis ............................................................................................................ 22

2.5.4 Research validation .................................................................................................. 22

3 Stormwater management practice in Auckland ........................................................................ 22

3.1 City-state ......................................................................................................................... 22

3.1.1 Aspiration ................................................................................................................. 23

3.1.2 Policy........................................................................................................................ 24

3.1.3 Action ....................................................................................................................... 26

3.2 Transition progress .......................................................................................................... 27

3.2.1 Issue emergence (1970s to 1980s) ............................................................................ 30

3.2.2 Issue definition (1980s to 1990s) .............................................................................. 30

3.2.3 Shared understanding and issue agreement (1990s to early 2000s) .......................... 31

3.2.4 Knowledge dissemination (2000s) ............................................................................ 32

3.2.5 Back to shared understanding and issue agreement (2010 to 2014) ......................... 33

3.3 Key challenges ................................................................................................................. 35

3.3.1 Auckland’s overarching challenge ............................................................................. 35

3.3.2 Specific challenges for strategic positioning .............................................................. 36

3.3.3 Specific challenges for network capacity and learning............................................... 42

3.3.4 Specific challenges for enabling structures and tools ................................................ 45

4 Recommendations for advancing water sensitive stormwater management ............................ 49

4.1 Overview of recommendations strategy ........................................................................... 49

4.2 Package 1: Recommendations for strategic positioning .................................................... 50

4.3 Package 2: Recommendations for network capacity and learning ..................................... 53


4.4 Package 3: Recommendations for enabling structures and tools ...................................... 55

5 References ............................................................................................................................... 60

Appendix A: Documentary evidence sources ................................................................................... 62

Appendix B: Author biographies ...................................................................................................... 64

Figure 1. Liveability and the Urban Water Management Transitions Framework .............................. 13

Figure 2. Benchmarking results from UNESCO-IHE’s SWITCH City Water Summit ............................. 16

Figure 3. Challenges for urban water transitions .............................................................................. 17

Figure 4. Different transition pathways ............................................................................................ 18

Figure 5. Key phases in the transition from a Drained City to a Waterways City ............................... 19

Figure 6. Assessment of Auckland’s current aspiration, policy and action ........................................ 23

Figure 7. Auckland’s progress from a Drained City to a Waterways City ........................................... 27

Figure 8. Dominant narrative for stormwater management in Auckland (1970s to 1980s) ............... 30

Figure 9. Dominant narrative for stormwater management in Auckland (1980s to 1990s) ............... 31

Figure 10. Dominant narrative for stormwater management in Auckland (1990s to early 2000s) ..... 32

Figure 11. Dominant narrative for stormwater management in Auckland (2000s) ............................ 33

Figure 12. Dominant narrative for stormwater management in Auckland (2010-2014) .................... 34

Figure 13. Recommendations strategy for advancing stormwater management practice to the

Waterways City ............................................................................................................................... 50

Table 1. Process indicators for Auckland’s transition to a Waterways City........................................ 29

Table 2. Package 1: Recommendations for strategic positioning ...................................................... 51

Table 3. Package 2: Recommendations for network capacity and learning ....................................... 53

Table 4. Package 3: Recommendations for enabling structures and tools ......................................... 57


Glossary

Actors Individual people or organisations that have a role in how water is valued, planned, designed, managed, financed or used

City-state Developmental states of a city that represent distinct characteristics of water service delivery functions in response to different socio-political drivers

Drained City The city-state which provides drainage services to protect people and property from flooding, as well as make land available for property development. The Water Supply City and Sewered City are embedded within

Institutions Social structures that provide formal and informal ‘rules’ to determine what actors can do in different situations

Sewered City The city-state which provides sanitation services to protect public health. The Water Supply City is embedded within

Stormwater management practice

The aspirations, policies and on-ground actions associated with managing the quantity and quality of stormwater

Transition / Transformative change

Fundamental shift in the cultures, structures and practices of a system

Vision An imagined, long-term desired future

Waterways City The city-state which provides stormwater pollution and hydraulic impact management services to improve the ecological health of waterways and enhance urban amenity. The Water Supply City, Sewered City and Drained City are embedded within

Water Cycle City The city-state which provides integrated water management services, ensuring that supplies from diverse sources such as stormwater, greywater and recycled wastewater are put to their most appropriate use. The Water Supply City, Sewered City, Drained City and Waterways City are embedded within

Water Sensitive City The city-state which provides holistic water planning and management of the integrated water cycle and emphasises adaptive, multi-functional infrastructure and urban design in its service delivery solutions. The Water Supply City, Sewered City, Drained City, Waterways City and Water Cycle are embedded within

Water Sensitive Design An approach for urban, land use and water infrastructure design that provides an environmentally sensitive response to the local water context

Water Supply City The city-state which provides water supply services to support people’s sustenance and shelter, as well as for productive purposes.

Water system The natural and capital infrastructure, institutional structures and processes, and the actors that use or influence the planning and management of all parts of the water cycle.


1 Introduction

1.1 Why benchmark stormwater management practice?


amalgamation of regional and district councils to establish Auckland Council as a unitary authority

marked a significant change in the institutional arrangements for stormwater, requiring new

accountabilities, policies, procedures and guidelines. The Auckland Plan now presents the region’s

long-term strategic direction.

It is timely to consider how stormwater management practice can contribute to the articulated

vision of Auckland as the world’s most liveable city. This project was commissioned by Auckland

Council’s Stormwater Unit to inform the development of the 2015-45 Stormwater Asset

Management Plan and other stormwater management activities of Auckland Council. Phase 1 of the

project involved a city-wide benchmarking assessment of stormwater management in Auckland

against scientifically accepted world’s best practice for sustainable water management. Phase 2

involved identifying key challenges and opportunities for improving stormwater management in the

Auckland context.

This report by the Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities (CRC) presents an

assessment of stormwater management practice in Auckland, benchmarking the region’s current

aspiration, policy and on-ground action using the Urban Water Management Transitions Framework

(Brown et al., 2009). The report analyses the transition towards Auckland’s aspired city-state and

identifies key challenges. The report then proposes a strategy and suite of recommendations for

advancing Auckland’s stormwater management towards a Water Sensitive City and the world’s most

liveable city.

1.2 CRC for Water Sensitive Cities

The CRC 2 is a collaboration between more than 70 research, industry and government partners from

Australia and abroad. It brings together interdisciplinary research expertise and industry leaders to

undertake research that will revolutionise water management in Australia and overseas. Established

in 2013, the CRC has a research budget of over AUD$100 million over nine years to deliver the socio-

technical urban water management solutions, education and training programs, and industry

engagement required to make towns and cities water sensitive.

This report’s authors are researchers with the Society Program of the CRC, which focuses on

understanding and delivering the social and institutional transformations needed to support Water

Sensitive Cities, including community attitude and behavioural change, governance & economic

assessment practices, management systems and technological innovation.

2 http://watersensitivecities.org.au/

Comment [CIR25]: What are the limitations of benchmarking Auckland’s stormwater management? We understand that the client engaged the CRC to carry out this benchmarking exercise but would expect a comment on the limitations to be included.

Comment [CIR26]: What are the references to back up this statement?

Comment [CIR27]: Given that very few cities which have been benchmarked against this Framework have progressed far beyond the mid-range of the scale, we would expect the potential limitations of benchmarking against the Framework rather than directly against other comparable cities to be identified.

Comment [CIR28]: Auckland’s aspiration is assessed as being a ‘Waterways City’ rather than a ‘Water Sensitive City’ (p.4).


2 Water Sensitive Cities

2.1 What is a Water Sensitive City?

Water management in 21st century cities has become increasingly challenging. The need to cater for

population growth in the context of climate change projections, resource constraints and evolving

community expectations requires cities to look to more innovative responses in order to ensure

continued liveability and resilience.

The concept of a Water Sensitive City has emerged as a guiding vision for cities seeking to address

these various challenges in a way that delivers a liveable and resilient city. A Water Sensitive City is

based on holistic management of the integrated water cycle and emphasises flexibility, diversity and

adaptability in its solutions. Following this approach, the urban hydrological cycle is managed in a

way that protects and enhances the health of receiving waterways, mitigates flood risk and creates

public spaces that harvest, clean and recycle water. Importantly, a Water Sensitive City uses water

management as a means of delivering better liveability outcomes more broadly, and recognises that

a water sensitive approach to urban development and regeneration processes can help deliver on a

range of objectives critical to the liveability of a city, such as biodiversity, public green space, healthy

waterways, connected communities, and cultural significance. Ultimately, a water sensitive

approach is underpinned by a recognition that water can contribute to the creation of connected,

vibrant and liveable communities.

2.2 Stormwater and the Water Sensitive City

Stormwater management is a critical part of the transition towards water sensitivity and liveability

more generally. Historically, stormwater was regarded as a nuisance. In response, traditional

drainage systems were established to swiftly channel stormwater away from cities and into receiving

waterways in order to mitigate flood risk. However, it is increasingly recognised that that this

approach creates a range of environmental vulnerabilities and, in particular, has severely degraded

the health of urban waterways waterways and disconnected communities from their amenity and

recreational opportunities.

In a Water Sensitive City approach, stormwater is instead regarded as a resource that can be

managed not simply to mitigate flood risk but to help deliver a range of desirable outcomes. In

particular, water sensitive planning and design can help improve the health of urban waterways

while simultaneously creating green corridors throughout the city, providing recreation spaces and

improving amenity for the community. Stormwater capture in this way also presents a potential

alternative water resource that can be harnessed in times of short supply or to avoid potentially

costly infrastructure investment. Ultimately, a Water Sensitive City is a liveable city, and good

stormwater management is critical to ensuring growth unfolds in a way that maintains and enhances

a city’s liveability.

Comment [CIR29]: We agree, a water sensitive approach can contribute to the creation of connected, vibrant and liveable communities.

Comment [CIR30]: We understand this aspect to be one of the main precepts for the development of the Twin Streams project, and the regionalisation of the Twin Stream project post amalgamation, which brought to bear the regional Sustainable Catchments programme. The regionalisation of the Twin Streams project incorporates water sensitive planning and design, green infrastructure, place-making, environmental enhancement and sustainable outcomes coupled with community engagement and learning opportunities to elevate community awareness.

Comment [CIR31]: Duplicating networks is not always the most energy efficient solution. The relatively low cost of the current water supply and the relative abundance of water makes it hard to cost stormwater use lower in the urban, reticulated system so that it is economically viable. This may change in the future if water becomes more scarce. Duplication of infrastructure should not be encouraged if it is not sustainable.

Comment [CIR32]: A Water Sensitive City is not necessarily a liveable city as water sensitivity is only one of many factors that make a city liveable. There are competing pressures for investment.

Comment [CIR33]: This is one of a number of factors that ensures growth unfolds in a way that maintains and enhances a city’s liveability.


In response to these environmental vulnerabilities and liveability opportunities, cities globally are

applying new concepts in stormwater management practice. While different parts of the world have

adopted their own vocabulary, technologies and design guidelines (e.g. WSD, WSUD, LID, LIUDD,

SUDS)3, in common is a recognition that an interdisciplinary and integrated approach is needed if the

wide-ranging objectives of stormwater management are to be met4.

2.3 Urban Water Management Transitions Framework

The Urban Water Management Transitions Framework (Brown et al., 2009) is a benchmarking tool

used to understand a city’s present approach to water management and define its short and long-

term goals in relation to water servicing (Figure 1). The framework identifies six distinct city ‘states’

that cities move through on their path toward more sustainable water management. Importantly,

linear movement through each state is unnecessary, and it may be possible for cities to ‘leap-frog’

from one state to another, thereby expediting the realisation of more sustainable water

infrastructure. Further, a city’s water management approach may not necessarily be located entirely

in one state. That is, the city may manage different parts of its water cycle in different states (i.e.

wastewater is managed following a Sewered City approach, but stormwater is managed in

accordance with the Waterways City). Taken together, the states form an embedded continuum that

represents the growing liveability, sustainability and resilience of a city’s urban water management

approach.

3 WSD = Water Sensitive Design; WSUD = Water Sensitive Urban Design; SUDS = Sustainable Urban Drainage

Systems LID = Low Impact Design; LIUDD = Low Impact Urban Design and Development; WSUD = Water Sensitive Urban Design; SUDS = Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems 4 See, for example: Auckland Council (2013) Guideline Document 2013/004: Water Sensitive Design for

Stormwater; Water Environment Federation and American Society of Civil Engineers/Environmental & Water Resources Institute (2012) Design of Urban Stormwater Controls; Construction Industry Research and Information Association (2007) CIRIA C697 The SuDS Manual; Engineers Australia (2006) Australian Runoff Quality: A Guide to Water Sensitive Urban Design.

Comment [CIR34]: The criteria used to determine a city’s status and what is required to progress through each phase are unclear.


Figure 1. Liveability and the Urban Water Management Transitions Framework5

The first three city states (the Water Supply City, Sewered City and Drained City) represent the

historic developments in the delivery of water services in industrialised cities in response to evolving

socio-political drivers of water supply access and security, public health protection and flood

protection. The Water Supply City represents the most basic state of modern water management,

and provides water supply services, which can be used to support people’s sustenance and shelter,

as well as for productive purposes. The Sewered City builds on the previous state and is driven by a

desire for better public health and hygiene. It provides sanitation services, which can improve public

health and, as a result, enable people to be more productive. The Drained City provides drainage

services, which can protect people and property from flooding, as well as make land available for

property development.

Perth Perth’s water system is operating under a traditional regime of large-scale centralised infrastructure supply, sewerage and drainage infrastructure. There are policy steps towards stormwater quality management but stormwater actions to improve waterway health are yet to be mainstreamed. Under chronic drought conditions, there are aspirations to manage the water cycle in an integrated way.

Rotterdam Rotterdam, in the Netherlands where more than 60% of the land is below sea level, is acutely aware of historic and future water management challenges. It aspires to integrating water management with urban planning and design to deliver a Water Sensitive City and formal policies for water cycle management are being developed. However, on-ground action remains largely in the Drained City.

5 Adapted from Brown et al. (2009)

Policy

Action Aspiration

Water Supply

City

Sewered

City

Waterways

City

Drained

City

Water Cycle

City

Water

Sensitive City

Water Supply

City

Sewered

City

Waterways

City

Drained

City

Water Cycle

City

Water

Sensitive City

Policy

Action Aspiration

Comment [CIR35]: Both Perth and Rotterdam have significant water challenges in comparison to Auckland.


Globally, industrialised cities in these first three states tend to have similar characteristics, since they

have typically addressed the evolving socio-political drivers through large-scale centralised

infrastructure. Until recently, this approach has served the needs of cities relatively well. However,

there is now broad acknowledgement that the way water servicing is planned, designed and

managed must move beyond the traditional approach so that the community’s urban water needs

can continue to be met, despite uncertain future conditions. Cities are therefore starting to explore

the question of how a liveable, sustainable and resilient city can be supported by its water system.

The last three states mark a significant shift beyond mere existence needs, toward more

sophisticated goals of greater water self-sufficiency and improved liveability. The Waterways City

provides stormwater pollution and hydraulic impact management services, which can improve the

ecological health of waterways, make them attractive for recreation and related business

opportunities, connect communities with their waterways, increase a sense of place, and enhance

cultural values associated with healthy waterways. The Water Cycle City provides integrated water

management services, ensuring that supplies from diverse sources such as stormwater, greywater

and recycled wastewater are put to their most appropriate use. The Water Sensitive City provides

urban design services, which can improve the city’s amenity, including aesthetic appeal and thermal

comfort, which in turn increases its attractiveness for a range of investments.

Many cities are taking significant steps to advance practice towards a Water Sensitive City, although

a fully developed example is yet to be realised. The socio-political drivers and service responses for

the last three states can become increasingly complex and context-dependent, as the institutional

and infrastructural features that deliver water sensitive outcomes will vary with the local conditions.

Leading cities are currently going through a process of understanding and defining the performance

indicators that would represent a Water Sensitive City for their context to guide practice in this

direction.

Melbourne Melbourne aspires to a Water Sensitive City and is implementing a new policy designed to drive generational reform in how the urban water cycle is managed, prioritising harvested stormwater and recycled wastewater over traditional supply sources. Protection of downstream waterways through water sensitive stormwater management is mandated for new developments and formal incentives are in place to encourage this practice.

Policy

Action Aspiration

Water Supply

City

Sewered

City

Waterways

City

Drained

City

Water Cycle

City

Water

Sensitive City

Comment [CIR36]: Note that for ‘Water Cycle City’, the socio-political driver is stated as ‘Limits on natural resources’. As the prominent resource focused on here is water, this is a weak driver for a location such as Auckland where water is, on the whole, viewed as being abundant. Is this the appropriate tool for benchmarking Auckland?

Comment [CIR37]: Does this imply that Auckland must reuse stormwater and wastewater to achieve ‘Water Cycle City’ status? In Auckland, the economics do not currently support such schemes in the urban, reticulated system, although this could change over time. For example, the third pipe system at Stonefields has been found to be economically unviable.

Comment [CIR38]: No city has achieved the goal of becoming a ‘Water Sensitive City’. Given that very few cities which have been benchmarked against this Framework have progressed far beyond the mid-range of the scale, we would question how helpful it is as a tool to help Council prioritise water sensitivity with all the competing pressures for funding.


Singapore Singapore has overcome severe water security and flood management challenges through developing an integrated water system that includes reclaimed wastewater and stormwater from its local catchments. Its Active, Beautiful and Clean (ABC) Waters Program is a formal policy for delivering green, liveable and healthy landscapes and waterways so that Singapore can realise its vision of becoming the world’s first Water Sensitive City.

The Urban Water Management Transitions Framework (Figure 1) has been employed by UNESCO-

IHE, the Asian Development Bank, UN-HABITAT and the CRC to benchmark water management in

cities globally. UNESCO-IHE’s SWITCH City Water Summit adopted the framework as a tool to

benchmark over 27 cities in both developed and developing countries on the basis of their existing

water supply, sanitation, and drainage services. The assessment produced two clear clusters of cities

along the transition continuum (Figure 2); cities in developing countries were aggregated at the

Water Supply City end of the scale, and those in developed countries clustered between the Drained

City and Waterways City states.

In any city, the ease of moving toward the Water Sensitive City state is determined by the city’s

history, ecology and geography, as well as by the existing technologies and institutional

(governmental and organisational) structures that govern water management. The question of how

to transition towards greater water sensitivity is one many cities are currently grappling with, and

has been the subject of extensive research. The results of the UNESCO assessment suggest that the

transition from the Drained City to the Waterways City is particularly challenging, as discussed in

more detail in Section 2.4.

Policy

ActionAspiration

Water Supply

City

Sewered

City

Waterways

City

Drained

City

Water Cycle

City

Water

Sensitive City

Comment [CIR39]: Does this support the use of the Urban Water Management Transitions Framework as an appropriate tool for benchmarking Auckland’s stormwater management practice?


Figure 2. Benchmarking results from UNESCO-IHE’s SWITCH City Water Summit6

2.4 Dynamics in the transition to Water Sensitive Cities

As the UNESCO assessment revealed, most developed cities are clustered between the Drained and

Waterways City, highlighting that transitioning further along the continuum is a challenge faced by

urban water sectors around the world. The transition from a Drained to a Waterways City is

particularly challenging as it requires a fundamental reorientation of existing infrastructures,

institutions and approaches to water management. As Figure 3 demonstrates, the water servicing

needs of the first three city states have traditionally been met through large scale, centralised

infrastructure typically provided by city engineers. However, the more complex and inter-related

needs of the last three city states requires a shift to an interdisciplinary approach to provide more

flexible and integrated infrastructures and institutions at both centralised and decentralised scales.

6 Jefferies and Duffy (2009)


Figure 3. Challenges for urban water transitions7

The transition from the Drained to a Waterways City is particularly challenging as stormwater

pollution cannot be managed successfully through existing centralised technology, but generally

requires a holistic approach, including at source control and distributed systems in combination with

communal or centralised infrastructure. Given the more complex socio-political drivers and service

delivery functions on the right hand side of the framework, the shift across the halfway point of the

continuum is a significant transition.

Research in this area makes clear that this transition process is challenging because the framework

of existing technologies, institutions and people’s capacities typically create a path dependency that

is hard to overcome. A combination of technological lock-in, institutional inertia and fragmentation

and the challenge of reorienting professional and organisational capacity towards a new approach all

serve as significant barriers to sector-wide transformation. The results of current research into

sector-wide transformation processes indicates that realisation of change on the ground requires

mutually reinforcing change across infrastructures, institutions and practices. Further, the results of

this research make clear that a focus on technical innovation is not enough, and that the social and

institutional dynamics that underpin any city’s transition attempt is key when trying to move

entrenched water management systems into new directions.



Importantly, successful sector-wide transformation requires concerted and ongoing effort.

Transitions research makes clear that there are a number of potential pathways in a transformation

process, as reflected in Figure 4. While the ideal transition trajectory results in stabilisation of a new

practice, there are a number of alternative, less desirable pathways that can unfold. As such,

ensuring a successful transition process requires ongoing commitment, monitoring and investment

to steer change in desirable directions.

Figure 4. Different transition pathways8

In the transition from a Drained City to a Waterways City (or subsequent city states), contemporary

research results show that six distinct phases of change can be observed, reflected in Figure 5. Taken

together, these six phases chart the initial issue emergence through to the eventual embedding of

the new practice as part of a business as usual approach. In the issue emergence phase a particular

problem is identified (i.e. poor waterway health), and in the issue emergence phase, a cause of that

problem is identified (i.e. stormwater pollution). The shared understanding and issue agreement

phase is characterised by a common understanding of, and agreement on, the problem, its causes,

and its repercussions. Solutions are not yet agreed on, but the need for action is acknowledged.

From this point, the knowledge dissemination and policy and practice diffusion phases are marked

by greater agreement on the appropriate solutions among a broad cross-section of stakeholders.

The final transition phase is the embedding of the new practice into mainstream practice. More

detail on each of these phases, and how they relate to Auckland’s stormwater management

approach, is outlined in Section 3.2.

8 Van der Brugge and Rotmans (2007)

Stabilisation

Take-off

Pre-development

System Sustainability

Time

Path-dependant Lock-inAdoption of only ‘efficiency’ innovations

BacklashUnsuccessful adoption of innovations

System BreakdownContinuation of 20th century ‘business as usual’ practice

Sustainability transitions


Figure 5. Key phases in the transition from a Drained City to a Waterways City9

Each phase can be assessed across a typology of five factors: actors, bridges, knowledge, projects

and tools. The term ‘actors’ refers to the individuals and organisations that are involved in or

engaged with the issue. In an ideal or typical transition pathway, the actor network typically grows

over time, as a greater cross-section of stakeholders becomes engaged with refining the new

practice and its implementation process. ‘Bridges’ refers to bridging organisations that facilitate

collaborations across science, policy and industry spheres. In the early phases of a transition,

bridging organisations can help to deepen understandings of the problem, and at later phases can

assist with translating the new practice into action. ‘Knowledge’ refers to the evolving scientific

understanding of the problem and the potential solutions. The term ‘projects’ refers to experiments

or demonstration projects to test the viability of new technologies or approaches, from the

development of scientific prototypes through to demonstration projects that serve as proof of

concept of a new approach. Finally, the term ‘tools’ is used to refer to administrative and practice

tools such as best practice guidelines, legislative and market mechanisms used to help embed the

new practice. An assessment of Auckland’s current stormwater management approach across each

phase of the transition in relation to each of these five factors in contained in Section 3.2.



Over these six phases, narratives about the new practice typically change. A narrative is the

dominant description of a particular practice, and the content of a narrative will typically change

over the course of a transition. For example, in the early phases of a transition (the issue emergence

and definition phases), the dominant narrative may reflect a realisation that stormwater pollution is

causing poor waterway health and by the end of a transition (the embedding new practice phase),

the narrative could be that improved stormwater management helps deliver enhanced liveability

outcomes. Over the course of a transition it is generally possible to observe a narrative in support of

the new practice (advocating narrative), as well as a narrative that challenges the new practice or

believes it is either unnecessary or inappropriate (contesting narrative). Narratives are a useful

indicator of the dominant perception of current practices, and the change in narratives over time

can usefully reveal the stage a city is at in a transition.

2.5 Benchmarking Auckland’s stormwater management practice

The frameworks presented in Sections 2.3 and 2.4 were applied in this project to benchmark

Auckland’s current city-state10 and transition progress towards its aspired state of a Waterways City.

2.5.1 Qualitative assessment

The benchmarking assessment is qualitative to facilitate an integrated and detailed understanding of

Auckland’s stormwater management within its real-world context. Qualitative analysis ensures that

all relevant variables (especially those that may not be immediately apparent) are considered and

enables the integration and synthesis of multiple sources of evidence.

The following four sources of evidence were used in the assessment:

Interview data that includes reflections, self-assessments, observations and perceptions

from a broad range of stakeholder representatives within and outside of Auckland Council

(see Section 2.5.1)

Analysis of current initiatives as included in publicly available policy, organisational,

management and other documentary evidence, as well as other written information made

available as part of this project (see Appendix A for list of documentary evidence)

Stormwater management experience as reported in cities elsewhere internationally, with a

particular focus on cities in Australia, USA, Singapore and the UK

Contemporary social science research theory and empirical evidence on effective strategies

and techniques for enabling successful transition and change processes.

10

Given the inherent contextual nature of what water sensitivity means, it is unlikely there will be a standard set of performance indicators that hold across all cities globally. As a benchmarking tool, the Urban Water Management Transitions Framework has not yet reached the stage of maturity where a suite of indicators and measures for the city-states in different urban contexts has been defined; development of such a suite is a core topic of current research. Nevertheless, the framework’s application as an objective measure of the sustainability of a city’s water management approach is universally accepted in scientific literature and has been widely used in practice as a conceptual benchmarking and comparison tool.

Comment [CIR40]: How is the dominant description determined and validated?

Comment [CIR41]: There is no reference to the potential limitations of the approach adopted or consideration of the potential biases. This is especially important given the timing of this work.

Comment [CIR42]: There is limited documentation of the data collection and analysis processes. How were these sources incorporated in data analysis? What tools and techniques were used? How was the data from each source managed and weighted?

Comment [CIR43]: How was the credibility of the perceptions verified?


2.5.2 Interview data collection

Interviews were conducted with key stakeholder representatives from across Auckland Council,

other government agencies, the private sector and broader stakeholder groups. A number of

different interview formats were adopted as the project progressed through its different phases:

Oral histories of the development of stormwater management practices across Auckland

Benchmarking interviews to assess current stormwater management practice in Auckland

Diagnostic interviews to unpack key issues and opportunities for Auckland’s current context

Group interviews to explore possible strategic leverage points in-depth.

Interviews were conducted with representatives at executive, management and officer levels (where

possible) of the following organisational units.

Auckland Council’s Stormwater Unit (10 interview participants)

Units beyond Stormwater in Auckland Council (11 interview participants)

o Elected Representatives

o Environmental Services

o Engineering and Technical Services

o Stormwater Natural Resources and Special Input – Resource Consents

o Environmental Strategy and Policy

Auckland Council’s Council-Controlled Organisations (7 interview participants)

o Watercare Services Limited

o Auckland Transport

o Waterfront Auckland Development Agency

External organisations (10 interview participants)

o Consultants

o Developers

o Researchers.

We did not have the opportunity to engage directly with the Kaitiakiaki Forum or Local Board

meetings as part of this project and it was decided that interviewing representatives from only a

select few iwi or Local Boards would not suffice. We sought to address this limitation in the first

instance by reviewing available documentation where Local Board, iwi and the general public have

expressed interest and preferences around stormwater management11. Furthermore, we asked

other interviewees about their views on the role of the Local Boards and Iwi, and the perception of

Auckland’s stormwater management that would likely be held by those stakeholders. We

recommend this report is circulated to these groups to seek further feedback on its implementation.

All interviews were conducted on the condition of anonymity and confidentiality. Interviewees were

advised that the content of their discussions would only be made available to the report authors.

11

For example, Auckland Council (2012) Legal Framework for Obligations to Mᾱori and Under Te Tiriti O Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi – Part A; Auckland Council (2012) Legal Framework for Obligations to Mᾱori and Under Te Tiriti O Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi – Part B; Independent Māori Statutory Board (2012) The Māori Plan for Tamaki Makaurau; Whiria Te Muka Tangata: The Mᾱori Responsiveness Framework; Albert-Eden Local Board (2011) Local Board Plan; Auckland Council (2013) Elected Member Handbook: Governance Arrangements for Local Boards

Comment [CIR44]: How was the sample selected? How was the level of stakeholder knowledge, understanding and expertise taken into account?

Comment [CIR45]: How was the data from the range of stakeholders weighted?

Comment [CIR46]: The interview formats varied, including semi-structured and in-depth individual interviews and focus groups. What was the likely impact of using different interview formats and how did this affect the data gathered?

Comment [CIR47]: Was the sample representative? What proportion of the participants were from each level and what were the differences in perceptions at the various levels? How was the credibility of the stakeholders and their perspectives verified?

Comment [CIR48]: Why?

Comment [CIR49]: How was the review of this documentation incorporated in the research?

Comment [CIR50]: How were these perceptions of the participants validated?


Anonymous quotes have been used throughout this report as evidence to represent key

perspectives that were articulated during the interviews. While the quotes provided may not

resonate with all stakeholder representatives, they represent the range of views expressed and have

been sampled from across the full spectrum of interviewees. Quotes have been carefully selected to

ensure the identity of interviewees remains protected.

2.5.3 Data analysis

The research was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 focused on benchmarking Auckland’s

stormwater management aspirations, policy and on-ground actions according to the Urban Water

Management Transitions Framework (Figure 1). ‘Aspirations’ refers to the dominant goal for

stormwater management across the sector as articulated by key actors, ‘policy’ refers to the vision

for stormwater management as contained in policy documents and ‘action’ refers to the mainstream,

everyday and business as usual practice on the ground.

Auckland’s changing practice in stormwater management was then assessed using process indicators

for each phase of change (Figure 5) that have been identified through research on stormwater

transitions. Phase 2 focused on identifying recommendations for advancing stormwater

management in Auckland.

2.5.4 Research validation

Validation processes are critical for ensuring the robustness of qualitative research projects, through

testing the accuracy of the synthesised insights gained from interpretation of multiple sources of

evidence.

The results from Phase 1 (benchmarking) were validated through the dissemination of a draft

summary benchmarking statement to interviewees for comment. Separate workshops with internal

and external stakeholder representatives, and some follow-up interviews, were conducted to

confirm the benchmarking results presented in the summary statement.

The results from Phase 2 (diagnosis of opportunities and challenges) were validated through the

dissemination of the draft report to interviewees and other stakeholder representatives for

comments. A template was provided for participants to document their comments and refinements

as necessary, following their review. Feedback was sought either via Auckland Council project

representatives or directly to the report authors.

3 Stormwater management practice in Auckland

3.1 City-state

Auckland aspires to a Waterways City and is developing policy in this direction; however, the

majority of on-ground action reflects the Drained City.

Auckland’s transition from a drained city began in the 1950s, when waterway health emerged as an

issue. Since then, scientific research on the extent and causes of the problem has led to broad

recognition that stormwater has a major impact on receiving water environments.

Comment [CIR51]: What was the method to determine key perspectives? Is a ‘key’ perspective characterised as the widely held or dominant perspective of the most authoritative source?

Comment [CIR52]: How is the use of quotes representative?

Comment [CIR53]: Was this observed based on documentation or interview feedback? In our opinion this report does not adequately describe on the ground practice.

Comment [CIR54]: How were the recommendations derived? How were the options considered?

Comment [CIR55]: There is limited information regarding the validation process. Who was the report disseminated to? What proportion of the interviewees responded? To what extent were non-interviewees given a chance to check the conclusions? What was the nature of the feedback and how was the feedback incorporated?

Comment [CIR56]: What proportion responded and how was sampling bias avoided including self-selection or non-response bias?


Efforts to advance stormwater management over the last 20 years have focused on establishing

strategic frameworks, guidelines and catchment plans intended to encourage best practice and

intervention. However, there has been limited progress beyond an agreement and understanding

that stormwater quantity and quality both need to be addressed.

“We know what to do, but knowing is not doing”

Figure 6 benchmarks the state of stormwater management aspirations, policies and actions across

Auckland.

Figure 6. Assessment of Auckland’s current aspiration, policy and action

“There are some attempts and aspirations to get to a Water Sensitive City,

but from a practical sense, what is important is still flood protection…the

idea that people are actually connected to water and that we need a

different approach for water (given all the changes we expect in the future)

is not fully realised”

“Everybody wants clean, healthy, productive marine environments but this

is not reality. Addressing the disconnect is actually very, very difficult. It’s

dollars, tough decisions about development, methodologies and things”

3.1.1 Aspiration

The region’s harbours and beaches are highly valued by the community and their preservation is

fundamental to the vision of Auckland as the world’s most liveable city, as articulated in the

Auckland Plan. This suggests there is a strong driver for managing stormwater from a Waterways

City perspective because it is designed to enhance social amenity and environmental protection.

The iwi have a particularly special relationship with water environments, valuing a spiritual

dimension natural ecosystems in the form of a mauri, or life force possessed within. The protection

of mauri is one of the predominant aspirations for contemporary water management, as iwi become

increasingly concerned with the cultural impacts of declining waterway health, as well as the impacts

on aquatic food resources.

Water Supply

City

Sewered

City

Drained

City

Waterways

City

Water Cycle

City

Water Sensitive

City

Policy

Action

Individual

stakeholder

representativesAspiration

Individual

projects

Comment [CIR57]: Is this comment reasonable? We are aware of a lot of actions which have been taken.

Comment [CIR60]: How did the data lead to this assessment?

Comment [CIR58]: Presentationally, using bars rather than circles as used in the other comparative assessments (p.15-17) and the dark shading of the ‘Action’ bar highlights the most negative part of the assessment.

Comment [CIR59]: It could be confusing that the current dominant aspiration is to manage stormwater from a ‘Waterways City’ perspective, yet it is indicated that some of the individual stakeholders aspire to a ‘Water Sensitive City’. How was the bias from these stakeholders addressed as they may have a more negative view of stormwater management in Auckland than other stakeholders?


Interview and documentary evidence shows that current aspirations coalesce around the Waterways

City. The Stormwater Unit Strategic Direction report12 refers to water sensitive communities and the

need to protect the environment and urban amenity through water sensitive stormwater

management.

“Now what we’re saying is that we actually need to focus on the whole, a

more holistic approach to stormwater and in particular, seek to reduce

volumes of stormwater that are running off, seek to provide more onsite

management”

“I think there’s an awareness and engagement of that broad message [of a

waterways city]…and there’s now commitment [to that vision]”

“We’re moving towards what I would describe as much more non-

traditional elegant solutions in terms of treating stormwater”

The language of water sensitivity is becoming increasingly adopted (e.g. in the Proposed Auckland

Unitary Plan13 and GD0414) across Auckland and some individual stakeholder representatives aspire

to a Water Sensitive City in itself. Water cycle management and fit-for-purpose supply are not

identified as an aspiration. Stakeholder representatives outside the stormwater space, including

Council-Controlled Organisations, other water practitioners, urban designers or city planners,

generally do not have explicit or prioritised aspirations for water sensitivity and the connection

between improved stormwater management and delivering liveability outcomes is not widely

perceived.

3.1.2 Policy

The stormwater policy space is currently in development, with the potential to drive Waterways City

related outcomes. The draft Stormwater Unit Strategic Direction Plan that addresses operational

matters within the Stormwater Unit has clear environmental health objectives; however, it also

outlines a hierarchy of priorities in which positive environmental outcomes are pursued when the

opportunity arises, rather than as a mandatory requirement. Finalisation of this draft plan, and

development of implementation plans for enabling change in on-ground action, is yet to be done.

Important steps forward are being made with the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, in which new

stormwater provisions encourage stronger adoption of water sensitive design in new greenfields

development and, where possible, in brownfields redevelopment. Discharge consents are required

for large impervious surface areas that discharge directly to the environment. For new

developments and redevelopment, onsite hydrologic controls are required in Stormwater

Management Area – Flow (SMAF) areas, and for high contaminant generating activities onsite design

effluent standards for zinc and copper must be met. In addition, there are more stringent rules

around development in floodplains and overland flowpaths.

However, these provisions do not cover all forms of development (e.g. there is emphasis on

residential development), and there is a perception that the enforceability of some provisions may

12

Auckland Council (2012) Stormwater Unit Strategic Direction 2012-2015 13

Auckland Council (2013) Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, notified 30 September 2013 14

Auckland Council (2013) Guideline Document 2013/004: Water Sensitive Design for Stormwater

Comment [CIR61]: The emphasis on WSD in the PAUP is more aligned to at source attenuation and treatment and the use of natural systems for stormwater management comparative to previous plans. The draft Auckland Transport Code of Practice incorporates WSD. The Dominion Road project, involving various stakeholders in conjunction with Iwi, delivers on improved public transport and cycling provision aspects of Auckland’s liveability incorporated LID solutions that also provide for improved environmental and amenity outcomes. Watercare is implementing a number of environmental sustainability initiatives that are water sensitive such as Franklin Road, and Point Chevalier Separations and Tidy Up to improve stormwater quality and reduce combined sewer overflow volume and frequency.

Comment [CIR62]: The North West Transformation Area is a significant current example where various stakeholders, led by Council, work collaboratively, and have delivered a 24ha stormwater/open space network incorporating LID solutions (with provision for monitoring of long-term benefits), high amenity areas, place making features and restoration of the riparian corridors, with resulting benefits to stormwater management and liveability outcomes.

Comment [CIR63]: How is this assessment arrived at from the data? This is not our experience when working with a range of stakeholders.

Comment [CIR64]: The previous draft Stormwater Strategic Direction has been revised; to clarify that ‘Waterways’ related work is not only pursued when flood management work is carried out. The draft will be finalised when it is published as Chapter 1 of the Stormwater Asset Management Plan. The Stormwater Unit’s draft Strategic Direction and Strategic Asset Management Plan set out an integrated approach to working with stakeholders to achieve a sustainable and environmentally responsible approach to reduce flood risk and enhance waterways and water quality of receiving environments. However, Council's work programme must be prioritised. The Stormwater Unit must be fiscally prudent and ensure best value for money.

Comment [CIR65]: How is this claim substantiated? The PAUP contains detailed provisions to manage the environmental effects from all types of activities. However, it is acknowledged that the predominant land use in developed urban areas is residential.

Comment [CIR66]: How widely held is this view? Is it backed up by evidence?


be limited. Emphasis is also placed on private land developers, with less attention given to capital

projects of Auckland Council or CCOs. Further, many stakeholders anticipate that these initiatives are

likely to be softened to accommodate the priority of affordable land development, and are therefore

not necessarily perceived as complementary objectives.

The proposed amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management15 (NPS-FW)

also indicates steps towards a Waterways City, and if it can be implemented as envisioned, with

community targets and environmental limits being established to achieve desired outcomes, may

offer strong foundations for advancing water sensitive stormwater practice on the ground. However,

there is a perception amongst interviewees that its introduction will have stronger implications for

rural waterways than urban environments. It is also unclear how it will be implemented for the

Auckland context, or over what timeframe, so more work is required before it can be judged

whether it will be effective policy for driving a Waterways City.

The planned development of Auckland Council’s Water Strategic Action Plan also shows promise in

enabling a Waterways City, if framed broadly enough to integrate the various perspectives required.

However, interviewees were not generally aware of any recent development of this strategy and

some surmised that it had been deferred while work on the NPS-FW is undertaken.

The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 seeks to protect and enhance the Hauraki Gulf, requiring

actions to support its life sustaining ecosystems16. To this end, the Hauraki Gulf Forum has been

established as a statutory body with responsibility for managing the Gulf in an integrated way. The

Act requires the Forum to report on the state of the environment in the Hauraki Gulf every three

years, including on progress that has been made towards its integrated management. A Hauraki Gulf

Marine Spatial Plan (“Sea Change”) is under development until September 2015 in a collaborative

partnership between the Hauraki Gulf Forum, Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council, the

Department of Conservation and Ministry of Primary Industries, as well as community

representatives. These various structures have significant implications for stormwater policy, as they

present legislative requirements for water sensitive catchment management to limit the input of

sediment, nutrients and other contaminants into the Gulf.

The iwi’s kaitiakitanga, or guardianship, value bestows obligations on the Māori to protect the

interests of future generations, which has important implications for stormwater management and

the health of receiving water environments. Under the Resource Management Act, resource

managers must recognise and provide for the Māori relationship to their land and water, with

particular regard to kaitiakitanga. The Treaty of Waitangi requires Auckland Council to partner with

iwi in co-governance arrangements for Auckland’s natural ecosystems, including freshwater, coastal

and marine environments. To support this model of co-governance Auckland Council has proposed a

Māori responsiveness framework17, which incorporates three key objectives, all of which set a

strongly policy agenda for water sensitive stormwater management: effective Māori communication

and engagement; contribution to Māori wellbeing; development of Māori capacity.

15

Ministry for the Environment (2013) Proposed amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011: A discussion document 16

Hauraki Gulf Forum (2009) Governing the Gulf: Giving effect to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act through Policies and Plans 17

Auckland Council (2012) Auckland Plan

Comment [CIR67]: Council enforces its policies, objectives and rules for stormwater management. For example, the Housing Project Office has applied the stormwater provisions in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. The section of Council that deals with regional resource consents alone, issued in the last financial year 66 infringement notices, 45 abatement notices, 18 formal warning letters, and is currently going through 6 prosecutions. Regarding consents being applied for, 104 stormwater consents have been lodged in the last financial year.

Comment [CIR68]: From our experience, the same standards have been applied for the capital projects of Auckland Council and other CCOs, although the consenting process is different. Capital projects of Auckland Council or CCOs have to adhere to the Auckland Council Code of Practice for Land Development and Subdivision.

Comment [CIR69]: Council and CCOs need to obtain consents as private developers do. If Council applies for a consent, it will be reviewed by an independent commissioner to ensure all internal applications are being assessed correctly. The Stormwater Unit alone applied, in the last financial year, for around 70 consents, which demonstrates the seriousness Council applies to its plans.

Comment [CIR70]: What proportion of stakeholders and what were their levels of expertise?

Comment [CIR71]: Submissions have been received by the Auckland Council to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, and further submissions are being called for until late July 2014. The Hearings process will ensure that all submissions are given proper consideration. There is no reason to expect that the regulatory process will be either ‘softened’ or ‘maintained’ at this time.

Comment [CIR72]: Is evidence for such a view provided?

Comment [CIR73]: Was this followed up with the relevant Manager?


“This whole concept of water sensitive design, sustainability, greening…it’s

there but it’s not integrated”

“At a high conceptual level we might all say yes, a Water Sensitive City’s

good, but we’re not together on the how”

“Generally we’ve got ideas on how to resolve some of these problems,

there’s just not the mechanisms to do it”

“It’s nice to have water sensitive design but there’s lots of gaps being

created in the process, which are directly related to policies and legislation,

they’re not technical gaps”

“We obviously all will have parts to implement it but who manages the

processes of planning for it and delivering on it”

3.1.3 Action

Drainage services and flood mitigation is the major driver for on-ground stormwater initiatives.

While individual projects have adopted Waterways City principles, for example the La Rosa Gardens

Reserve Daylighting Project and the Long Bay development on the North Shore, Auckland’s

mainstream practice is in the Drained City.

Sediment control through end-of-catchment ponds and proprietary treatment devices, for example,

is a consenting requirement for new land developments. However, integrated catchment solutions

and source controls of stormwater pollution are limited in practice. Treatment requirements are

based on what is achievable with basic technologies, generally, rather than what will deliver good

environmental health outcomes, and contaminants beyond sediment (e.g. heavy metals, nutrients)

are not currently considered under the Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water. The Proposed Auckland

Unitary Plan includes provisions for treatment on site of high contaminant activities, which is a

requirement in the Special Housing Areas. Wastewater overflows to receiving waterways occur in

some parts of the central Auckland, Watercare submitted a network consent and plan to address

overflows over time, including provision of Waterfront and Central Interceptor projects. Each year

up to 10 kilometres of natural streams are piped to enable land development18.

Indicators of stream and harbour health reveal continued degradation and the existing legislative,

institutional and intervention arrangements appear to be insufficient to arrest further deterioration

of the Hauraki Gulf19 and other receiving environments. In the absence of an independent

environmental regulator, it is difficult for Auckland Council to ensure minimum standards of

environmental performance when there are competing pressures. Processes and structures for

environmental protection exist within Auckland Council; however, they are typically poorly

resourced compared with other priority areas, which limits the extent of planning, project,

monitoring and compliance activities that can be undertaken.

18


See, for example, Hauraki Gulf Forum (2011) State of our Gulf: State of the Environment Report 2011

Comment [CIR74]: Our recent experience of public infrastructure projects in the region has not reflected a ‘Drained City’ approach. Certainly flooding issues in the region do need to be addressed, however examples such as the Dominion Road project represent opportunities to find solutions that create good stormwater management and associated outcomes, while also resolving these flooding issues.

Comment [CIR75]: These are good examples of Council seeking to drive change. The La Rosa Gardens project is one of a number of projects that demonstrate an integrated approach that have potential to result in broader community understanding and uptake of water sensitive approaches. We are aware that Council has won awards for such projects since amalgamation. Council’s partnering with local community organisations (e.g. EcoMatters) and investment in research is another example of intentionality to drive change.

Comment [CIR76]: What is the evidence for this statement?

Comment [CIR77]: The draft Stormwater Unit Strategic Direction refers to the Auckland Council’s (2010) State of the Auckland Region report, which describes stream disturbance in the Auckland region. It states that “Between 2000 and 2008, about 80km of streams (an average of 8.9km each year) were subject to a resource consent for stream disturbance” (p.47). The length of stream disturbance is not equal to the length of stream being ‘piped’. Auckland Council (2010) State of the Auckland Region. Auckland: Auckland Council.

Comment [CIR78]: Where is the evidence for this statement? We are aware of improvements. For example, Auckland’s long-term river water quality monitoring programme and marine water quality monitoring programme have seen improvements in water quality classes. See the 2010 and 2011 Marine Water Quality Annual Reports and the 2010 and 2011 River Water Quality Annual Reports.

Comment [CIR79]: Auckland Council is responsible under Section 84 to enforce its own policy statements and plans. Although previous plans did not have provisions for WSD as such, policies, objectives and rules for stormwater management were enforced.

Comment [CIR80]: What is the evidence that processes and structures for environmental protection are typically poorly resourced compared with other priority areas? Council’s work programme must be prioritised. It is important for the Stormwater Unit to be fiscally prudent and ensure that the Council gets the best value for money.


“I think people are getting on-board with the idea and the value, but

implementation is hard”

“A lot of streams are relatively polluted and I think people have just grown

accustomed to putting up with stuff”

“Our methodology actually hasn’t delivered the outcomes that we think we

are delivering”

“We have to get this balance between growth and development, cheap

growth and development, and bigger growth and development, and water

sensitive growth and development… where Auckland actually sits – I don’t

think it’s ever been figured out”

“It’s ‘nice to have’ but not ‘must have’ sort of stuff”

3.2 Transition progress

Auckland’s current stormwater management transition is benchmarked to be at the ‘shared

understanding and issue agreement’ phase.

The lack of alignment between Auckland’s aspiration, policy and action for stormwater management

practice indicates it is in the midst of a transition from a Drained City to a Waterways City, with new

knowledge and expectations developing, but with further progress to be made before water

sensitive stormwater management is embedded as a mainstream practice. Auckland’s journey to its

current position in the ‘shared understanding and issue agreement’ phase can be characterised

according to the changing narratives about stormwater management (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Auckland’s progress from a Drained City to a Waterways City

Mid 1990s

Mid 1980s

Mid 1970s


Issue Definition

Issue Emergence




WATERWAYS CITY

DRAINEDCITY 1950s

2000s


Solution not viable

These new options are too expensive, not necessary & won’t work

Auckland in 2014

We have new stormwater technologies & practices

Comment [CIR81]: This diagram, particularly the labelling, is confusing. There is minimal colour distinction and the label ‘Auckland in 2014’ is the same colour as ‘Drained City’ at the start of the continuum. It could be misinterpreted that Auckland has returned to the 1950s. The criteria determining Auckland’s progression and digression is also unclear.


Progress through each phase is also identified through institutional structuring features that indicate

the processes that have established new policies and practices around stormwater management.

These features (actors, bridges, knowledge, projects and tools) develop over time to achieve each

new phase. Table 1 provides a summary of the typical institutional features observed in cities going

through the transition towards water sensitivity. The phases from ‘issue emergence’ to ‘embedding

new practice’ are listed from bottom to top, reflecting the transition curve in Figure 7. The key

advocating and contesting narratives for each phase are also listed.

The following sections describe each phase of Auckland’s transition to date, with the evolution of

the advocating and contesting narratives, and institutional development across indicators of actors,

bridges, knowledge, projects and tools for advancing water sensitive practices. Table 1 shows which

institutional features are currently present in Auckland’s stormwater management practice.


Table 1. Process indicators currently present as Auckland transitions towards a Waterways City

Dominant Narratives Institutional Features

Advocating Dominant message of waterways city advocates

Contesting Dominant message of waterways city contestants

Actors Key networks of individuals & organisations

Bridges Organisations, structures & processes for coordination & alignment

Knowledge Research, science & contextualised knowledge

Projects Experiments, demonstrations & focus projects

Tools Legislative, policy, regulative & practice tools


Solution delivers prosperity & liveability

Solution is insufficient for meeting a wider set of needs

Multi-agency coalition

Formalised institution

Next research agenda

Standard practice Political mandate Coordinating

authority

Comprehensive regulation


Solution works Solution not viable

Policy & decision coalition

Science-industry-policy-capacity building

Modelling solutions

Numerous field experiments

Legislation & regulation

Capacity building Market offsets

Regulatory models


Responsibility Solution not viable

Informal policy coalition

Science-industry-policy-capacity building

Advanced technological solutions

Major scientific field demonstrations

Best practice guidelines

Targets



Technical solution coalition

Science-industry-policy

Basic technological solutions

Minor scientific field demonstrations

Draft best practice guidelines

Issue Definition Cause Problem & cause contested

Science leaders Science-industry Cause-effect Laboratory & prototypes

N/A

Issue Emergence Problem No problem Issue activists N/A Issue discovery Scientific studies N/A

indicates no presence indicates some presence indicates complete presence

Empty cell indicates initiatives for developing the feature have not yet been implemented

Comment [CIR82]: This table shows that most of the elements of the ‘Shared Understanding and Issue Agreement’ phase have double ticks and there is some progress in ‘Knowledge Dissemination’ phase, yet commentary does not give this impression.


3.2.1 Issue emergence (1970s to 1980s)

Public recognition that the way Auckland managed its water had significant impact on the health of

receiving water environments emerged in the mid-1900s, when people expressed concern over the

impacts on public health from wastewater discharges from schemes such as the Orakei and proposed

Browns Island wastewater treatment plants20.

However, the links between waterway health and stormwater management did not emerge until

scientific studies on the contaminant loads in Auckland’s harbours were undertaken21. A 1976

appraisal of 301 estuaries across New Zealand highlighted contaminant loads in estuaries from urban

and rural discharges; a 1983 study of Upper Waitemata Harbour Catchment Study showed links

between land-use and sediment accumulation; a 1988 study of Manukau and Waitemata Harbours

showed moderate heavy metal pollution in certain sites.

These studies underpinned Auckland’s movement into the ‘issue emergence’ phase of its transition

from the Drained City, prompting activism22 around waterway health issues and driving an agenda for

more detailed studies of the causes and effects of aquatic ecosystem degradation.

Figure 8. Dominant narrative for stormwater management in Auckland (1970s to 1980s)

3.2.2 Issue definition (1980s to 1990s)

Ongoing concern about the effects of urban runoff on waterway health was expressed by individuals

and groups over the 1980s and early 1990s, which encouraged more work to be undertaken to better

understand exactly what the issues were and stormwater’s role. In this ‘issue definition’ phase,

international experts were sought out and invited to bring their knowledge and experience to

Auckland, working with local stormwater practitioners and researchers to develop new insight on the

impacts of urban stormwater on receiving environments and potential solutions.

20

Fitzmaurice, J.R. (2009) History of Auckland Wastewater and Mangere Wastewater Treatment Plant. 3rd

Australasian Engineering Heritage Conference. 21

Descriptions of these studies are found in Streat, J., Bishop, M., Heslop, V. (2009) Re-visiting the past to help shape the future: Auckland Regional Council's stormwater policy. 6

th South Pacific Stormwater Conference 2009.

22 The Manukau Claim was lodged in 1984, which highlighted issues of ecological degradation in Manukau

Harbour (Waitangi Tribunal, 1985. Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Manukau Claim (WAI-8). Waitangi Tribunal Department of Justice. Wellington, New Zealand)

We have a waterway

health problem

It’s not a big problem

Advocating

Narrative

Contesting

Narrative vs


Technical reviews of stormwater management were undertaken from 1988 through the Stormwater

Quality Control Program (SQCP), a collaborative initiative between the Auckland Regional Council (ARC)

and the territorial authorities, designed to understand and respond to stormwater management

challenges across the Auckland region. The Manukau Harbour Action Plan (MHAP, 1987-1990),

another cooperative program between key stakeholders, also produced technical reviews to improve

understanding on contaminant sources, effects and management options23.

This phase also saw establishment of the 1991 Resource Management Act (RMA), which required

regional councils to set out issues, policies, objectives and methods for integrated resource

management within their region. The RMA provided a legislative framework within which stormwater

impacts on the environment could be managed, delegating different responsibilities for land use

control, coastal marine areas and contaminant discharges to regional councils and territorial

authorities.

.

Figure 9. Dominant narrative for stormwater management in Auckland (1980s to 1990s)

3.2.3 Shared understanding and issue agreement (1990s to early 2000s)

In the next phase, ‘shared understanding and issue agreement’, technical coalitions started to

consider what strategic frameworks would be suitable and practical underpinnings for stormwater

management solutions for Auckland. In particular, a stormwater liaison group between the ARC and

the territorial authorities24 was formed to prepare a non-binding 20-year urban stormwater strategy

for the region. This Auckland Regional Stormwater Strategy Statement (ARUSSS), published in 1998,

built on technical reports produced in the issue definition phase to outline recommendations for the

ARC and Auckland’s territorial authorities to address the impacts of stormwater on the urban

environments through their asset, catchment and financial plans.

Alongside the ARUSSS, the Auckland Regional Policy Statement25 (ARPS) was notified in 1996 as a

statutory tool under the RMA. This outlined the key resource management issues for the region and

an overarching planning framework for managing them, which included setting an objective for

maintaining and enhancing the quality of receiving waters. In relation to stormwater management,

the ARPS encouraged territorial authorities to require adoption of the Best Practicable Option (BPO)

for controlling stormwater quality in catchment developments through their district plans. A BPO

23

Streat et al. (2009) 24

Territorial Authorities-Auckland Regional Council Stormwater Liaison Group (TA-ARC SWLG) 25

Operative in 1999

Stormwater causes

waterway health problems

Stormwater is benign

Advocating

Narrative

Contesting

Narrative vs

Comment [CIR83]: It is not clear from the paragraph above that this is the dominant narrative.


approach aimed to account for the discharge characteristics, the sensitivity of the receiving water and

both the treatment technology’s performance and cost26.

Development of the Proposed Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water (PARP: ALW), notified in

200127, also helped to generate shared understanding amongst technical and policy actors on how

stormwater discharges and wastewater overflows can be managed in an integrated way. The PARP:

ALW proposed Integrated Catchment Management Plans as an instrument and required mandatory

adoption of stormwater BPOs in land developments, although the scale of their implementation was

not prescribed.

Figure 10. Dominant narrative for stormwater management in Auckland (1990s to early 2000s)

3.2.4 Knowledge dissemination (2000s)

The previous strategic work established the foundations for ‘knowledge dissemination’ across key

stakeholders in Auckland. In this phase, the ARC took a leading role in promoting water sensitive

stormwater management and building the capacity of the sector for implementing the new practices.

The ARC produced a range of manuals and technical guidance documents, including TP10: Design

Stormwater Guideline for Stormwater Management Devices28, which outlined ARC’s preferred design

approach for stormwater management devices, and TP124: Low Impact Design Manual29, which

presented a low impact approach for managing stormwater in residential land development.

Some individual territory authorities also produced practice notes for guiding implementation, and

projects that trialled a low impact, or water sensitive, approach to stormwater management solutions

were initiated during this phase (e.g. Waitakere Council’s Project Twin Streams and North Shore

Council’s Long Bay development). These projects enabled different stakeholders to come together and

collectively identify some of the opportunities and practical challenges associated with water sensitive

stormwater management.

A 2004 review by Boston Consulting Group30 identified a lack of an overall regional approach with

confusing layers of information and responsibilities to support stormwater decision-making. In

response, the ARC established the Stormwater Action Plan31 (SWAP) in 2004 to provide a more

26

Streat et al. (2009) 27

Fully operative in 2013 28

Auckland Regional Council Technical Publication 10 (originally published in 1992, revised in 2003) 29

Auckland Regional Council Technical Publication 124 (published in 2000) 30

Boston Consulting Group (2004) Auckland Regional Stormwater Project: An action plan to deliver improved stormwater outcomes 31

Auckland Regional Council (2004) Auckland Regional Stormwater Action Plan: A coordinated approach to regional stormwater management and the delivery of improved stormwater quality outcomes

We have new stormwater technologies and practices

Those solutions don’t work and

are not necessary

Advocating

Narrative

Contesting

Narrative vs

Comment [CIR84]: It is not clear from the commentary above that this is the dominant narrative.


coordinated and integrated framework for addressing stormwater management problems. Five work

streams, reflecting the Boston Consulting Group recommendations, were planned for implementation

over 10 years:

1. Provide an effective and agreed framework for stormwater management through integrated

catchment management plans

2. Deploy regional stormwater solutions that include source control, best practice techniques

and environmental understanding

3. Build broader commitment through education and communication programs

4. Ensure organisations have sufficient resources and capacities for delivering stormwater

solutions

5. Secure sufficient funding for stormwater management through developing alternative sources.

A Stormwater Action Team was established and significant funding was invested in delivering the

actions outlined in the SWAP. A 2008 review of SWAP by international experts32 found the program

was having an important and successful role in disseminating knowledge and improving stormwater

practice across Auckland. Nonetheless, many of institutional issues raised by the Boston Consulting

Group, including the development of suitable funding schemes, had not been resolved or

comprehensively addressed by the end of this phase.

.

Figure 11. Dominant narrative for stormwater management in Auckland (2000s)

3.2.5 Back to shared understanding and issue agreement (2010 to 2014)


amalgamation of the Auckland Regional Council and territorial authorities to establish Auckland

Council as a unitary authority marked a significant change in the institutional arrangements for

stormwater, requiring new accountabilities, policies, procedures and guidelines. Functional

responsibilities for different parts of stormwater management (e.g. statutory planning, consent

processing, catchment planning, technical design, capital works, asset management) were devolved

across Auckland Council. Watercare and Auckland Transport also became influential Council-

Controlled Organisations for stormwater and waterway health outcomes.

During the transition period for this major institutional reform, focus has been given to integrating the

diversity of approaches from legacy councils into a unified way forward in all the activities of Auckland

Council. For stormwater management, amalgamation has presented an opportunity to develop a

32

Auckland Regional Council (2008) Review of Stormwater Action Plan: Report of International Expert Panel

We have shared responsibilities for managing stormwater

The stormwater solutions are too

expensive

Advocating

Narrative

Contesting

Narrative vs

Comment [CIR85]: What are the institutional issues that were not resolved?

Comment [CIR86]: What evidence is there of this contesting narrative?


coordinated regional approach for improving practice. However, the different starting points for

stormwater management in each legacy council (for example, philosophy, land use rules, design

standards, asset management systems) means that developing alignment across Auckland is

challenging.

Within this context, the last four years has seen a return to the ‘shared understanding and issue

agreement’ phase, in which Auckland Council’s attention and resources have been internally focused

during this period of consolidation. Individual departments have been establishing new structures and

processes to deliver on their functional roles and responsibilities. To this end, the Stormwater Unit

developed a Strategic Direction statement33 for 2012 to 2015 (draft issued in 2012, final version yet to

be published), which articulates its four priorities in hierarchical order:

1. Asset operation/renewals

2. Growth

3. Flooding

4. Environmental improvement.

A 2012-2032 Stormwater Asset Management Plan34 (AMP) was developed, covering the entire

Auckland Council region, and the next version of the AMP is due to be developed in 2014. Most

recently, previous technical guidance documented in ARC publications was updated and integrated in

the GD04: Water Sensitive Design for Stormwater35, which aims to bring policy planners, stormwater

engineers, landscape architects and other design practitioners working on land development and land-

use planning projects to the same level of understanding through the provision of comprehensive

guidance on water sensitive design.

As well as operating in its own business environment, the Stormwater Unit has actively engaged with

other parts of Auckland Council, supporting the Sustainable Catchments Program as part of the

Environmental Services Unit, and working with the Planning Division to include stormwater provisions

in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

.

Figure 12. Dominant narrative for stormwater management in Auckland (2010-2014)

33


Auckland Council (2012) Stormwater Asset Management Plan 2012-2032 35


We have new stormwater

technologies and practices

Those solutions don’t work, not necessary and too expensive

Advocating

Narrative

Contesting

Narrative vs

Comment [CIR87]: It may be the case that since amalgamation, the Council has needed to work at achieving this shared understanding, but prior to amalgamation the individual authorities were not all aligned with each other. It could be argued that the region is more aligned than it was before the amalgamation.

Comment [CIR88]: We understand that it will remain in draft status until it is published as chapter 1 of the Stormwater Asset Management Plan.

Comment [CIR89]: This is also the aim of the draft Auckland Transport Code of Practice (ATCOP), which provides a set of standards that apply to infrastructure across Auckland including guidelines and recommendations that represent best practice, particularly those related to public transport infrastructure and stormwater outcomes. Throughout ATCOP the themes of integrated planning, sustainability and urban design are endorsed including stormwater outcomes. The Auckland Design Manual is a new initiative by Auckland Council, which provides guidance, best practises for stormwater management for various types of new development.

Comment [CIR90]: The regionalisation of the Twin Streams project since amalgamation brought to bear the regional Sustainable Catchment programme. The regionalisation of the Twin Streams project incorporates water sensitive planning and design, green infrastructure, place-making, environmental enhancement and sustainable outcomes coupled with community engagement and learning opportunities to elevate community awareness. Successes have continued to strengthen with ongoing reinforcement of the collaborative approach between Council, Watercare and Auckland Transport in particular.

Comment [CIR91]: Where is the evidence for the contesting narrative?


3.3 Key challenges

A lack of strategic alignment across key stakeholders is the overarching challenge for further

progress towards a Waterways City. Within this challenge there are specific issues for water

sensitive stormwater management in relation to strategic positioning, network capacity and

learning, and enabling structures and tools.

This section provides a high level summary of the challenges as raised across the interviews. Each key

issue highlighted was an issue that reached saturation, i.e. the majority of interviewees raised this as

an issue, albeit from multiple perspectives.

3.3.1 Auckland’s overarching challenge

Stormwater management is an inherently complex topic, given the diversity of stakeholders involved,

the range of objectives that need to be accommodated and the often fragmented institutional

environment for coordinating planning, policy, implementation and regulatory functions. For Auckland,

this complexity has been intensified, with amalgamation representing a recent major reform to the

institutional roles and responsibilities for stormwater management practice.

The fragmented nature of current stormwater management practice in Auckland is reflected by the

range of perceptions, interpretations and values associated with the benchmark results of this project.

Some stakeholder representatives were frustrated at a perceived lack of progress towards water

sensitivity and felt that further progress is currently vulnerable, with statements made indicating

concern that Auckland Council’s commitment towards water sensitivity has recently weakened. Other

stakeholder representatives felt that the transition towards a Waterways City was inevitable, and that

while progress would be slow, it was only a matter of time before water sensitive stormwater

management became mainstream practice. Still others felt that the benchmarked practice was

redundant against a dominant agenda of growth, with statements made indicating a perception that

water sensitivity would always remain ‘nice to have’, rather than an essential priority.

“We’ve got the people who have the passion to do it but you’d think…it’s not

1991 when the Resource Management Act came in and all this stuff was

news. 2013, 26 years later and not much has changed”

“When you take a step forward you sometimes take half a step back…I mean,

we’re certainly moving in the right direction”

“I think now we’re starting to realise that to make change, we need to

change and we need to look at development and there’s always that

transition period”

“I don’t think we do even near as much as we probably have the potential to

do. I think there’s a lot of talk and I think not as much action”

Comment [CIR92]: Since amalgamation, there has been ongoing reinforcement of the collaborative approach between Council and Watercare and Auckland Transport. Successes have continued to strengthen; over the last few months, steps have been taken toward greater integration and alignment including the Council initiative to introduce ‘clusters’, in particular the Civil Infrastructure Cluster which brings together the responsible people from areas across the Council and its CCOs, and also the Integrated Consents Process.

Comment [CIR93]: How were the limitations associated with group interviews taken into account when gauging the level of agreement on such perspectives?

Comment [CIR94]: The amalgamation of the individual Territorial Local Authorities, which were not all aligned, has reduced fragmentation. We are aware that Auckland Council has received awards for individual projects that reflect a water sensitive approach to stormwater management since amalgamation.

Comment [CIR95]: Perception of how Auckland is progressing with the transition to a ‘Waterways City’ would have been influenced by the starting point of the interviewees. Those coming from the councils that had moved further forward on these issues may well have thought that progress has weakened and vice versa. Given the timing of the study, perceptions would also have been influenced by the restructure within the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Department, which focused on moving functions and responsibilities to the most suitable units, as part of ensuring better integrated management.


In the fragmented context for Auckland’s stormwater management practice, a shared vision and

joined-up strategy is critical for mobilising individual stakeholder priorities, knowledge and resources

towards a common goal. An overarching framework is needed to establish clear assignment of roles

and responsibilities (shared or otherwise) that collectively deliver on the envisioned outcomes.

Our review of documentation from earlier studies and assessments of stormwater management

practice in Auckland36 found that this lack of strategic alignment has been previously observed.

Collectively, these reports suggest that stormwater management in Auckland is underperforming

according to industry and international best practice standards. Many of the shortcomings identified

were systemic in nature and concerned the whole framework for stormwater management in

Auckland. The identified shortcomings highlight the need for targeted, strategic effort to transform

stormwater management in Auckland.

Whilst some of these previous reports assessed the pre-amalgamation context, it remains probable

that if concerted effort is not made to address the identified shortcomings, these limitations will

continue. The lack of a shared vision and joined-up strategy is therefore a fundamental challenge that

needs to be resolved if the aspirations for stormwater management in Auckland are to be realised.

3.3.2 Specific challenges for strategic positioning

Key Issue: Disconnection of narrative from the liveability agenda and broader benefits of

stormwater management

The current narrative, or the way stormwater professionals talk about the outcomes and benefits of

water sensitive stormwater management, is limited in scope. Existing conversation and advocacy

around stormwater management appears to be limited to discussions on technical achievements in

relation to pollution control and (less often) improving the ecological health of waterways. The current

observed narrative does not incorporate ongoing dialogue with reference to the full suite of benefits

that can be realised through a water sensitive approach that manages stormwater as part of a whole

cycle. This may include improving community amenity, reducing reliance on expensive and energy-

intensive water source, mitigating extreme heat, increasing biodiversity, and providing migration

corridors for plants and animals.

Most significantly, these potential outcomes from water sensitive stormwater management align

strongly with Auckland’s desired outcome as the world’s most liveable city, but this dialogue and

connection was not generally observed during the project.

“Need to connect water to liveability”

“Growth alongside water sensitive design is a win-win”

36

Notably the following strategic reviews: Auckland Regional Stormwater Project, The Boston Consulting Group, (May 2004); Review of Stormwater Action Plan: Report of International Expert Panel (April 2008); Gap Analysis of Stormwater Asset Management Practices, AECOM, (August 2012); and Asset Management Framework Review, GHD, (May 2013)

Comment [CIR96]: The North West Transformation Area and the Dominion Road project clearly show that a collaborative and integrated approach is being taken towards stormwater management practice across Council Sectors and its CCOs, including Council taking a ‘leadership by example’ approach, with resulting positive outcomes. Other examples include Hobsonville Point, New Lynn redevelopment, Addison Development in Takanini and Massey Library.

Comment [CIR97]: The findings of previous studies need to be compared with the recent steps that have been taken by the Stormwater Unit to address the identified gaps.

Comment [CIR98]: There is some progress toward this. The Unitary Plan (Part 2: 5.15.1) outlines objectives for stormwater management which includes a chapter that specifies ‘the adoption of water-sensitive design as a core development approach’.


It was strongly suggested across diverse participants that there is a low level of knowledge and

appreciation of water issues by the public, with limited public understanding of the risks to the health

of their highly valued coastal environment if stormwater is not managed ins a water sensitive way.

This disconnect between what the Auckland public know and expect could therefore be very

significant, as there may not be sufficient public motivation and implicit mandate for the leadership of

Auckland Council to prioritise the environment and social amenity opportunities associated with water

sensitive stormwater management practices in infrastructure investment and planning decisions.

“It’s hard to capture people’s imagination about stormwater”

Strengthening the connection between water and the Auckland’s liveability aspirations is critical for

embedding a narrative amongst stakeholders that prioritises water sensitive stormwater management

as a fundamental part of Auckland’s ongoing and future growth.

Key Issue: Lack of strategic vision and plan that is shared across organisational units

Stormwater management is a typically challenging issue for cities, since it involves water practitioners,

policy-makers, environmental regulators, land developers, urban designers, road engineers, landscape

architects, researchers, politicians and community members. It is a particularly complex challenge for

Auckland Council as stormwater management related activities are highly distributed across a range of

internal departments that are responsible for setting policy, planning catchments, designing public

spaces, consenting applications, implementing capital works, maintaining assets and monitoring

compliance. Beyond Auckland Council’s internal departments, as Council-Controlled Organisations,

Watercare is responsible for the region’s water supply and sewerage which interfaces with

stormwater management, and Auckland Transport manages the road network that forms an integral

part of the stormwater system.

While this type of organisational fragmentation is not unique to Auckland, managing stormwater

effectively in this context becomes a significant integration challenge. A recurrent observation

throughout the project was that each of the different organisational units, while having defined goals,

objectives and responsibilities, were often without reference or explicit synergy with other units that

also had stormwater related responsibilities. Interviewees also perceived that there was a lack of

accountability across Auckland Council’s departments and CCOs for operating within a strategically

aligned framework.

Consequently there was widespread recognition of the need for better integration of water

management activities in Auckland, particularly since as a unitary authority, Auckland Council aims to

provide a streamlined approach to service delivery. Therefore, more bridging structures, processes

and resources to support strategic alignment and accountabilities across each of the important actor

groups are needed to ensure consensus around priorities, common commitments and consistent

messages on key water issues.

“There’s no clear agreement on priorities between all the relevant

organisations, so we haven’t made much progress in the last ten or fifteen

years”

The lack of an overarching and shared vision for stormwater management exacerbates the current

integration challenges for formulating a strategy to realise water sensitive stormwater management

Comment [CIR99]: We agree there may be limited understanding regarding the link between the benefits of stormwater and water sensitive stormwater management to Auckland’s liveability; Auckland’s vision to be the world’s most liveable city encompasses many components of life in Auckland. There needs to be a strong political and business case.

Comment [CIR100]: Since amalgamation there has been ongoing reinforcement of the collaborative approach, particularly between the Stormwater Unit and Watercare and Auckland Transport. Successes have continued to strengthen; over the last few months, steps have been taken toward a more integrated management approach including the Council initiative to introduce ‘clusters’, in particular the Civil Infrastructure Cluster, which brings together the responsible people from areas across the Council and its CCOs, and also the Integrated Consents Process. Watercare works particularly closely with the Stormwater Unit in the older central area of Auckland, which is serviced by the combined wastewater/stormwater network.


across Auckland. A shared vision is needed to capture the imagination of, and buy in from, each of

these groups and generate deep understanding of the mutually beneficial outcomes that could be

achieved for Auckland through water sensitive practice.

“There is no shared understanding of what the issue [with stormwater]

actually is, which isn’t recognised at the moment, it’s a big blindspot. We

need the shared vision in order to have a more planned and strategic

approach to stormwater across Auckland”

“We need a common understanding of what we’re trying to achieve”

Integrated catchment planning is an important foundation for translating shared visions into water

sensitive outcomes on the ground, through holistic plans that informing efficient and prioritised

methods for implementing individual projects. There was a concern expressed by many participants

that recent structural changes within Auckland Council’s Infrastructure and Environmental Services

has resulted in a reduced emphasis on holistic catchment planning, preferring a project-by-project

approach in accordance with the priorities articulated in the Stormwater Unit’s draft Strategic

Directions37 report.

The process of developing a water vision for Auckland would also be valuable in itself, since it appears

that key stakeholders need an opportunity to learn together, recognise that everyone is connected

through shared aspirations and concerns, understand each other’s priorities, challenge different

perspectives and appreciate their interdependencies in collectively achieving a shared aspiration.

Vision for Melbourne as a Water Sensitive City38 Planners, policy-makers, engineers, urban designers, landscape architects, community engagement specialists and researchers from across Melbourne’s water sector participated in a series of five collaborative visioning and strategy workshops. The process was designed to envision Melbourne’s desired water future, uncover the underlying challenges and map out strategic transition pathways for realising the vision. Participants highly valued the opportunity to take time out from their daily responsibilities to reflect collectively on Melbourne’s potential as a Water Sensitive City and how it might be delivered. The suite of strategic recommendations produced was welcomed by the sector, which was seeking solutions to the many challenges it faced in developing an integrated and water sensitive management approach.

37


For more information see Ferguson et al. (2012) Melbourne’s Transition to a Water Sensitive City: Recommendations for Strategic Action (downloadable from www.waterforliveability.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Recommendations-Report_FINAL2.pdf)

Comment [CIR101]: Was the project-by-project approach given priority in order to gain ‘quick wins’ and improvement in the interim, while Auckland Council continues to work on developing more holistic catchment planning (note that these projects are generally conceived from current ICMPs)?

Comment [CIR102]: Is this the right time to be looking at perceptions when people need time to adapt to change? Given the timing of the study, perceptions would also have been influenced by the restructure within the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Department, which focused on moving functions and responsibilities to the most suitable places within the Department, as part of ensuring better integrated management. The restructure involved shifting the regional Sustainable Catchments programme from the sole responsibility of the Stormwater Unit, to the responsibility of the Department. This will enable a more direct focus and more resources.


Key Issue: Unclear political and business case for water sensitive stormwater management

The Auckland Plan is not currently leveraged to provide a clear political business case that ties the

stormwater narrative to Auckland’s aspiration to become the world’s most liveable city. In fact, a

recurring perception was articulated that water sensitive management practices conflict with the

urban development goals of the Auckland Plan, despite the plan’s explicit aspirational outcome

statements that go hand-in-hand with water sensitive management: climate change resilience;

equitable society; recreational and sporting opportunities; clean waterways and coastlines;

sustainable water consumption; biodiversity; networks of parks, bush and wetlands; green

technologies; innovation; strong economy; beauty; vibrant urban spaces; stunning coastal areas;

celebrated Māori identity. Two of the transformational shifts identified in Auckland Council’s first

Long Term Plan (2012-2022) also relate to improved stormwater management: ‘strongly commit to

environmental action and green growth’ and ‘radically improve the quality of urban living’.

“We need to figure out what kind of growth we want”

This perceived conflict between urban development and water sensitivity is based on beliefs about the

viability of water sensitive solutions in the context of financial constraints and competing priorities.

Given that the need to accommodate an additional one million people by 2040 is the dominant driver

for current infrastructure planning, it was considered by a number of participants that stormwater

needed to be managed in more traditional ways, with the social amenity and ecological health of the

city considered a lower priority.

“We need a fundamental change in philosophy in how land is developed.

With each new development that doesn’t incorporate water sensitive design

principles, there’s a lost opportunity”

Water sensitive stormwater management was perceived by some people as financially unviable, based

on assumptions about the costs associated with installation and maintenance challenges, land area

and delays to development. Real and perceived costs incurred through water sensitive design can

make it difficult for developers to justify the business case for implementing such an approach.

However, it was also observed that these types of assumptions have not been robustly or

transparently tested in assessing best value, since there is no comprehensive evidence base of the

costs and benefits of different types of water infrastructure for the Auckland context.

“There are a lot of unexplored assumptions about the costs of ‘green’ projects”

“There is not much knowledge on or experience with renewing assets, so we

assume pipe replacement is cheap, but we don’t really know”

“Because we are unclear about what outcomes we are trying to achieve

through stormwater management, we are judged on capital spend, not on

whether the money was well spent”

Assessment of best value requires consideration of the benefits, as well as the costs. According to

contemporary science, the challenge for water sensitive stormwater management is that many of the

Comment [CIR103]: We agree that the business case for some aspects of water sensitive stormwater management is unclear e.g. Stonefields, where the business case might be stronger if water scarcity was an issue.

Comment [CIR104]: Council has to balance competing objectives. If it does not manage within appropriate financial constraints the region’s development will not be sustainable.

Comment [CIR105]: Progress was made regarding the business case for water sensitive stormwater management in the draft GD04. Lewis, M. et al. (2013). Draft Water Sensitive Design for Stormwater. Draft Guideline Document GD2013/04. Auckland: Auckland Council.

Comment [CIR106]: TR2013/043 published by Auckland Council provides cost and benefit assessment for various stormwater devices to meet Unitary Plan requirements. However, an improved understanding of the costs and benefits of a wider range of infrastructure types would be beneficial.


benefits are realised over the medium to long-term and are not currently measured in tangible market

terms. Therefore, while water sensitive stormwater management could be conceived as directly

supporting the aspirations of the Auckland Plan, it is simultaneously difficult to account for its multiple

benefits without a cohesive vision for how water sensitivity directly contributes to liveability,

resilience and sustainability outcomes. This means there is no clear articulation of the value

proposition for water sensitive stormwater management in Auckland, translating the vision into

specific market benefits, such as drainage, and non-market benefits, such as urban amenity, physical

and mental wellbeing, and ecological health.

“There’s no agreement on the value proposition for a more water sensitive

approach to water management, so there’s been no real progress”

“The business case can’t be proved on such singular measures, we need to

find a way of assessing benefits of water sensitive design more holistically

that takes into account all the multiple benefits it can provide”

“It’s hard to value the benefits in a meaningful way”

“There are significant business opportunities in remediating or improving the

environment that haven’t been captured yet”

Robust methodologies for transparent assessment and comparison of costs and benefits of different

servicing options have not been developed. For example, current approaches do not typically consider

the opportunity costs of business-as-usual approaches. The financial benefit that Auckland derives

from tourism, fishing and other environment-related industries is not systematically valued and

included in the costs and benefits assessment of water sensitive approaches.

Similarly, lifecycle costs of water sensitive stormwater infrastructure are potentially much lower than

assumed in current analyses. New technologies and practices typically have higher costs when they

are first introduced. These incubation costs are often subsidised by governments, with return on

investment gained as insights and learning are developed as the innovation matures.

“The cost-benefit analysis hasn’t been put cohesively and strategically yet”

“We need a more objective understanding of what is expensive, what is

affordable, compared to what is available to spend and what outcomes we

are trying to achieve. At the moment, there’s no actual benchmark to assess

this”

Comment [CIR107]: Steps have been taken in the right direction. The Auckland Council's Stormwater Unit Technical Report 2013/043: Auckland Unitary Plan Stormwater Management Provisions: Cost and Benefit Assessment – Appendix has made progress toward this. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is funding a research project that uses the four interests approach (environmental, social, economic and cultural). The Urban Planning that Sustains Waterbodies (UPSW) project is part of a wider multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary collaboration, the ‘Resilient Urban Futures’ research programme, and involves the development of a pilot decision support system (DSS) that allows urban planners and stormwater managers to consider holistically the impacts of urban development on indicators of environmental, social, economic and cultural wellbeing. The current version of the DSS incorporates indicators of environmental, economic and social wellbeing. An aim of its further development is to also incorporate indicators of cultural wellbeing. The DSS links a number of distinct models and other methods in order to make predictions of outcomes under alternative urban development and stormwater management scenarios (Moores et al., 2013). However, we agree that further development of such methodologies would be helpful. Moores et al. (2013). A tool for evaluating stormwater management outcomes across the four wellbeings. Water New Zealand's Eighth South Pacific Stormwater Conference and Expo. May 2013. Auckland.


Some of the costs currently associated with water sensitive design are likely to be directly attributable

to Auckland’s institutional structures and processes that had been established for managing

traditional stormwater drainage systems and do not efficiently accommodate the requirements of

water sensitive stormwater management. For example, the consenting process can take much longer

for applications that have elements that depart from standard drainage practice, making it difficult for

land developers to apply for innovative water sensitive features whilst maintaining their construction

programs. Likewise, it seems that Council maintenance programs are not currently set up to manage

water sensitive infrastructure as part of a whole asset system, since ‘non-engineering assets’, such as

natural waterways and green infrastructure, are not yet robustly valued and accounted for in asset

management planning. The costs associated with their operation and maintenance programs are

therefore not typically managed as efficiently as programs for traditional asset management.

“We need to include natural assets as part of the asset plans”

“Green infrastructures are not given a capital value, so no funding is

allocated for maintenance”

Key Issue: Risk of loss of corporate knowledge

Auckland has been implementing individual water sensitive projects for two decades, leading to

significant technical knowledge and experience across the stormwater industry. These individual

projects are yet to be scaled up, through leveraging the opportunity to learn from both the successes

and failures of on-ground demonstrations in an effort to improve and refine water sensitive

technologies, designs and practices.

“We have had a number of demonstrations over the years, but I’m not sure

what happens to the learnings”

“There hasn’t been any mechanism to bring the learnings together”

An articulated impediment for Auckland Council is that most water sensitive demonstration projects

were established prior to amalgamation (examples include Project Twin Streams and the Long Bay and

Stonefields residential developments). Given the focus on developing a unified approach across the

organisation, there is a strong perception that there has been limited strategic evaluation (i.e. what

did and did not work) of these legacy Council projects with a view to learning and improvement.

Notwithstanding the importance of looking forward with a unified perspective, this lack of explicit and

directed opportunity to revisit previous experience risks the loss of significant organisational memory

and capacity about water sensitive stormwater management, potentially missing the opportunity to

learn from previous achievements and mistakes to advance practice.

“We need to recognise and celebrate the progress we have made”

“[With amalgamation] we have left behind the learnings”

Comment [CIR108]: Auckland Council has recently established an integrated consenting process across Council and CCOs.

Comment [CIR109]: The regionalisation of the Twin Streams project has occurred since the amalgamation and has brought to bear the regional Sustainable Catchment programme.


Key Issue: Lack of consensus on stormwater related issues and solutions

Understanding of stormwater related issues and solutions for Auckland’s specific context does not

appear to be comprehensively underpinned by the latest international and local science on the

technical, environmental, social, institutional and economic dimensions of Water Sensitive Cities. For

example, there remain some unknowns around the sources and impacts of a broad range of

contaminants (including nutrients, sediments, heavy metals, pathogens and pharmaceuticals), the

links between the effectiveness of stormwater management interventions and environmental

outcomes, and the costs, benefits and willingness-to-pay for water sensitive infrastructures in

Auckland. Widespread monitoring and reporting of local conditions, such as the state of Auckland’s

receiving environmental health, field-based performance of stormwater treatment systems, and

community perceptions of water sensitive approaches could also be strengthened.

“Even after all these years, the understanding of the sources of contaminants

[in the harbour] is still not sufficiently well developed”

3.3.3 Specific challenges for network capacity and learning

Key Issue: Overly narrow professional network

Auckland currently has a strong technical solution coalition for water sensitivity, demonstrated by the

well-attended stormwater industry conferences and seminars that bring together stormwater and

design practitioners. Stormwater champions have been operating in this technical space for over 20

years and have successfully contributed to advancing the knowledge of water sensitive stormwater

management. This is evidenced by the introduction of design guidelines, the implementation of pilot

projects and the inclusion of water sensitive stormwater provisions in the Proposed Auckland Unitary

Plan.

While these have been important steps for advancing stormwater practice to date, the current

stakeholder network does not yet include a broader coalition of actors working across multiple

domains and sectors, which means mutually reinforcing shifts in different areas of practice are difficult.

Actors at the executive and management level in the policy and decision-making space are not yet

identified as being part of Auckland’s extended stormwater practitioner network. There does not

appear to be significant community involvement in water sensitive management as standard practice,

which is also important for mobilising political support and leverage for water sensitive stormwater

initiatives.

The technical capacity for water sensitive planning and design in Auckland was highlighted as being

adequate, supported by strong university education programs. However, interviewees consider the

sector’s knowledge, skills and experiences to be currently disjointed, with a perception that individuals

operate in relative isolation to improve stormwater management practice within their own sphere of

influence. Further, knowledge about water sensitive practice is largely held by people directly involved

in the stormwater industry, with limited dissemination or engagement with other actors that have

broader or other priorities, but remain important to deliver desired stormwater outcomes.

Auckland Council is well-positioned to lead, resource and implement a capacity building program for

developing the sector-wide, and nation-wide, knowledge, skills and experience to advance water

Comment [CIR110]: Wai Care is an Auckland Council run community waterway education, monitoring and action programme which works across the Auckland region.

Comment [CIR111]: The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) do this. But, we agree that more monitoring and reporting would be helpful.

Comment [CIR112]: Progress to date includes the establishment of clusters, including the Civil Infrastructure Cluster, which brings together the responsible people from areas across the Council and its CCOs, and also the Integrated Consents Process. Progress to date also includes education and community programmes. In particular, the regionalisation of the Waitakere City Council’s Project Twin Streams. Since amalgamation, the Auckland Council took the successes of the Twin Streams project and rolled it out through the regional Sustainable Catchments programme, which incorporates water sensitive planning and design, green infrastructure, place-making, environmental enhancement and sustainable outcomes coupled with community engagement and learning opportunities to elevate community awareness.

Comment [CIR113]: There is scope to build on and improve this within the Civil Infrastructure Cluster.


sensitive stormwater management practice. Recent work to develop a stormwater education plan,

commissioned by Auckland Council’s Stormwater Unit39, provides a framework for the development of

such a program for the Auckland context; however, its implementation has not yet been realised.

Advancing water sensitive stormwater practice is likely to be difficult without a capacity building

program dedicated to developing, coordinating and disseminating the latest technical and scientific

knowledge, insights for policy development and practical lessons for implementing water sensitive

solutions in challenging contexts.

Water by Design40, South East Queensland South East Queensland has developed Water by Design, a comprehensive and well-resourced capacity building program for water sensitive design, as an integral element of the region’s Healthy Waterways Strategy. Its scope is both broad and deep, aiming to develop, coordinate and disseminate the knowledge, skills and tools needed for advancing Water Sensitive Cities. The program adopts a diversity of engagement modes, including seminars, training courses, site visits to demonstration projects, study tours, guidance manuals, case study materials and participatory workshops.

Key Issue: Lack of multi-sectoral champions and political leadership

“The key is leadership and structure”

“We need clarity on leadership and [organisational] accountability”

Driving water sensitive approaches typically requires strong leadership and commitment from the

management and political levels of an organisation to endorse and empower teams responsible for

the operational delivery of stormwater management. An absence of executive leadership would make

it challenging for Auckland Council to work through the barriers and uncertainties that come with

implementing a new water management practice. This reinforces the need to build the political case

for water sensitive cities to ensure executive teams have the mandate to provide this leadership.

There is an assumption that someone is addressing the move towards Water

Sensitive Cities – but no one is, there’s no umbrella organisation taking

ownership, so it’s just not happening”

39

Regional Stormwater Education Implementation Plan: Fostering a Water Sensitive Auckland, August 2013 40

http://waterbydesign.com.au/

Comment [CIR114]: Council is partnering with local community organisations, investing in research and pursuing pilot projects, taking a ‘leadership by example’ approach with resulting positive outcomes. The Waterfront development, Hobsonville Point, Dominion Road project and the North West Transformation Area provide examples where Council is providing both leadership in this area and proactively working to support knowledge creation on water sensitive approaches and to disseminate this learning to the community. However, there needs to be a clear political and business case and Council needs to decide if pursuing such a strategy is the most cost effective.


There are a lack of initiatives dedicated to fostering, empowering and coordinating Water Sensitive

City champions across executive, management and project levels of the many organisations involved

in stormwater. For these committed and innovative champions to maximise their opportunities for

bringing a water sensitive perspective to relevant decision-making and management processes, they

need to work within an organisation that provides enabling platforms for them to communicate with

their network and share knowledge widely and whose culture is supportive of their activities.

“We have no champion to push water sensitivity to the next level”

Key Issue: Lack of knowledge and trust in water sensitive technologies

The development and implementation of a new approach such as water sensitive stormwater

management within Auckland’s established system requires time for new technologies and associated

practices to mature through learning and demonstration. Since water sensitive planning and design

challenges the provision of traditional drainage priorities, it is not surprising that the technical

knowledge, implementation capacity and institutional structures need to evolve.

Auckland Council lacks a dedicated learning and demonstration program, underpinned by secure long-

term funding. Such a program would identify key knowledge and capacity gaps and prioritise projects

that address these deficiencies. Without a framework for mapping deliberate steps to build

knowledge and trust in the new water sensitive approach, embedded in an organisational culture that

is willing to learn from both successes and failures, accepting of legitimate risks and mistakes, and

encouraging of experimentation, scaling up water sensitive practice to become mainstream will be

challenging.

“We need to leverage learnings from these demonstration sites”

Cities currently in the process of mainstreaming water sensitive practice have had leading

organisations (such as government-owned water utilities and development agencies) take a critical

step in underwriting a large-scale demonstration project, accepting economic, performance and

maintenance risks in order to locally test the Water Sensitive City concept. Waterfront Auckland’s

popular and acclaimed revitalisation of the inner city waterfront exemplifies what can be achieved

through government leadership and innovation. Landmark demonstrations of water sensitive

precincts are needed in Auckland to provide a showcase for technical and institutional learning,

evidence building and interdisciplinary and inter-organisational collaboration.

Comment [CIR115]: The Auckland Design Manual is a new initiative by Auckland Council, which provides guidance, best practises for stormwater management for various types of new development. This would be a good platform to expand and introduce water sensitive technologies.

Comment [CIR116]: We agree. There is enough water sensitive stormwater management infrastructure installed in Auckland to be able to start getting feedback from those managing it.


Lynbrook Estate, Melbourne The development of Lynbrook Estate as a large-scale demonstration project was a critical turning point in Melbourne’s transition to water sensitive urban design. Through scientific monitoring and practical experience, the demonstration site proved to developers and local government authorities that the new innovative technologies could achieve both stormwater quality treatment outcomes and perform adequate drainage functionality, as well providing significant urban amenity to the area. The project also enabled better understanding of design and construction issues associated with these (at the time) new technologies, which was important for refining the technical knowledge and practical guidance available to support stormwater professionals.

Large-scale demonstrations with an explicit learning agenda would provide a basis for exploring the

current assumptions made by Water Sensitive City opponents and advocates, as well providing the

evidence needed for assessing infrastructure options according to best value for the community. They

would also provide a means for active engagement with communities to build their awareness and

capacity about the impacts of traditional stormwater management and the potential of water

sensitive alternatives.

“We’re not so good on the monitoring”

“There is no monitoring of outcomes. We have no clear idea why we are

doing certain projects, and what we hope to get out of them (i.e. A for

financial benefit, B for environmental benefit)”

3.3.4 Specific challenges for enabling structures and tools

Key Issue: Structural separation and lack of clear and joined-up total water cycle management roles

The highly fragmented institutional arrangements for Auckland’s water sector makes it challenging for

integrated management of the different aspects stormwater, including policy, catchment planning,

urban design, consents, capital investment, asset management and monitoring. In particular, the

separation of water responsibilities between Watercare and Auckland Council’s internal departments

brings clear challenges for moving towards a water sensitive approach.

There currently lacks an accountability framework that optimises a total water cycle management

approach for ensuring water resource security, providing adequate supply, sewerage and drainage

services, and importantly, protecting the health of receiving waterways. In other cities with similar

arrangements it has been suggested that this context can led to singular objectives being prioritised,

since without shared key performance indicators and frameworks for explicitly considering the

potential synergies and trade-offs of every water decision, it is difficult to achieve integrated or total

water cycle outcomes.

Comment [CIR117]: Council has pursued a number of opportunities to invest in knowledge creation and community engagement/dissemination. The North West Transformation Area is one of Auckland’s most significant regional growth projects led by Council to support and facilitate future land development that achieves positive ‘live, work and play’ opportunities, and contributes positively to the region’s liveability aspirations. The Council, in delivering this project, has incorporated LID, setting the standard for future private development, and incorporating provision for ongoing monitoring that would contribute to ongoing learning and knowledge development regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of these solutions.

Comment [CIR118]: Progress has been made with the new Integrated Consenting Process.

Comment [CIR119]: Some of our project experience would support this view. It may be that the agreed review of the Three Waters Strategy provides the opportunity to improve this.


Closing the organisational water cycle, Singapore Singapore’s Public Utility Board41 (PUB) is responsible for all parts of the country’s water cycle. Its overall mission is to ensure an efficient, adequate and sustainable supply of water and it has five strategic thrusts: 1. Water for All (robustness, reliability and sustainability of supplies) 2. Conserve, Value, Enjoy (managing water for its values) 3. Competence (ensuring technical and innovation capability) 4. Connections (with customers, communities, scientists, other countries) 5. Creating Value (rather than cost-cutting for the short-term) The PUB’s organisational structure is designed to enable all its goals to be delivered, with focus on shared priorities and joined-up outcomes.

A lack of integrated structures for water management can also mean there are inefficiencies in how

the costs and benefits across a whole water system are accounted for and distributed. For example,

investment in capital works and the ongoing operations and maintenance of infrastructure can be

more efficiently managed through consolidated financial models that allow for the income generating

water services (e.g. water supply, sewerage) to offset other aspects of service delivery (e.g.

environmental protection, drainage). A fragmented organising arrangement also makes it difficult for

water service customers to navigate the interfaces with multiple organisations responsible for water

management.

There needs to be more integrating structures and activities to improve strategic alignment across the

region, as well as a strong commitment to investing in the transaction costs that inevitably come with

working collaboratively across multiple business units. Interviewees across all stakeholder groups felt

that the recently revised structure of Auckland Council’s Stormwater Unit may not align well with a

Water Sensitive Cities approach to stormwater management, and have concerns that achieving a

coordinated and collaborative approach may be difficult to achieve under this structure.

The current development of the Environmental Strategic Action Plan and the recent establishment of

the City Centre Integration Group are promising examples of initiatives that aim to support bridging

across Auckland Council departments and other organisations. However, there is a lack of mutual

accountability frameworks, shared performance indicators and peer learning networks (e.g. between

executive, management and project staff). Asset management plans are currently developed within

individual business units, limiting the potential to account for and manage the multiple and integrated

values of assets. Place-based developments, such as the Special Housing Areas and the Waterfront

redevelopment, require the integration of different perspectives to deliver on a shared vision and

should be pursued as opportunities for leveraging the momentum, connections and knowledge to

support cohesive processes for infrastructure development.

“There hasn’t been meaningful discussion or debate with all the relevant

parties to identify the possible solutions or options to meet everyone’s various

needs…the issue is who leads that kind of collective conversation”

41

http://www.pub.gov.sg/

Comment [CIR120]: This does not reflect the local context where it has been agreed not to cross-subsidise.

Comment [CIR121]: This is one of many factors to be considered in deciding how to organise water services.

Comment [CIR122]: It would be helpful to know why they felt this.


“[Water management] doesn’t feel coordinated in an ongoing fashion. We

have lots of one-off strategies, but not a consistent approach, and nothing

enduring”

Key Issue: Lack of statutory tools and mandates

Mainstreaming water sensitive stormwater management will require a wide range of practice,

legislative, policy and regulatory tools to support uptake and institutional embedding. While technical

practice tools, such as the recently published GD0442, are well developed for Auckland, there are a lack

of economic modelling and computational practice tools to support planning, design and decision-

making about water sensitive stormwater solutions.

Administrative mechanisms to encourage and require water sensitive stormwater management

practice, such as pollution control targets, consenting rules and financial levers are also under-

developed for Auckland. The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan makes important steps forward in this

regard, incorporating stormwater provisions that consider the impacts of stormwater contaminants

and flows, with an aim to better regulate land use management and development for improving

environmental and community outcomes. However, there are still significant advancements in this

domain that could be made to improve water sensitive stormwater management practice.

“The key issue is how to create win-win options for developers. At the

moment you can meet the targets required without a water sensitive design

approach, so why would you go with water sensitive design?”

Given the contextual nature of what is considered water sensitive for individual projects, as well as the

diversity of stormwater solutions that could deliver water sensitivity, prescriptions of which specific

measures should be implemented often constrains innovative practice and can lead to perverse

outcomes. In administrations with process or input rules, approaches that divert from standard

designs risk consenting delays or rejections, prescribed measures may be unobtainable or they may

not necessarily result in water sensitivity for the specific local context. Auckland Council lacks

mechanisms that focus on achieving desired outcomes, through statutory and non-statutory tools that

reward water sensitive innovation and deter non-water sensitive outcomes in general. Such tools

might include legislated targets for improved environmental health, mechanisms to streamline the

consenting process for water sensitive designs, provision of design support to developers during the

pre-application phase, and financial incentives and disincentives for implementing solutions that will

achieve the desired outcomes.

“Projects are not framed from an outcome perspective”

“Expectations for new developments are not clearly articulated”

“The guidelines don’t require or encourage developers to look at things more

holistically or in an integrated way”

“Need to find a way to require a more holistic approach to development”

42

Guideline Document 2013/004: Water Sensitive Design for Stormwater (Auckland Council, December 2013)

Comment [CIR123]: The Urban Planning that Sustains Waterbodies (UPSW) project is part of a wider multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary collaboration, the Resilient Urban Futures research programme, and involves the development of a pilot decision support system (DSS) that allows urban planners and stormwater managers to consider holistically the impacts of urban development on indicators of environmental, social, economic and cultural wellbeing. The current version of the DSS incorporates indicators of environmental, economic and social wellbeing. An aim of its further development is to also incorporate indicators of cultural wellbeing. The DSS links a number of distinct models and other methods in order to make predictions of outcomes under alternative urban development and stormwater management scenarios (Moores et al., 2013). We agree that further development of such methodologies would be helpful. Moores et al. (2013). A tool for evaluating stormwater management outcomes across the four wellbeings. Water New Zealand's Eighth South Pacific Stormwater Conference and Expo. May 2013. Auckland.

Comment [CIR124]: Council has established an Integrated Consenting Process across Council and CCOs.


MUSIC43 as a compliance tool, Melbourne In Melbourne, the MUSIC software is used as a regulatory compliance tool, in which land developers must demonstrate their proposed stormwater management design achieves the regulated pollution reduction targets for sediment, nitrogen and phosphorous. If their design is not deemed to comply, the developer must pay Melbourne Water, who is responsible for Melbourne’s waterway health, a financial contribution to offset the costs of an alternative pollution reduction measure elsewhere in the catchment.

Resistance to change in practice is to be expected and some actors will not respond to incentives,

instead requiring change to be mandated through regulation. Auckland Council does not yet mandate

its performance expectations. Doing so would also require supportive mechanisms to facilitate

practice change in reality. There is a perception amongst some interviewees that regulatory levers are

not all grounded by the practical realities of implementation in a local context. For example, rules that

require developers to install stormwater quality treatment devices that will be subsequently vested in

Auckland Council need to be accompanied by funding mechanisms that ensure the new system’s

ongoing operation and maintenance costs are accounted for (through adequate developer

contributions, as one example).

“Currently, development is largely determined by developers – Council

hasn’t taken the lead in determining how and where development should

take place”

“We’re still attached to the belief that the market will deliver the outcomes

we’re seeking…but it hasn’t happened so far”

Achieving a balance between aspirational and achievable outcomes demands the input of many

different stakeholder perspectives. There was strong concern expressed that under the constrained

timelines of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, there was insufficient opportunity for all key

stakeholders to contribute to development of its provisions. Nonetheless, in the absence of an

overarching strategic framework that connects Auckland’s vision for water with operational business

plans, the promising administrative tools currently in development risk not achieving the desired

outcomes.

Monitoring and compliance of administrative rules is critical if they are to be effective for changing

practice. Achieving Auckland’s vision to be the world’s most liveable city will require the environment

and water sensitivity to be prioritised and integrated within development and infrastructure decisions.

There is a perception that Auckland Council’s internal structures and processes for providing

regulatory oversight may be insufficiently resourced for ensuring the aspired water sensitive outcomes

are achieved.

“Environmental stewardship has been diluted”

43

www.ewater.com.au/music

Comment [CIR125]: We agree that water sensitivity is a contributor to liveability, but it is not the only one and it is not necessarily the one of highest priority.


4 Recommendations for advancing water sensitive stormwater

management

The following suite of recommendations will enable Auckland Council to achieve the realisation of the

Waterways City or water sensitive stormwater management, identified as the aspiration for

stormwater management practice in Auckland. The purpose of the suite of recommendations is to

secure and move beyond the current transition phase of ‘shared understanding and issue agreement’

through to ‘embedding new practice’ as effectively as possible.

The recommendations are based on a critical analysis and interpretation of four sources of evidence:

Interview data that includes reflections, self-assessments and observations from a broad

range of stakeholder representatives within and outside Auckland Council

Analysis of current initiatives as included in policy, organisational, management and other

documentary evidence that is publically available and other written information made

available as part of this project

Stormwater management experience as reported in cities elsewhere internationally, with a

particular focus on cities in Australia, USA, Singapore and the UK

Contemporary social science research theory and empirical evidence on effective strategies

and techniques for enabling successful transition and change processes.

It is important to highlight that these recommendations have been formulated from a basis of a strong

consensus of the current stormwater management challenges for Auckland (as summarised in Section

3.3). This consensus is based on the collective reflections and feedback from a diverse group of

stakeholder representatives over the course of this project, combined with a comprehensive review of

the secondary documentary evidence comprising four overarching (and numerous topic specific)

independent evaluations and benchmarking studies conducted over the last 20 years.

4.1 Overview of recommendations strategy

The recommended actions have been grouped into a suite of three packages of related activities:

Package 1 – Strategic Positioning. This package addresses Auckland’s underlying challenge by

creating the pathway and opportunity to develop a joined-up and shared vision and strategy for

water sensitive stormwater management across Auckland Council

Package 2 – Network Capacity and Learning. This package facilitates the most effective conditions

for deepening the knowledge base and expanding the professional and stakeholder network

explicitly participating in advancing water sensitive stormwater management

Package 3 – Enabling Structures and Tools. This package facilitates the organising structures and

enabling tools that will expedite the on-ground practice of water sensitive stormwater

management.

As shown in Figure 13, each Package is aligned with developing more powerful and supportive

transition dynamics. While Package 1 consists of foundational recommendations that should underpin

all activities, Auckland Council could implement the suite of packages in parallel or sequentially over

time.

Comment [CIR126]: No details of such data or analysis are provided.

Comment [CIR127]: What are these four overarching independent evaluations and benchmarking studies and how is Auckland a similar context?


Figure 13. Recommendations strategy for advancing stormwater management practice

While development of a detailed action plan (including responsibilities, timeframes and

implementation steps) for the recommendations provided is beyond the scope of this project, we

highlight that the next step for Auckland Council and other organisations involved in stormwater

management will be to find ways to leverage these recommendations.

The majority of the recommendations contained in Packages 1 and 2 could be implemented within

existing institutional structures and key projects that already underway may provide useful platforms

(e.g. Water Strategic Action Plan, Environmental Strategic Action Plan, Low Carbon Strategic Action

Plan, National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, Special Housing Areas, Waterfront

redevelopment). The recommendations in Package 3 are likely to require the introduction of more

formal institutional reforms.

4.2 Package 1: Recommendations for strategic positioning

The recommendations presented in Table 2 address the specific challenges identified in Section 3.3.2:

Disconnection of narrative from the liveability agenda and broader benefits of stormwater

management

Lack of strategic vision and plan that is shared across organisational units

Unclear political and business case for water sensitive stormwater management

Risk of loss of corporate knowledge

Lack of consensus on stormwater related issues and solutions.

P3: Enabling Structures

& Tools

P1: Strategic

Positioning

P2: Network

Capacity & Learning

Comment [CIR128]: We agree that more could be done here but the Auckland Council is in the process of reviewing and legacy plans and requirements and developing and refining current approaches to stormwater management to reflect best practice and address existing gaps. The stormwater provisions in the Proposed Unitary Plan “promote a greater emphasis on WSD and green growth for greenfield development and, where possible, redevelopment to achieve more sustainable stormwater management” (p.2). See Auckland Council (2013) 2.24 – Urban Stormwater – Section 32 Evaluation for the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, Auckland: Auckland Council. Auckland Council (2013) Proposed Unitary Plan, Auckland: Auckland Council. The Auckland Plan recognises that the region must develop sustainably and that a transformational shift is required to “strongly commit to environmental action and green growth.” The Plan includes Environmental Design Principles such as rainwater harvesting, natural stormwater management systems and habitat and biodiversity protection and enhancement (Chapter 10). See Auckland Council (2013) Auckland Plan, Auckland: Auckland Council.

Comment [CIR129]: New clusters and a review of the Three Waters Strategy will help this.

Comment [CIR130]: We agree that the business case for some aspects of water sensitive stormwater management is unclear e.g. Stonefields, where the business case might be stronger if water scarcity was an issue.


Collectively the actions address the need to capture the lessons from the last 20 years’ of investment

in stormwater demonstration projects across Auckland (1.3) and to facilitate a scientific consensus on

the state of stormwater related issues and solutions (1.2). Along with the valuation process (1.5) this

activity will contribute to shaping the common narrative about contemporary stormwater

management beyond the technical discourse and link it more explicitly to the broader liveability

agenda (1.1). These actions are central to enabling an informed strategic visioning process (1.4) that

will clarify the shared understanding and anticipated costs and benefits of water sensitive stormwater

management, and underpin subsequent detailed stormwater strategy formulation (1.6) to be

embedded in Council asset and organisational management planning processes.

Table 2. Package 1: Recommendations for strategic positioning

Recommendation Expected Outcomes Key Actions Responsibility Timeframe

1.1 Connect water sensitive stormwater management with Auckland’s liveability agenda

Leverage of political and community capital in support of Water Sensitive Cities

Articulate and communicate how a Water Sensitive City approach can contribute to the liveability, resilience and sustainability of Auckland as part of the Auckland Plan

1.2 Conduct an independent assessment of the current state of knowledge for water sensitive stormwater management

Consolidated and contextualised knowledge on the latest scientific and practical insights for water sensitivity in Auckland as a foundation for advancing stormwater management practice

Engage an independent panel of eminent scientists to review local and international knowledge as it relates to the technical, environmental, social, institutional and economic dimensions of Auckland’s water system and its opportunities for becoming a Water Sensitive City Engage an independent panel of leading Water Sensitive City practitioners to review local and international experience on the technical, environmental, social, institutional and economic dimensions of water sensitive stormwater management and translate these insights for the Auckland context

1.3 Harness existing corporate knowledge about water sensitive stormwater management

Consolidated sector capacity for water sensitivity as a resource for mobilising action towards water sensitive stormwater management

Revisit water sensitive stormwater projects, including those established by legacy councils, to learn from previous achievements and mistakes

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n p

lan

to

be

dev

elo

ped

by

Au

ckla

nd

Co

un

cil

Comment [CIR131]: We agree, it is important to be clear on which elements of water sensitive stormwater management are critical to Auckland’s liveability and are aligned with Auckland’s priorities.

Comment [CIR132]: It would be important to ensure that developers do not feel like ‘this is another hoop to jump over’. Perhaps initially communication to big developers could be tailored to demonstrate how WSD adds value.

Comment [CIR133]: “The key issues and challenges for stormwater management in the Auckland region have been apparent for some time and were outlined in the issues and options paper prepared to support the Unitary Plan provisions. There is also a significant body of monitoring and research information that details the state of Auckland’s aquatic receiving environments and the adverse effects of land use and stormwater runoff. Much of this can be found as technical publications on Auckland Council’s website. Those studies of most relevance to the proposed stormwater management rules have been summarised in [the Proposed Unitary Plan]” (Auckland Council, 2013). However, there would be some benefit to engaging such a panel. Auckland Council (2013) 2.24 – Urban Stormwater – Section 32 Evaluation for the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Auckland: Auckland Council.



1.4 Develop a shared strategic vision for stormwater management

Orientation and connection of individual stakeholder priorities and goals within an overarching framework for realising collective outcomes

Implement a visioning and strategic planning process for Auckland’s transition to a Water Sensitive City, involving a broad range of stakeholder representatives Provide sufficient resources for comprehensive catchment planning that meaningfully involves all key stakeholders to inform the prioritisation of individual stormwater projects

1.5 Develop a value proposition for water sensitive stormwater management

Articulated political and business case for advancing stormwater management practice towards Water Sensitive Cities

Identify, quantify and value the wide range of market and non-market benefits of Auckland as a Water Sensitive City

1.6 Synthesise outcomes from 1.1 to 1.5 to develop a stormwater strategy

Strategic positioning of stormwater and other areas of administration and clarification of roles, responsibilities and development needs

Allocate responsibility for developing the Water Sensitive City strategy and delivering on key recommendations in this report to an executive level champion Facilitate a process of strategy formulation, involving senior staff from all key areas of Auckland Council, Watercare and Auckland Transport and incorporating mechanisms to draw on the ideas, knowledge and experience of a wide range of stakeholders and Council officers.

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n p

lan

to

be

dev

elo

ped

by

Au

ckla

nd

Co

un

cil

Comment [CIR134]: The Auckland Plan and Unitary Plan emphasise water sensitive stormwater management. In particular, the Unitary Plan (Part 2: 5.15.1) outlines the objectives for stormwater management which includes a chapter that specifies the ‘adoption of WSD as a core development approach’.

Comment [CIR135]: A stormwater strategy needs to be an integrated part of the revised 2008 Three Waters Strategy.


4.3 Package 2: Recommendations for network capacity and learning

The recommendations presented in Table 3 address the specific challenges identified in Section 3.3.3:

Overly narrow professional network

Lack of multi-sectoral champions and political leadership

Lack of knowledge and trust in water sensitive technologies.

These actions are designed to collectively improve the fostering and expansion of the professional

network across sectors and job types to improve the human resource capacity across Auckland for

water sensitive stormwater management (2.1 and 2.2). This needs to be supported by a dedicated

learning program that focuses on a number of activities including the transfer and sharing of

knowledge and the trialling and experimentation with demonstration initiatives to contextual and

adapt existing technologies to Auckland conditions (2.3). This work should be supported by Auckland

participating in the existing and active international and scientific networks focused on Water

Sensitive Cities (2.4).

Table 3. Package 2: Recommendations for network capacity and learning


2.1 Establish a sector-wide capacity building program that targets a wide range of policy, planning, decision-making and technical actors

Wide dissemination and industry engagement with technical, policy and practical knowledge for advancing Water Sensitive Cities

Implement and expand the capacity building program proposed in the Regional Stormwater Education Implementation Plan: Fostering a Water Sensitive Auckland (August 2013) Work together with iwi to build capacity for managing stormwater in a water sensitive manner and ensuring Māori values are meaningfully considered in stormwater decision-making Facilitate local networks to better coordinate, disseminate and mobilise the knowledge, skills and experience in Auckland’s water sector Proactively learn from experiences in other cities that have implemented new water sensitive approaches and developed technical and institutional expertise

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n p

lan

to

be

dev

elo

ped

by

Au

ckla

nd

Co

un

cil

Comment [CIR136]: Progress to date includes the establishment of clusters, including the Civil Infrastructure Cluster, which brings together the responsible people from areas across the Council and its CCOs, and also the Integrated Consents Process. Progress to date also includes education and community programmes. In particular, the regionalisation of the Waitakere City Council’s Project Twin Streams. Since amalgamation, the Auckland Council took the successes of the Twin Streams project and rolled it out through the regional Sustainable Catchments programme, which incorporates water sensitive planning and design, green infrastructure, place-making, environmental enhancement and sustainable outcomes coupled with community engagement and learning opportunities to elevate community awareness. There is scope to build on and improve this within the Civil Infrastructure Cluster.

Comment [CIR137]: Council is partnering with local community organisations, investing in research and pursuing pilot projects, taking a ‘leadership by example’ approach with resulting positive outcomes. The Waterfront development, Hobsonville Point, Dominion Road project and the North West Transformation Area provide examples where Council is providing both leadership in this area and proactively working to support knowledge creation on water sensitive approaches and to disseminate this learning to the community. However there needs to be a clear political and business case and Council needs to decide if pursuing such a strategy is the most cost effective.

Comment [CIR138]: We agree that there would be value in improving this.



2.2 Enable and empower technical, policy, planning and decision-making champions of water sensitivity

Water Sensitive City priorities and perspectives are integral to relevant decision-making and management processes

Foster an organisational and broader industry culture that supports Water Sensitive City champions Engage a broader network of champions through developing a shared Water Sensitive Cities vision and clearly articulating its liveability, sustainability and resilience values Provide executive level endorsement and empowerment of teams responsible for the operational delivery of water sensitive stormwater management

2.3 Develop a dedicated learning and demonstration program for Auckland as a Water Sensitive City

Key knowledge and capacity gaps are identified and projects that address these deficiencies are prioritised

Foster an organisational culture that is dedicated to embedding ongoing demonstration learnings and experimentation in its practice Incorporate an explicit learning agenda into all innovative water sensitive projects Leverage existing and future demonstration projects to learn from their successes and failures with the aim of scaling up water sensitive practice Secure a dedicated long-term funding source to implement innovative demonstration projects Implement landmark water sensitive precinct demonstrations as showcase and learning opportunities Regularly evaluate and adapt standards, guidelines and implementation plans based on new insights so they continually

Im

ple

men

tati

on

pla

n t

o b

e d

evel

op

ed b

y A

uck

lan

d

Co

un

cil

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n p

lan

to

be

dev

elo

ped

by

Au

ckla

nd

Co

un

cil

Comment [CIR139]: We agree there would be benefit in this. However, Council needs to decide if that would be cost effective. This was a model utilised by Waitakere City Council with respect to LID for the Northern Strategic Growth Area (now known as the North West Transitional Area) and elsewhere. Success of this approach is dependent on: - effective design of pilot; - construction management; - monitoring performance over a reasonable period.



reflect best knowledge and practice

2.4 Form scientific and practice partnerships with local organisations, international networks and other cities working towards water sensitive city visions

Awareness, understanding and adoption of leading scientific thought and best practice applications

Participate in international collaborative and research networks focused on water, liveability and sustainability (such as the CRC for Water Sensitive Cities and ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability Water Campaign) Invest in research and practical applications of the latest science to extend local knowledge and develop insights that are directly relevant for advancing Auckland’s stormwater management practice

4.4 Package 3: Recommendations for enabling structures and tools

The recommendations presented in

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n p

lan

to

be

dev

elo

ped

by

Au

ckla

nd

Co

un

cil


Table 4 address the specific challenges identified in Section 3.3.4:

Structural separation and lack of clear and joined-up total water cycle management roles

across Council

Lack of statutory tools and mandates.

Water sensitive stormwater management is best facilitated by an organisational setting that reinforces

and supports a total water cycle approach, involving optimising the synergies between the water

streams (supply, sewerage, stormwater, and receiving waterways) in all land use and development

decisions and investments. This will require introducing a range of new and shared institutional and

accountability arrangements over time (3.1 and 3.2). At the same time, Council will need to adapt

existing methods and valuation techniques for stormwater management to the Auckland context so

that valuations that reflect the full costs and benefits are considered in total water cycle decision-

making (3.3). Finally Council will need to craft a range of enabling tools including regulated

stormwater and development targets, assessment tools and internal organisational resources to

ensure development compliance and ongoing practice.

Comment [CIR140]: Management can be better coordinated without full structural integration. Good cooperation between the current providers of water services already exists and steps have been taken toward a more integrated approach to three waters management as already identified.


Table 4. Package 3: Recommendations for enabling structures and tools


3.1 Develop bridging structures, processes and resources to support strategic alignment across relevant stakeholder groups for Water Sensitive Cities

Clear and joined-up roles, responsibilities and accountabilities for the water cycle

Establish organisational structures that align with a Water Sensitive Cities approach to stormwater management Connect operational business plans with a shared Water Sensitive City vision that aligns water management objectives and priorities Implement formal and informal mechanisms that facilitate collaboration and integration horizontally across different organisational units and vertically across hierarchical levels Invest in the transaction costs associated with working collaboratively across multiple business units

3.2 Integrate water cycle responsibilities within a common organising framework

Explicit consideration and accounting for the synergies and trade-offs of water servicing options

Reform Auckland’s institutional arrangements for water cycle management to integrate responsibilities for waterway health, water supply, sewerage and drainage within a common organising framework Assign executive level responsibilities for key outcome areas and shared executive level accountabilities for outcomes across all the priorities of the total water cycle Foster organisational cultures within the common framework that value the engineering and non-engineering dimensions of water sensitive management

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n p

lan

to

be

dev

elo

ped

by

Au

ckla

nd

Co

un

cil

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n p

lan

to

be

dev

elo

ped

by

Au

ckla

nd

Co

un

cil

Comment [CIR141]: If this means merging the organisations for water, wastewater and stormwater, this would be an extreme solution which should only be implemented following detailed consideration of the issues and options. There are relatively few international examples of full integration of water, wastewater and stormwater services. One example is the Public Utilities Board in Singapore, but it may be considered that there is a strong and specific driver in Singapore, that is the need to reduce dependence on water from Malaysia (ADB, 2010). It may be reasonable to suggest that given the number of potential risks to full integration, strong, local and specific drivers are required. ADB. (2010). Every Drop Counts: Learning from good practices in eight Asian cities. Mandaluyong City: Asia Development Bank.



3.3 Develop robust methodologies, evaluation tools and evidence for analysing the costs and benefits of stormwater management options

Rigorous base for transparent cost-benefit assessments

Explore and test key assumptions about lifecycle costs by compiling and contextualising evidence from Auckland and elsewhere on the lifecycle costs and benefits of stormwater management solutions Develop assessment methodologies and tools that accounting for the incubation costs of innovative technologies and practices, the reducible costs through institutional reform and the opportunity costs of business-as-usual stormwater management

3.4 Implement statutory, non-statutory and practice tools for advancing water sensitive stormwater management practice

Innovation that lead to water sensitive outcomes is enabled and rewarded; practices that do not are deterred

Implement mechanisms that are well designed and sufficiently resourced for delivering outcomes that are both aspirational and achievable, by developing them in partnership with all key stakeholder representatives and within an overarching strategic framework for water management Introduce industry-standard economic and computational modelling tools to support planning, design and decision-making for water sensitive stormwater solutions Introduce administrative tools, such as regulations, targets, financial incentives and design support, that focus on achieving desired outcomes rather than prescribing specific implementation measures Mandate compliance with performance expectations for water sensitivity in Auckland, while ensuring there are supportive mechanisms to facilitate practice change in reality Provide the environmental regulatory arm of Auckland Council with sufficient resources to ensure

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n p

lan

to

be

dev

elo

ped

by

Au

ckla

nd

Co

un

cil

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n p

lan

to

be

dev

elo

ped

by

Au

ckla

nd

Co

un

cil



effective monitoring and enforcement of stormwater management and receiving waterway health requirements


5 References

AECOM (2012) Gap Analysis of Stormwater Asset Management Practices. Report for Auckland Council,

August

Albert-Eden Local Board (2011) Local Board Plan

Auckland Council (2012) Stormwater Asset Management Plan 2012-2032

Auckland Council (2012) Stormwater Unit Strategic Direction 2012-2015

Auckland Council (2012) Legal Framework for Obligations to Mᾱori and Under Te Tiriti O

Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi – Part A

Auckland Council (2012) Legal Framework for Obligations to Mᾱori and Under Te Tiriti O

Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi – Part B

Auckland Council (2013) ‘Elected Member Handbook: Governance Arrangements for Local Boards’

Auckland Council (2013) Waitematā Harbour Stormwater Network Discharge Consent Application –

Consultation Outcomes Report


Auckland Council (2013) Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, notified 30 September 2013

Auckland Council (2013) Research strategy and priority research areas 2013-2016

Auckland Regional Council (2000) Technical Publication 124: Low impact design manual

Auckland Regional Council (2003) Technical Publication 10: Design guideline manual stormwater

treatment devices

Auckland Regional Council (2004) Auckland Regional Stormwater Action Plan: A coordinated approach

to regional stormwater management and the delivery of improved stormwater quality outcomes

Auckland Regional Council (2008) Review of Stormwater Action Plan: Report of International Expert

Panel

Boston Consulting Group (2004) Auckland Regional Stormwater Project: An action plan to deliver

improved stormwater outcomes. Report for Auckland Regional Council

Brown, R. R., Keath, N. & Wong, T. H. F. (2009). Urban water management in cities: historical, current

and future regimes. Water Science & Technology, 59(5), 847-855.

Brown, R.R., Farrelly, M.F., Loorbach, D.A. (2013) Actors working the institutions in sustainability

transitions: the case of Melbourne’s stormwater management. Global Environmental Change 23 701-

718.

Construction Industry Research and Information Association (2007) CIRIA C697 The SuDS Manual.

Engineers Australia (2006) Australian Runoff Quality: A Guide to Water Sensitive Urban Design.


Ferguson, B.C., Frantzeskaki, N., Skinner, R. and Brown, R.R. (2012) Melbourne’s Transition to a Water

Sensitive City: Recommendations for Strategic Action. Dutch Research Institute For Transitions,

Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Monash Water for Liveability, Monash University,

Melbourne, Australia. ISBN 978-1-921912-13-9. Downloadable from

www.waterforliveability.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Recommendations-Report_FINAL2.pdf

Fitzmaurice, J.R. (2009) History of Auckland Wastewater and Mangere Wastewater Treatment Plant.

3rd Australasian Engineering Heritage Conference.

GHD (2013) Asset Management Framework Review. Report for Auckland Council, May

Hauraki Gulf Forum (2009) Governing the Gulf: Giving effect to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act

through Policies and Plans

Hauraki Gulf Forum (2011) State of our Gulf: State of the Environment Report 2011

Independent Māori Statutory Board (2012) The Māori Plan for Tamaki Makaurau

Jefferies, C. & Duffy, A. (2011). The SWITCH transition manual. University of Abertay Dundee, UK.

Kirkland Smith Consulting Ltd (2013) Regional Stormwater Education Implementation Plan: Fostering a

Water Sensitive Auckland. Report for Auckland Council, August.

Ministry for the Environment (2013) Proposed amendments to the National Policy Statement for

Freshwater Management 2011: A discussion document. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.

Streat, J., Bishop, M., Heslop, V. (2009) Re-visiting the past to help shape the future: Auckland

Regional Council's stormwater policy. 6th South Pacific Stormwater Conference 2009.

van der Brugge, R. & Rotmans, J. (2007). Towards transition management of European water

resources. Water Resources Management, 21(1), 249-267.

Waitangi Tribunal, 1985. Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Manukau Claim (WAI-8). Waitangi

Tribunal Department of Justice. Wellington, New Zealand

Water Environment Federation and American Society of Civil Engineers/Environmental & Water

Resources Institute (2012) Design of Urban Stormwater Controls. WEF Manual of Practice No. 23 and

ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 87. WEF Press and McGraw Hill.

Whiria Te Muka Tangata: The Mᾱori Responsiveness Framework


Appendix A: Documentary evidence sources

1. AECOM (2012) Gap Analysis of Stormwater Asset Management Practices. Report for Auckland

Council, August

2. Albert-Eden Local Board (2011) Local Board Plan

3. Auckland City Council Treasury (2004) Stormwater update, including the targeted rate.

4. Auckland Council (2011) Water4Auckland: Auckland Water Resilience Framework Discussion

Document. Report for Auckland Council

5. Auckland Council (2012) Auckland Plan

6. Auckland Council (2012) Infrastructure & Environmental Services: Business Plan 2012-2013

7. Auckland Council (2012) Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan: Draft

8. Auckland Council (2012) Stormwater Asset Management Plan 2012-2032

9. Auckland Council (2012) Stormwater Unit Strategic Direction 2012-2015

10. Auckland Council (2013) Guideline Document 2013/004: Water Sensitive Design for Stormwater

11. Auckland Council (2013) Healthy Marine & Freshwater Environments: Proposed Environmental

Services Unit Role

12. Auckland Council (2013) Parks and Open Spaces Strategic Action Plan: Draft

13. Auckland Council (2013) Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Stormwater Provisions Cost Benefit

Analysis

14. Auckland Council (2013) Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan Technical Report

15. Auckland Council (2013) Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, notified 30 September 2013

16. Auckland Council (2013) Research strategy and priority research areas 2013-2016

17. Auckland Council (2012) Legal Framework for Obligations to Mᾱori and Under Te Tiriti O

Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi – Part A

18. Auckland Council (2012) Legal Framework for Obligations to Mᾱori and Under Te Tiriti O

Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi – Part B

19. Auckland Council (2013) ‘Elected Member Handbook: Governance Arrangements for Local Boards’

20. Auckland Council (2013) Waitematā Harbour Stormwater Network Discharge Consent Application

– Consultation Outcomes Report

21. Auckland Council - Waitematā Harbour Stormwater Network Discharge Consent – Stormwater

Priorities Consultation Report

22. Auckland Council and Morphum Environmental Ltd (2011) Stormwater Management

Improvements and Costs Estimation Model: Development Report.

23. Auckland Regional Council (1991) Auckland Regional Stormwater Project: An Economic View.

Working Report #55.

24. Auckland Regional Council (2000) Technical Publication 124: Low impact design manual

25. Auckland Regional Council (2003) Technical Publication 10: Design guideline manual stormwater

treatment devices

26. Auckland Regional Council (2004) Auckland Regional Stormwater Action Plan: A coordinated

approach to regional stormwater management and the delivery of improved stormwater quality

outcomes

27. Auckland Regional Council (2005) Stormwater Action Team: Education and Communication –

Workstream Strategy

28. Auckland Regional Council (2005) Stormwater Action Team: Regional Capacity Building –

Workstream Strategy


29. Auckland Regional Council (2008) Review of Stormwater Action Plan: Report of International

Expert Panel

30. Auckland Regional Council (2009) Integrating Catchment and Coastal Management: A Survey of

Local and International Best Practice

31. Auckland University / Landcare (2003) Providing incentives for Low Impact Development to

become mainstream

32. Auckland University and Landcare (2007) Low Impact Urban Design and Development: Concepts,

policy, practice

33. Boston Consulting Group (2004) Auckland Regional Stormwater Project: An action plan to deliver

improved stormwater outcomes. Report for Auckland Regional Council

34. DLA Phillips Fox (2008) Review of Financial Contributions and Development Contributions. Report

for Ministry for the Environment and Local Government New Zealand

35. Fitzmaurice, J.R. (2009) History of Auckland Wastewater and Mangere Wastewater Treatment

Plant. 3rd Australasian Engineering Heritage Conference.

36. GHD (2013) Asset Management Framework Review. Report for Auckland Council, May

37. Hauraki Gulf Forum (2009) Governing the Gulf: Giving effect to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act

through Policies and Plans

38. Hauraki Gulf Forum (2011) State of our Gulf: State of the Environment Report 2011

39. Hill Young Copper Ltd, Cranleigh Merchant Bankers, Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd (2007) Funding

Futures – Three Waters: Auckland Region. Report for Auckland Regional Council

40. Independent Māori Statutory Board (2012) The Māori Plan for Tamaki Makaurau

41. Kirkland Smith Consulting Ltd (2013) Regional Stormwater Education Implementation Plan:

Fostering a Water Sensitive Auckland. Report for Auckland Council, August.

42. Krausse, M.K. (2005) An Overview of Stormwater Funding Options for the Auckland Region.

Landcare Research Report

43. Ministry for the Environment (2013) Proposed amendments to the National Policy Statement for

Freshwater Management 2011: A discussion document. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.

44. Ministry of Transport (2005) Surface Transport Costs and Charges Study

45. North Shore City Council (2005) Stormwater Charging Study.

46. Ouwejan, R., Seyb, R., Paterson, G., Davis, M., Mayhew, I., Kinley, P., Sharman, B., (2006) Source

Control or Traditional BMPS? An Assessment of Benefits and Costs in Auckland City

47. Streat, J., Bishop, M., Heslop, V. (2009) Re-visiting the past to help shape the future: Auckland

Regional Council's stormwater policy. 6th South Pacific Stormwater Conference 2009.

48. Watercare (2008) Three Waters Strategic Plan

49. Watercare (2009) Developing a Climate Change Strategy

50. Watercare (2013) Auckland Regional Water Demand Management Plan

51. Watercare (2013) Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Report: Sustainability Performance

52. Whiria Te Muka Tangata: The Mᾱori Responsiveness Framework


Appendix B: Author biographies

Professor Rebekah Brown is Program Leader (Society) at the CRC, a professor with the School of Social

Sciences at Monash University and Director of the Monash Water for Liveability Centre. As a social

scientist and civil engineer, she has dedicated the last 15 years to developing new socio-technical

understandings of urban water governance. Rebekah has published over 100 scholarly papers and led

national and international research projects. Rebekah’s research has developed a unique framework

for policy-makers and strategists to assess urban water development trajectories, benchmark

sustainable urban water management regimes and design institutional capacity building programs.

She has been recognised with national industry and government awards for her work on creating a

new socio-technical research platform for advancing more sustainable urban water futures.

Dr Briony Ferguson is a Research Fellow with the CRC, Monash University's School of Social Sciences

and the Monash Water for Liveability Centre. Her research explores how strategic development and

institutional change can enable transitions in urban water systems to create more liveable, sustainable

and resilient cities. The recent focus of Briony’s work has been on developing diagnostic tools for

informing strategic initiatives to facilitate transformative change in the way urban water servicing is

planned, designed and managed. Briony has an interdisciplinary background, with a PhD in

Environmental Sociology, a Bachelor of Civil Engineering (Honours) and Bachelor of Science. Prior to

joining Monash University, Briony pursued her interest in sustainable urban water management as an

engineering consultant on a variety of water infrastructure projects in Australia and Vietnam. These

engineering experiences gave Briony a strong appreciation for the socio-technical nature of

infrastructure development and the critical need for social, political and institutional contexts to be

considered in delivering sustainable outcomes.

Lara Werbeloff is a PhD student with the CRC, Monash University's School of Social Sciences and the

Monash Water for Liveability Centre. Her research is focused on exploring the process of institutional

change in urban water sector transformations with a view to understanding how institutional change

processes can be harnessed to facilitate the realisation of more Water Sensitive Cities. Lara has a

Bachelor of Laws (Honours) and a Bachelor of Arts (Honours), with a major in environmental science.

Prior to joining Monash, Lara worked as a lawyer, practising in the field of environmental law, among

others.



Appendix 2 Singapore on the Pathway to Become a Water Sensitive City

Singapore is a city-state with high population density.1 One of the main concerns of the

Singapore Government has been how to provide clean water to the population, which currently

consumes about 1.36 billion litres of water per day. Singapore is considered to be a water-scarce

country not because of a lack of rainfall2 but because of the limited amount of land area where

rainwater can be stored. Singapore has been importing its entitlement of water from the

neighbouring Johor state of Malaysia, under long-term bilateral agreements signed in 1961 and

1962 when Singapore was still a self-governing British colony. The first agreement expired in

August 2011 and the second agreement will expire in 2061. In 1998, Singapore began new

negotiations with Malaysia to extend its water agreements beyond 2011 and 2061 respectively.

However, after failed negotiations Singapore prepared to increase water security and self-

sufficiency from 2011 by improving efficient water management including the formulation and

implementation of new water-related policies, heavy investments in desalination and extensive

reuse of wastewater and other similar actions (Tortajada, 2006; ADB, 2010).

Similarly, drought conditions in many areas of Australia have led to renewed community,

academic and government interest in the reform of the urban water sector and large-scale

government investments in new water infrastructure and water supply augmentation (Australian

Government Productivity Commission, 2008).

1 Singapore has an area of about 716 km² and a population of approximately 4.4 million people. By contrast, Auckland’s urban land area is 1,103km² and urban population is 1.418 million. Auckland has a population density of 1,300 persons/km

2, compared to Singapore’s population density of 7,540

persons/km2.

2 Rainfall is approximately 2,400mm per year.


Appendix 3 The Extent of Urban Water in Auckland

Auckland is not totally an urban city; it is a city-region with extensive rural areas, large green

spaces, and numerous rural towns and villages surrounding the core area. The rural/urban mix

has a significant influence on the contaminants of primary concern in Auckland’s water

environment, namely sediments and heavy metals; largely, sediments are generated in rural

catchments and heavy metals in urban catchments.

An example which demonstrates the source of contaminants can be found in the Central

Waitemata Harbour (CWH) model by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

(NIWA), which discusses on a large scale the relative contaminant loads originating from

catchments draining to the harbour (Green, 2008). The CWH model results show that the

contribution of sediments from the Henderson Creek catchment into Shoal Bay (the depositing

environment) is 60 – 80 percent attributable to rural sources. Green also reports that the bulk of

the sediment discharged from the Upper Waitemata Harbour into the Central Waitemata

Harbour comes from rural sources.

Some interesting conclusions can be drawn by comparing the CWH model results for the Shoal

Bay catchment to the Henderson Creek catchment. Although the Henderson Creek catchment is

more than 5 times the size of the Shoal Bay catchment, it produces almost 13 times the annual

sediment load (kg/yr). Conversely, metal yields are twice as great in the Shoal Bay catchment as

those of the Henderson Creek catchment. These differences are attributable to predominant

land use within each catchment. Specifically, large portions of the Henderson Creek catchment

are rural, contributing significant sediment loads whereas the Shoal Bay catchment is almost

entirely urban, which contributes to the high zinc and copper loads (Miselis, 2009).


Appendix 4 State of the Auckland Environment

Auckland’s River and Stream Health

The Auckland region has an estimated 16,500km of permanently flowing rivers, which increases

to 28,240km when intermittent and ephemeral rivers are included. As no mainland location in

the region is greater than 20km from the coast, the catchment areas of each river are relatively

small. The majority (63 percent) of rivers within the Auckland region drain non-forested rural

catchments (pastoral farming, horticulture and rural residential), followed by native forest

catchments (21 percent), with exotic forest and urban catchments accounting for 8 percent each

(Lockie & Neale, 2013).

Auckland Council operates a long-term river water quality monitoring programme throughout the

region. The objectives of this monitoring include State of the Environment reporting,

identification of major environmental issues and the assessment of the efficacy of Council policy

initiatives and strategies. Water quality is assessed monthly at 34 sites around the region using a

combination of field based and laboratory tested parameters. The data has been used to produce

water quality indices, which allowed sites to be ranked and assigned a water quality class (Lockie

& Neale, 2013).

Shown in Table 1, the results from the State of the Environment Monitoring: River Water Quality

Annual Report 2012 show that four sites had excellent water quality, seven sites had good water

quality, water quality at 18 sites was fair and only five sites registered poor water quality. Of

these five sites with poor water quality, Kaukapakapa River, Papakura Stream (Alfriston Rd) and

Whangamaire Stream are in rural catchments, while Oteha Stream and Pakuranga Creek

(Greenmount Dr) are in urban catchments (Lockie & Neale, 2013). In comparison, 12 sites were

classified as having poor water quality in 2010 (Neale, 2012).

Table 1 Stream Water Quality Classes Based on 2012 Data

Site Water quality classes

Cascade Stream Excellent

Opanuku Stream Excellent

Wairoa Tributary Excellent

West Hoe Stream Excellent

Riverhead Stream Good

Nukumea Stream Good

Mahurangi River (Forestry HQ) Good

Ngakaroa Stream Good

Waitangi River Good

Rangitopuni River (NIWA) Good

Oakley Creek Good

Lucas Creek Fair

Okura Creek Fair

Makarau River Fair

Waiwera Stream Fair


Mahurangi River (Water Supply) Fair

Wairoa River Fair

Kumeu River Fair

Hoteo River Fair

Matakana River Fair

Avondale Stream Fair

Omaru Creek Fair

Vaughan Stream Fair

Puhinui Stream Fair

Otara Creek (Kennel Hill) Fair

Otara Creek (East Tamaki) Fair

Papakura Stream (Porchester Rd) Fair

Pakuranga Creek (Botany Rd) Fair

Otaki Creek Fair

Kaukapakapa River Poor

Oteha Stream Poor

Papakura Stream (Alfriston Rd) Poor

Whangamaire Stream Poor

Pakuranga Creek (Greenmount Dr) Poor

Source: Lockie and Neale, 2013.

Auckland’s Harbour Health

Auckland’s marine environment encompasses two oceans, four major harbours, and numerous

estuaries.3 The marine water quality programme monitors water quality across 35 sites to

produce four water quality indices. Table 2 shows the water quality classes according to the 2011

and 2010 Marine Water Quality Annual Reports. Mahurangi Heads maintained its position having

the best water quality in 2011 and was classed as excellent along with six other sites including

four sites that were previously good or fair in 2010.4 Mangere Bridge had the worst water quality

of all the monitoring sites in 2011, retaining its status from 2010.

There were 17 sites that changed quality class from their 2010 classification, which reflects the

variable nature of water quality data. The majority of changes were improvements in water

quality class. Of the 17 sites, three changed by two classes.5 Of interest is the number of sites

classified as having poor water quality (35 percent). In 2009, only four sites were allocated this

class, 2010 had 14 sites, and in 2011 there were 12 sites classed as having poor water quality

(Walker & Vaughan, 2013a; Walker & Vaughan, 2013b).

3 Including: the Manukau Harbour; the inner Hauraki Gulf and outer Waitemata Harbour; the Kaipara Harbour; the Mahurangi Harbour; Tamaki Estuary; Tamaki Strait (1 site in Turanga Estuary) and the Upper Waitemata Harbour.

4 Sites classed as excellent include Mahurangi Heads, Ti Point, Orewa, Browns Bay, Whau Creek, Turanga Estuary Mouth and Hobsonville Jetty.

5 For example, an improvement in water quality (from Fair to Excellent) was observed at Hobsonville Jetty (Waitemata Harbour), which reverted back to the 2009 class; and a decrease in class (Good to Poor) at Chelsea (Central Waitemata) and Tamaki (Tamaki Estuary).


Table 2: Harbour Water Quality Classes in 2011 and 2010

Site 2011 water quality class 2010 water quality class

Whau Creek Excellent Good

Mahurangi Heads Excellent Excellent

Orewa Excellent Excellent

Browns Bay Excellent Good

Turanga Est Mouth Excellent Good

Hobsonville Jetty Excellent Fair

Ti Point Excellent Excellent

Dawsons Creek Good Good

Omokoiti Beacon Good Fair

Tauhoa Channel Good Fair

Waimarie Road Good Fair

Goat Island Good Excellent

Paremoremo Ski Club Good Fair

Manukau Heads Fair Fair

Grahams Beach Fair Poor

Shelly Beach Fair Fair

Lucas Creek Fair Poor

Clarks Beach Fair Poor

Henderson Creek Fair Poor

Kaipara Heads Fair Fair

Confluence Fair Poor

Makarau Estuary Fair Fair

Hoteo River mouth Fair Fair

Tamaki Poor Good

Weymouth Poor Poor

Panmure Poor Poor

Puketutu Point Poor Poor

Chelsea Poor Good

Wairoa River Mouth Poor Fair

Shag Point Poor Poor

Kaipara River Poor Poor

Mangere Bridge Poor Poor

Brighams Creek Poor Poor

Rangitopuni Creek Poor Poor

Rarawaru Creek Poor Poor

Source: Walker and Vaughan (2013b).

Loss of Streams in Auckland

In depicting Auckland’s stormwater management practice, the report states: “Wastewater

overflows to receiving waterways occur in some parts of the central Auckland and each year up to

10 kilometres of natural streams are piped to enable land development” (p.5). The report


provides the draft Stormwater Unit Strategic Direction as the reference. However, there is no

verifiable data to substantiate this statement. Auckland Council’s (2010b) State of the Auckland

Region report describes stream disturbance in the Auckland region. The length of stream

disturbance does not equate to the length of stream being ‘piped’:

“Stream disturbance often accompanies urban land use and expansion. Common stream

disturbances include piping, lining and channelling. In rural areas, streams are often

‘cleaned’, where vegetation and sediment are removed from the channel to ‘improve’ the

water flow, channels straightened and culverts installed to allow the passage of stock and

vehicles. Damming is also common, both to ensure a reliable supply of water for

irrigation and for amenity value. All of these activities can have various adverse effects

on the water quality, ecology and flood management.

Between 2000 and 2008, about 80km of streams (an average of 8.9km each year) were

subject to a resource consent for stream disturbance [shown in Table 3 below]. This

figure does not include the large number of stream disturbance activities that can be

undertaken without a resource consent. Consequently the total amount of stream

disturbance in the Auckland region is underestimated” (p.47).

Table 3: Length of Streams Subject to Consent for Disturbance (2000-2008)

Financial year ending Streeam length (m)

2000 9,197

2011 11,368

2002 11,961

2003 11,035

2004 7,058

2005 12,159

2006 7,146

2007 3,669

2008 7,146

Source: Auckland Council (2010, p.47)

Until now, the Air Land Water Regional Plan gave a significant level of protection to permanent

rivers or streams, largely controlling activities (including structures, piping and reclamation) in,

over or under the bed of a river through resource consents. In contrast, the management of

intermittent stream reaches was largely unregulated, with most activities permitted subject to

controls relating to how works are undertaken. This resulted in infilling and loss of these

channels as part of urban development, which has not been quantified. This issue has been

addressed by Auckland Council in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP), which gives

equivalent status of the protection of intermittent streams in the management of freshwater

systems. Therefore, the Auckland Council is being proactive in protecting streams (Auckland

Council, 2013e).


Appendix 5 Auckland’s Statutory and Policy Framework

The CRC report acknowledges components of the statutory and policy framework in Auckland.

However, given the significance of the recommendations, decision makers need to consider the

legislative drivers for Auckland’s stormwater management. This appendix provides a summary of

the key statutory and planning documents that set out Auckland Council’s primary responsibilities

and impact the scope and timing of Council’s progress toward becoming a water sensitive city-

region.

Local Government Act 2002

Under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002) Auckland Council must to give priority to

stormwater and flood control, although it needs to balance this activity with other activities and

affordability, which in turn determines the rate of progress towards becoming a water sensitive

city-region.

Auckland Council’s primary responsibilities are set out in the LGA 2002, which states in Section 10

that:

1) The purpose of local government is

a. to enable democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of,

communities

b. to meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local

infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a

way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.

2) In this Act, good-quality, in relation to local infrastructure, local public services, and

performance of regulatory functions, means infrastructure, services, and performance

that are:

a. efficient

b. effective

c. appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances

In performing its role as a local authority, under Section 11A, Auckland Council must have

particular regard to the contribution that the following core services make to its communities:

a. network infrastructure (the provision of roads and other transport, water, wastewater,

and stormwater collection and management):

b. public transport services:

c. solid waste collection and disposal:

d. the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards:6

6 The Resource Management Act 1991 defines ‘natural hazards’ as “any atmospheric or earth or water

related occurrence (including earthquake, tsunami, erosion, volcanic and geothermal activity, landslip, subsidence, sedimentation, wind, drought, fire, or flooding) the action of which adversely affects or


e. libraries, museums, reserves, recreational facilities, and other community infrastructure.

Section 2 of the LGA 2002 sets out the requirements for Council’s activities in the long-term plan:

1) A long-term plan must, in relation to each group of activities of the local authority,—

a. identify the activities within the group of activities:

b. identify the rationale for delivery of the group of activities (including the

community outcomes to which the group of activities primarily contributes):

c. outline any significant negative effects that any activity within the group of

activities may have on the local community:

d. include the information specified in clauses 4 and 5—

i. in detail in relation to each of the first 3 financial years covered by the

plan; and

ii. in outline in relation to each of the subsequent financial years covered by

the plan.

2) In this schedule, each of the following activities is a group of activities:

a. water supply:

b. sewerage and the treatment and disposal of sewage:

c. stormwater drainage:

d. flood protection and control works:

e. the provision of roads and footpaths.

Section 14 of the LGA 2002 establishes the Principles relating to local authorities:

1) In performing its role, a local authority must act in accordance with the following

principles:

a. a local authority should—

i. conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically

accountable manner; and

ii. give effect to its identified priorities and desired outcomes in an efficient

and effective manner:

b. a local authority should make itself aware of, and should have regard to, the

views of all of its communities; and

c. when making a decision, a local authority should take account of—

i. the diversity of the community, and the community’s interests, within its

district or region; and

ii. the interests of future as well as current communities; and

iii. the likely impact of any decision on the interests referred to in

subparagraphs (i) and (ii):

d. a local authority should provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to its

decision-making processes:

may adversely affect human life, property, or other aspects of the environment” (Part 1, Interpretation and application).


e. a local authority should collaborate and co-operate with other local authorities

and bodies as it considers appropriate to promote or achieve its priorities and

desired outcomes, and make efficient use of resources; and

f. a local authority should undertake any commercial transactions in accordance

with sound business practices; and

fa. a local authority should periodically—

i. assess the expected returns to the authority from investing in, or

undertaking, a commercial activity; and

ii. satisfy itself that the expected returns are likely to outweigh the risks

inherent in the investment or activity; and

g. a local authority should ensure prudent stewardship and the efficient and

effective use of its resources in the interests of its district or region; and

h. in taking a sustainable development approach, a local authority should take into

account—

i. the social, economic, and cultural interests of people and communities;

and

ii. the need to maintain and enhance the quality of the environment; and

iii. the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations.

Under the LGA 2002, Auckland Council is empowered to adopt a water sensitive approach, if it

wishes to, but in doing so it must consider a sustainable development approach and also prioritise

stormwater drainage and flood protection. In practice, this means that Council may wish to

implement a water sensitive strategy over a shorter or longer timeframe when it considers the

social, economic, cultural and environmental outcomes, which are acceptable to the community.

Local Government Act 2009

The Auckland Local Government Act 2009 sets out Watercare’s obligations to deliver water and

wastewater services throughout the Auckland region. Part 5 section 57(1) of the Act stipulates,

among others things, that an Auckland water organisation:

a) Must manage its operations efficiently with a view to keeping the overall costs of water

supply and wastewater services to its customers (collectively) at the minimum levels

consistent with the effective conduct of its undertakings and the maintenance of the

long-term integrity of its assets

b) Must not pay any dividend or distribute any surplus in any way, directly or indirectly, to

any owner or shareholder

c) Is not required to comply with section 68(b) of the Local Government Act 2002

d) Must have regard for public safety (for example, the safety of children in urban areas) in

relation to its structures.

Local activities must be identified in the Long-Term Plan and written notice must be given for

road opening (unless for emergency work).

According to this Act, stormwater funding mechanisms must be separate from those for water

supply and wastewater.


Resource Management Act 1991

Responsibilities under Section 84

The Council is aware of its responsibilities under section 84 of the Resource Management Act:

“Local authorities to observe their own policy statements and plans—

(1) While a policy statement or a plan is operative, the regional council or territorial authority

concerned, and every consent authority, shall observe and, to the extent of its authority,

enforce the observance of the policy statement or plan.

(2) No purported grant of a resource consent, and no waiver or sufferance or departure from

a policy statement or plan, whether written or otherwise, shall, unless authorised by this

Act, have effect in so far as it is contrary to subsection (1).”

Functions of Regional Councils under Section 30

1) Every regional council shall have the following functions for the purpose of giving effect

to this Act in its region:

a. the establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and

methods to achieve integrated management of the natural and physical resources

of the region:

b. the preparation of objectives and policies in relation to any actual or potential

effects of the use, development, or protection of land which are of regional

significance:

c. the control of the use of land for the purpose of—

i. soil conservation:

ii. the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of water in water

bodies and coastal water:

iii. the maintenance of the quantity of water in water bodies and coastal

water:

iv. the maintenance and enhancement of ecosystems in water bodies and

coastal water:

v. the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards:

vi. the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use,

disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances:

ca. the investigation of land for the purposes of identifying and monitoring

contaminated land:

d. in respect of any coastal marine area in the region, the control (in conjunction with

the Minister of Conservation) of—

i. land and associated natural and physical resources:

ii. the occupation of space in, and the extraction of sand, shingle, shell, or

other natural material from, the coastal marine area, to the extent that it

is within the common marine and coastal area:

iii. the taking, use, damming, and diversion of water:

iv. discharges of contaminants into or onto land, air, or water and

discharges of water into water:


iva. the dumping and incineration of waste or other matter and the dumping

of ships, aircraft, and offshore installations:

v. any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of

land, including the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards and the

prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use,

disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances:

vi. the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise:

vii. activities in relation to the surface of water:

e. the control of the taking, use, damming, and diversion of water, and the control of

the quantity, level, and flow of water in any water body, including—

i. the setting of any maximum or minimum levels or flows of water:

ii. the control of the range, or rate of change, of levels or flows of water:

iii. the control of the taking or use of geothermal energy:

f. the control of discharges of contaminants into or onto land, air, or water and

discharges of water into water:

fa. if appropriate, the establishment of rules in a regional plan to allocate any of the

following:

i. the taking or use of water (other than open coastal water):

ii. the taking or use of heat or energy from water (other than open coastal

water):

iii. the taking or use of heat or energy from the material surrounding

geothermal water:

iv. the capacity of air or water to assimilate a discharge of a contaminant:

fb. if appropriate, and in conjunction with the Minister of Conservation,—

i. the establishment of rules in a regional coastal plan to allocate the taking

or use of heat or energy from open coastal water:

ii. the establishment of a rule in a regional coastal plan to allocate space in

a coastal marine area under Part 7A:

g. in relation to any bed of a water body, the control of the introduction or planting of

any plant in, on, or under that land, for the purpose of—

i. soil conservation:

ii. the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of water in that

water body:

iii. the maintenance of the quantity of water in that water body:

iv. the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards:

ga. the establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and

methods for maintaining indigenous biological diversity:

gb. the strategic integration of infrastructure with land use through objectives, policies,

and methods:

h. any other functions specified in this Act.

2) A regional council and the Minister of Conservation must not perform the functions

specified in subsection (1)(d)(i), (ii), and (vii) to control the taking, allocation or

enhancement of fisheries resources for the purpose of managing fishing or fisheries

resources controlled under the Fisheries Act 1996.


3) However, a regional council and the Minister of Conservation may perform the functions

specified in subsection (1)(d) to control aquaculture activities for the purpose of

avoiding, remedying, or mitigating the effects of aquaculture activities on fishing and

fisheries resources.

4) A rule to allocate a natural resource established by a regional council in a plan under

subsection (1)(fa) or (fb) may allocate the resource in any way, subject to the following:

a. the rule may not, during the term of an existing resource consent, allocate the

amount of a resource that has already been allocated to the consent; and

b. nothing in paragraph (a) affects section 68(7); and

c. the rule may allocate the resource in anticipation of the expiry of existing consents;

and

d. in allocating the resource in anticipation of the expiry of existing consents, the rule

may—

i. allocate all of the resource used for an activity to the same type of

activity; or

ii. allocate some of the resource used for an activity to the same type of

activity and the rest of the resource to any other type of activity or no

type of activity; and

e. the rule may allocate the resource among competing types of activities; and

f. the rule may allocate water, or heat or energy from water, as long as the allocation

does not affect the activities authorised by section 14(3)(b) to (e).

Functions of Territorial Authorities under Section 31

1) Every territorial authority shall have the following functions for the purpose of giving

effect to this Act in its district:

a. the establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and

methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use,

development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources

of the district:

b. the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or

protection of land, including for the purpose of—

i. the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; and

ii. the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use,

disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances; and

iia. the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the

development, subdivision, or use of contaminated land:

iii. the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity:

c. [repealed]

d. the control of the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise:

e. the control of any actual or potential effects of activities in relation to the surface

of water in rivers and lakes:

f. any other functions specified in this Act.

2) The methods used to carry out any functions under subsection (1) may include the

control of subdivision.


The Auckland Plan

The Auckland Plan is Council’s overarching strategy to make Auckland the world’s most liveable

city. To achieve this purpose, the Auckland Plan sets a strategic direction for Auckland and its

communities, integrating social, economic, environmental, and cultural objectives. The Auckland

Plan recognises that the region must develop sustainably and that a transformational shift is

required to “strongly commit to environmental action and green growth” (Auckland Council,

2012b).

The Auckland Plan covers a 30-year horizon and will be implemented in 3 phases, due to the need

to phase investment. It is envisaged that in the first decade (2012-2021), Council will focus on

‘building the runway’, that is Council will concentrate on delivering quality outcomes. Progress

should be evaluated once Council has had more time to implement the Auckland Plan.

Of particular concern is that the benchmarking report does not evaluate progress towards a

water sensitive city-region using the Auckland Plan principles, which guide decision making

regarding the future of Auckland. Applying these principles will ensure the decision making

processes and actions contribute to a successful Auckland:

Work together: Work collaboratively on the priorities identified in the Auckland Plan.

Recognise the interdependence of projects, programmes and initiatives.

Value te Ao Māori: Acknowledge the special place of mana whenua and enable their

participation in decision making. Build lasting, reciprocal relationships with Auckland’s

Māori.

Be sustainable: Ensure that Council’s short-term decisions enhance Auckland’s long-term

prospects, and build resilience to changing local and global conditions that may impact

the economic, environmental, social and cultural well-being of Auckland.

Act fairly: Consider the needs of all groups in the community, to ensure that all

Aucklanders can participate equally.

Make the best use of every dollar spent: Act prudently and commit to projects and

initiatives that achieve the best value result without compromising quality or affordability

or stifling creativity and innovation. Focus on achieving long-term benefits and

intergenerational equity.

Be affordable: Make Auckland both a quality and affordable place, including affordable

housing, transport and other costs of living, and doing business, so that people have the

choice to live, work and invest in Auckland.

Check progress and adapt to improve: Monitor and evaluate every initiative to ensure

Council continually adapts and improves the way it works to achieve Auckland’s vision

(Auckland Council, 2012, Section C).

Taken together, these principles represent an eco-city approach and demonstrate Auckland’s

strong commitment to resource conservation, waste minimisation and the preservation of

biodiversity and the natural environment (Auckland Council, 2012b).

The long-term aspirations of the Auckland Plan are also enunciated in the targets for the 13

strategic directions, in particular:

Strategic Direction 7 ‘Acknowledge that nature and people are inseparable’ targets:


- Per capita water consumption from 2004 levels by 15 percent by 2025

- Ensure no regional extinctions of indigenous species and a reduction in the number

of ‘threatened’ or ‘at risk’ species from 2010 levels by 50 percent by 2040

- Reduce the vulnerability of identified ecosystems by ensuring a 95 percent

probability of each ecosystem type being in a viable state by 2040

- Increase the proportion of residents who understand their risk from natural hazards

and are undertaking measures to mitigate or reduce their risk from 2011 levels

(baseline to be determined) to 80 percent by 2040

- Reduce the overall yield of suspended sediment to priority marine receiving

environments from 2012 levels by 15 percent by 2040

Strategic Direction 12 ‘Plan, Deliver and maintain quality infrastructure to make Auckland

liveable and resilient’ targets:

- Reduce maximum annual potable water network losses to less than 12 percent of

total network volume by 2040

- Reduce wet weather overflows to an average of no more than two events per

discharge location per annum, where the stormwater and wastewater systems are

separated, by 2040 (with priority given to bathing beaches and other sensitive

receiving environments by 2030) (Auckland Council, 2012b).

Progress towards becoming a water sensitive region should be aligned with the timing set out in

the Auckland Plan.

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) replaces the existing Regional Policy Statement and

13 district and regional plans, the Unitary Plan will determine:

What can be built and where

How to create a higher quality and more compact Auckland

How to provide for rural activities

How to maintain the marine environment.

The original stormwater management plans were generally based on Low Impact Design (LID)

treatment methodologies whereas the amended plan is based on Water Sensitive Design (WSD)

treatment methodologies. While the principles of LID and WSD are essentially the same, the

application of the options under the PAUP are more aligned to at source attenuation and

treatment and the use of natural systems for stormwater management (Cranfield, Colibaba, &

Grierson, 2014). The changing approach to balancing development with supporting ecosystems

in Auckland is now based on WSD. WSD principles should be applied at all levels of development

be they regional, catchment, site, or even individual lot scales (Blackbourne, et al., 2014;

Cranfield, Colibaba, & Grierson, 2014).

The PAUP has two key roles. Firstly, it describes how Auckland Council and the community will

manage the region’s natural and physical resources while enabling growth and development and

protection of land and associated natural and physical resources. This forms part of the

responsibility of Council to achieve the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

Secondly, it defines how to make Auckland a quality place to live, attractive to people and


businesses, and a place where environmental and social standards are respected and upheld. The

Unitary Plan is also the key tool for implementing the Auckland Plan, the 30-year vision and

spatial plan to make Auckland the world’s most liveable city.

The PAUP was notified for formal submissions on 30 September 2013, with submissions closing

on 28 February 2014. The statutory process under the RMA will commence following the receipt

of submissions and it is likely that it will take a number of years for the PAUP to be fully operative.

Many developments may trigger these rules and in these cases, consent is required.

The PAUP contains provisions that apply now to manage stormwater quality and runoff volumes

and flows, with an emphasis on minimising the adverse effects of new development as far as

possible and taking the opportunities provided by land use change, redevelopment and

infrastructure provisions to reduce existing adverse effects targeted to achieve the greatest

benefit. A summary of the rules is provided below:

Water sensitive design (WSD): Encouraging WSD and green infrastructure in subdivision

and development to reduce the volume of stormwater generated and the amount of

contaminants.

Stormwater quality: Requiring treatment of stormwater from high contaminant

generating areas and activities such as high use roads, car parks and certain cladding

material, at the time of their development or redevelopment.

Stormwater flow/volume: The PAUP maps areas that are particularly sensitive to

increased stormwater runoff. These are mapped as Stormwater Management Area: Flow

or ‘SMAF’ overlays. In these areas, reductions in the stormwater runoff from impervious

areas are required when new development or redevelopment is undertaken. Some older

areas of Auckland have a combined wastewater/stormwater network. These older

networks were designed to overflow when capacity is exceeded. To help ensure that

overflows are not increased there are controls on new impervious areas that drain to

Auckland’s combined wastewater/stormwater network. In most zones there is a

maximum impervious area allowed without a resource consent. This is important to help

manage the capacity of the stormwater network and minimise adverse effects on streams

and flooding. Where more than 10 percent of a site is impervious and it is not connected

to the stormwater network, any new impervious areas greater than 25m² is controlled in

order to ensure that stormwater runoff does not cause significant problems.

Stormwater discharges: The management of the public stormwater network through

stormwater network discharge consents applies a ‘best practicable option’ approach –

essentially the best outcome that is affordable and can be achieved in practice. Resource

consent is required to discharge stormwater from larger new impervious areas, other

than those covered by network discharge consents. A key aspect of the PAUP approach

to managing stormwater is a greater focus on onsite management of stormwater quality

and runoff than has previously occurred. In most cases, reduction and management at or

near-source is a more effective way of managing stormwater and reducing adverse

effects than at the ‘end of the pipe’.


Stormwater quality treatment performance: A change in the approach to stormwater

quality has been to specify treatment performance in terms of Design Effluent Quality

Requirements (DEQR) based on specific contaminants of concern and receiving

environments rather than total suspended sediment (TSS) removal. This change has been

made as TSS removal is not always a good measure of treatment device performance,

particularly in circumstances when the problem is not sediment but metals such as zinc or

copper. This does not substantially affect the design of the treatment devices that are

commonly used in Auckland, as most current devices are able to meet the DEQRs.

However, it will affect what device can be used in some circumstances, particularly the

use of large ponds discharging to streams (Auckland Council, 2014b).

Auckland Council’s Long-Term Plan

The overarching vision of Auckland as the world’s most liveable city is supported by a number of

outcomes, transformational shifts and strategic directions. The seven outcomes describe what

Auckland will look like in 2040 and are the basis for the community outcomes used in the Long-

term Plan (LTP) 2012-2022. The outcomes are:

1. A fair, safe and healthy Auckland

2. A green Auckland

3. An Auckland of prosperity and opportunity

4. A well connected and accessible Auckland

5. A beautiful Auckland that is loved by its people

6. A culturally rich and creative Auckland

7. Te Hau o Te Whenua, Te Hau o Te Tangata – A Māori identity that is Auckland's point of

difference in the world.

The six transformational shifts are the key changes required to achieve the outcomes and the

Mayor's vision for Auckland, namely:

1. Dramatically accelerate the prospects of Auckland’s children and young people

2. Strongly commit to environmental action and green growth

3. Move to outstanding public transport within one network

4. Radically improve the quality of urban living

5. Substantially raise living standards for all Aucklanders and focus on those most in need

6. Significantly lift Māori social and economic well-being.

Under the second outcome, namely ‘a green Auckland’, the LTP sets out what Auckland will look

like in the future if this outcome is achieved:

“Our waterways and coastlines are cleaner, healthier and full of life. We are recognised

for our clean air, sustainable rates of water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions,

our observation of stringent sustainability criteria for urban development and the world

leading way in which we care for our natural environment. Many Aucklanders prefer to

use public transport or telecommute, our energy supply is resilient (and sustainably

sourced) and our households are energy efficient. Our richly biodiverse city is well

endowed with tree-lined streets, networks of parks and protected areas of native bush


and wetlands. We leverage existing expertise and our clean and green reputation to

develop important industries in leading edge clean tech and green technology” (p.18).

Under the transformational shift ‘to strongly commit to environmental action and green growth’,

the LTP states:

“We need more sustainable buildings, infrastructure and practices such as energy

efficiency and waste minimisation. We also need to restore and enhance our natural

environment, including improving our biodiversity, and quality of our air, land, waters and

seas.

We are proposing a range of initiatives from Retrofit your home to improved stormwater

infrastructure, significant new investment in public transport options, protection of our

built and natural environments and new waste minimisation plans.

We recognise the role of Māori in the management and protection of the environment.

As Kaitiaki, Mana Whenua have a traditional and historical connection to the land and sea

and have long employed successful sustainable management systems. Mana Whenua

have an important role to play in the decision making about our environment” (p.23).

The management of stormwater is included in various groups of activities, namely: environment

and heritage protection (Table 4 and Table 5); local built and natural environment (Table 6 and

Table 7); stormwater management (Table 8 and Table 9); flood protection and control services

(Table 10 and Table 11) and sewerage treatment and disposal (Table 12 and Table 13).

Table 4: Group of Activities: Environment and Heritage Protection

Activities Main services and responsibilities

Air, land and water monitoring and management

Monitoring, educating and promoting emission reductions from home heating, transport and industry in collaboration with other organisations. Implementing the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. Delivering the regional recreational water quality monitoring programme. Rehabilitating landfills and managing pervasive sediment problems. Providing strategic direction to Watercare, covering water services and the conservation, and development of a regional water strategy.

Natural heritage protection and biosecurity

Minimising harm to indigenous biodiversity, water quality, soil resources, recreation, human health, trade, primary production and Māori cultural values through pest control and eradication, relationships with central government, partnerships with stakeholders, working with community groups and landowners on biodiversity conservation, protection frameworks, conservation programmes in regional parks, protection of geological unique features such as volcanic cones, and preservation of unique Gulf islands ecosystem.

Environmental strategy, policies and programmes

Protecting, restoring and enhancing Auckland’s physical and natural resources through use of non-regulatory tools, such as community partnerships, resources, funding, advice, and leadership. Management of 13 different funding schemes to support projects across Auckland. Identifying and implementing incentive tools such as rates relief and contestable grants to influence responsible environmental behaviour. Supporting communities to restore significant environments on both public and private land, caring for local waterways, and reducing the impact of particular activities on harbours. Facilitating the participation of 100,000 people in environmental programmes.


Table 5: Levels of Service and Associated Performance Measures: Environment and Heritage

Protection

Level of service statement

Performance measure Current baseline

Target 2012/13

Target 2021/22

Monitor and protect freshwater ecosystems to maintain water quality and biodiversity

Proportion of stream samples that exceed red alert level for stock watering

12.5% Less than 12.5%

Less than 12.5%

Protect the natural character of the coast from inappropriate development

Perception of good balance between built areas and natural environment on the coastline

66% 70% 70%

Percentage of environmentally significant catchments with Catchment Management Plans (CMPs)

New measure

5% 50%

Provide safe access to beaches and coastal areas for recreation

Proportion of time bathing beaches are suitable for swimming and contact recreation

91% 92% 92%

Provide funding, support and environmental education to schools and communities

Number of students participating in the Learning Through Experience programme

17,378 22,000 23,000

Number of schools registered for Enviroschools programme

139 140 165

Table 6: Group of Activities: Local Built and Natural Environment


Local environment and heritage protection

Responsible primarily for:

wetland restoration

habitat restoration and species management programme in parks

native planting in partnership with the community

support for the appropriate use and re-use of heritage sites and items

funding to help maintain a scheduled heritage site

free public information on heritage and related issues for all geographic areas.

Table 7: Levels of Service and Associated Performance Measures: Local Built and Natural

Environment



Target 2012/13

Target 2021/22

Provide leadership and support to protect and conserve the region's natural environment and cultural heritage

Number of environmental programmes led or supported

New measure

Establish baseline

Maintain or improve

Number of Māori related environmental programmes led or supported

New measure

Establish baseline

Maintain or improve


Table 8: Group of Activities: Stormwater Management


Stormwater operations and maintenance

Stormwater catchment

Network planning

Manages the network from planning through to construction and ensures new developments have their stormwater impacts adequately managed. Services and maintains treatment devices, including removal of sediments and litter, along with a rapid response to stormwater problems. Responsible for renewal/acquisition of network discharge consents, Civil Defense stormwater incident response, and public health and safety associated with the public stormwater network.

Table 9: Levels of Service and Associated Performance Measures: Stormwater Management



Target 2012/13

Target 2021/22

Mitigate the risks of flooding by constructing and maintaining reliable, effective, sustainable and future proofed stormwater systems and networks and manage the detrimental effects of stormwater on the environment

Percentage of customers satisfied with stormwater management

47% Greater than 50%

Greater than 50%

Percentage of Māori satisfied with stormwater management

New measure

Establish baseline

Maintain or improve

Number of blockages in the stormwater network per 100km

3 Less than 20 Less than 20

Percentage of urgent stormwater requests responded to within two hours in urban areas

New measure

Greater than 85%

Greater than 90%

Percentage of urgent stormwater requests responded to within four hours in rural areas

New measure

Greater than 80%

Greater than 90%

Percentage of non-urgent stormwater service requests responded to within three days

98% Greater than 80%

Greater than 85%

Percentage of manhole popping requests attended to and made safe within two hours

New measure

100% 100%

Percentage stormwater consent conditions with no justified abatement notices or enforcement proceedings

New measure

100% 100%

Table 10: Group of Activities: Flood Protection and Control Services


Flood protection and control services

Protect flood-prone buildings and environments, respond to flooding incidents, and develop better designed stormwater infrastructure to alleviate flooding and minimise flooding within the region.


Table 11: Levels of Service and Associated Performance Measures: Flood Protection and Control

Services


Performance measure

Current baseline

Target 2012/13 Target 2021/22

Plan and develop stormwater infrastructure and improve design to help alleviate flooding

Reduction of habitable floors that are below the 100 year flood plain

50 30 30

Percentage of catchments with accurate flood hazard mapping completed

New measure

20% 65%

Table 12: Group of Activities: Sewerage Treatment and Disposal


Sewerage treatment and

disposal services

Providing safe and healthy wastewater collection, transport and treatment that is

economical, environmentally sound and responsive to customer needs to 430,000

Auckland homes and businesses. Long-term planning of Auckland's sewerage networks.

Table 13: Levels of Service and Associated Performance Measures: Sewerage Treatment and

Disposal



Target 2012/13

Target 2021/22

Provide reliable wastewater services and manage discharges to maintain or improve the health of the environment

Percentage of customers satisfied with the overall wastewater service

Not available 80% 80%

Number of bursts and chokes per 1,000 properties

7.1 Less than 10

Less than 10

Number of dry weather sewer overflows per 100km of wastewater pipe length per year

1.9 Less than or equal to

5

Less than or equal to 5

Percentage of wastewater discharged that is compliant with consent discharge requirements (excludes minor or technical non-compliance) for Metropolitan areas

100% 100% 100%

Percentage of wastewater discharged that is compliant with consent discharge requirements(excluding minor or technical non-compliance) for non-Metropolitan areas

35% 35% 100%


Appendix 6 Auckland’s Current Stormwater Management Practice

Introduction

The CRC report contains useful information for decision makers, but it is not sufficient to enable

full consideration of the assessment and recommendations included in the report. Further

information is required; in particular, decision makers need to consider the wider Auckland

context, and the findings in the report based on interviews and documentation review, need to

be compared with a more thorough review of ‘on the ground’ progress. This appendix provides

relevant information from documentation and ‘on the ground’ activities and progress which

should be considered alongside the assessment included in the CRC report when decision makers

review the CRC report recommendations.

Overview

The CRC report assesses Auckland Council’s progress since amalgamation in 2010 as a “return to

the ‘shared understanding and issue agreement’ phase” (p.34). It may be the case that since

amalgamation, the Council has needed to work at achieving this shared understanding, but prior

to amalgamation the individual authorities were not all aligned with each other. The report

acknowledges this by referring to the “different starting points” (p.34). It could be argued that

the region is more aligned than it was before the amalgamation.

Auckland Council Codes of Practice and ‘on the ground’ practice since amalgamation seem to

demonstrate progress beyond ‘shared understanding and issue agreement’ toward more water

sensitive practices. A review of the Codes of Practice, which provide the technical specifications,

performance standards and design philosophy for infrastructure and land development, suggests

that post amalgamation, the Codes of Practice are more conducive to adopting WSD in Auckland

than the Codes of Practice for the individual authorities were before pre-amalgamation.

Water Sensitive Stormwater Management Prior to Amalgamation

An indication of the state of water sensitive stormwater management practice prior to

amalgamation is provided in the Auckland Regional Council Technical report TR2008/045 Model

Codes of Practice for Enhanced Stormwater Management and Improved Uptake of Low Impact

Design (Bennett & Megaughin, 2008). The aim of TR2008/045 was to provide tools to address

some of the limitations and barriers to implementing LID and other enhanced stormwater

management techniques identified in previous Auckland Regional Council (ARC) studies. It was

anticipated that it would result in a Model Code of Practice on which individual local authorities

could base the drafting or revision of their Codes of Practice.

In developing the TR2008/045, a thorough review of District Plans, current codes of practice, and

manuals was undertaken, alongside an interview programme with the local authorities to gauge

the implementation of such documents.


The TR2008/045 found that, in general, the implementation of enhanced stormwater

management techniques across the local authorities was not as effective as it could have been.

The study categorised local authorities as being either proactive or passive in terms of LID use.

North Shore City Council, Waitakere City Council, Auckland City Council and to a lesser extent

Rodney District Council, were proactive in producing LID-related documents. However, it was

noted that some of the content of these documents was at odds with regional policy, in particular

the ARC Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water. It was also noted that these documents were at

times at odds with the relevant District Plan. The language used within the existing documents

was criticised for under-emphasising the importance of LID approaches and ambiguity over the

intended use of LID.

Other local authorities such as Manukau City Council, Papakura District Council and Franklin

District Council were found to have little or no LID-related documentation of their own and relied

heavily on traditional engineering standards, also found in the more proactive councils.

Despite the marked difference between the two groups of authorities, there were a number of

common barriers evident, restricting the implementation of enhanced stormwater management

techniques. These included the lack of communication between departments; uncertainty

surrounding ARC jurisdiction in LID planning; lack of awareness of retrofit potential and LID

brownfield use; the limiting nature of private stormwater structure ownership; the lack of detail

regarding capital costs; and operational costs and performance. A frequent comment from the

interviewees was the gap between the high-level thinking surrounding LID and its physical

implementation on the ground (Bennett & Megaughin, 2008).

Water Sensitive Stormwater Management Post Amalgamation

Draft Auckland Transport Code of Practice

The draft Auckland Transport Code of Practice (ATCOP) is the guidance document for transport

infrastructure for Auckland and has been developed to support interactions and connections on

and between street/road and interfacing land use. It provides a set of standards that apply to

infrastructure across Auckland including guidelines and recommendations that represent best

practice, particularly those related to public transport infrastructure and stormwater outcomes.

Throughout the draft ATCOP, the themes of integrated planning, sustainability and urban design

are endorsed including enhanced stormwater outcomes (Auckland Transport, 2014). It specifies

whether an aspect or statement is a recommendation, optional or mandatory.7

The draft ATOCP states in Section 17.3.2 on Water Sensitive Design that:

All road construction and improvement should be designed in accordance with WSD

principles, even where conventional stormwater management systems may be

appropriate.

7 The draft ATCOP specifies that:

‘must’ – indicates something is mandatory

‘should’ – indicates a recommendation

‘may’ – indicates something that is optional and may be considered for use.


Road layouts should be designed to retain existing landforms and drainage patterns

wherever possible. This can often be done without significant reduction of development

yield or level of service to road users, and frequently results in improved quality of built

and natural environment.

Impervious surface percentage should be kept as low as possible, within road reserve and

on adjoining land, consistent with the road use required (Auckland Transport, 2014).

By comparison, none of the legacy councils considered WSD in their Transport Codes of Practice

and the focus was on conveyance of stormwater.

Auckland Council Code of Practice for Land Development and Subdivision –

Stormwater Section

Chapter four of the Auckland Council Code of Practice for Land Development and Subdivision

states that the objectives of a stormwater system include:

Meeting all the standards of the Auckland Council

Minimising adverse environmental and community impacts

Protection of aquatic ecosystems from potential adverse effects

Compliance with environmental requirements

Adequate system capacity to service the fully developed catchment

Long-service life with consideration of maintenance and life-cycle cost

Application of water-sensitive design solutions

Minimisation of flood risk to life and property (Section 4.2.1).

The Stormwater Code of Practice sets out Council’s requirements for WSD. It states that:

“As far as practicable, all future development in Auckland should apply the principles of

WSD and the application of ‘Best Management Practices’ to minimise stormwater run-off

volumes and peak flow rates and to improve the quality of stormwater run-off entering

the receiving environment.

WSD principles shall be considered during the initial planning stage and later developed

during design and implemented at the construction stages of the project. Good planning

and design early in the development process maximises the cost effectiveness of WSD”

(Section 4.3.3).

Auckland Council Code of Practice for Land Development and Subdivision –

Earthworks and Geotechnical Requirements

Section two of the Auckland Council Code of Practice for Land Development and Subdivision,

regarding Earthworks and Geotechnical Requirements, sets out:

Requirements for the assessment of land stability and the design and control of

earthworks to ensure a suitable platform for the construction, for which a LID approach

is preferred

Design processes are to include, but are not limited to LID considerations (amongst other

geotechnical factors)


Preliminary site evaluation must take into account LID factors, including consideration of

maintaining, improving natural waterway features and optimising waterway crossing

locations, and protecting well-drained soils and natural soakage areas

Landform selection needs to take into account LID principles and the final choice of

landform and land remediation proposals shall represent the most desirable compromise

between the development requirements and the preservation of natural features and the

natural character and landscape amenity values of the site including the retention of

natural of natural watercourses (Auckland Council, 2013b).

Water and Wastewater Code of Practice for Land Development and Subdivision

Watercare’s Water and Wastewater Code of Practice for Land Development and Subdivision

states that all designs shall include appropriate consideration of and provision for the following:

Geotechnical conditions

Geothermal conditions

LID opportunities to minimise community infrastructure requirements, including water

efficient designs and the control of wastes at source (Watercare, 2012, p. 2).

The Water and Wastewater Code of Practice states that LID solutions that use natural processes

and add value to urban environments are the preferred approach. LID shall be considered in all

areas served by combined wastewater and stormwater sewers and as otherwise required by the

Auckland Council Stormwater Infrastructure Design Standards (Watercare Services Limited, 2012).

Water Sensitive Design for Stormwater Guideline Document

The Auckland Council Guideline Documents are non-statutory publications that provide best

practice guidelines. However, they generally represent an acknowledged means by which to

comply with statutory requirements.

Guidance on Low Impact Design (LID) was previously provided by the Auckland Regional Council

Technical Publication TP124: Low Impact Design Manual for the Auckland Region (ARC, 2000). The

Auckland Council draft Guidance Document GD2013/04: Water Sensitive Design for Stormwater is

an update of this document and includes the following new material:

1. A change in focus from LID to WSD and reframing to provide emphasis on freshwater

management, particularly stormwater management, throughout all phases of land use

planning, design and development.

2. A WSD definition and set of principles

3. An analysis of challenges to WSD implementation

4. A discussion of synergies and conflicts between WSD and urban design principles

5. Application of WSD principles to brownfield environments

6. WSD case studies, through an online case-study web portal (Lewis, et al., 2013).

Watercare’s Environmental Sustainability Initiatives

The CRC report describes current stormwater management practice in Auckland, suggesting that

it is fragmented and that a unified vision is lacking. Yet, the authors give little description of the

tangible progress that has been made. In particular, Watercare have implemented a number of


environmental sustainability initiatives that have a stormwater focus since the amalgamation,

shown in Table 14 below.

Table 14: Watercare's Environmental Sustainability Initiatives

Project Catchment Timeframe Value

(approx.) Environmental Benefits and Improvements

Newmarket Gully Tunnel

Newmarket 2016-20 $20m Improved stormwater quality in Hobson Bay by constructing a storage tunnel/conveyance pipe to collect the overflows from Hells Gate overflow point, reducing the frequency and volume of wastewater discharge to the Newmarket Stream.

Waterfront Interceptor

Grey Lynn, Herne Bay, St Mary’s Bay, Freeman’s Bay

2024-30 $240m Improved water quality in the marine receiving environments and watercourses around Cox’s Bay, Home Bay, Herne Bay, St Mary’s Bay and Wynyard Quarter. A storage/conveyance tunnel will reduce the frequency and volume of wastewater discharges from combined sewer overflows (CSOs) in the contributing catchments.

Central Interceptor and Associated Link /Collector Sewers

Meola, Waterview, Avondale, Motions, Oakley, and Whau

2017 -27 $1,200m Improved water quality in the marine receiving environments and watercourses within the Meola, Waterview, Avondale, Motions, Oakley and Whau catchments. A storage/conveyance tunnel will reduce the frequency and volume of wastewater discharges from CSOs in these contributing catchments.

Cox's Stages 10, 11 and 12 Separation Tidy Up

Grey Lynn Complete $170k Improved stormwater quality in Cox’s creek by removing wastewater connections from the stormwater network and completing historic separation works.

Kohimarama Storage Tank and Branch Sewer Upgrade

Kohimarama 2014-16 $13.6m Improved stormwater quality in Madill’s Farm stream and reduced volume and frequency of CSOs to the stream. Works include wastewater trunk upgrade and construction of a storage tank in Madill’s Farm.

Carlton Gore Road Separation Stage 1

Newmarket Complete $600k Improved stormwater quality and reduction in volume and frequency of CSOs to Newmarket Stream by installation of a new stormwater network to separate Carlton Gore Road. The project also includes a wastewater network renewal and Auckland Transport carriageway upgrade works. This is a joint Watercare, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport project.

Glen Eden WW Storage Tank and Branch Sewer Upgrade

Glen Eden 2015-16 $13.5m Reduces wet weather wastewater overflows to Henderson Creek.

Riddell Road Storage Tank and Wastewater Upgrade

Glendowie 2015-18 $4.8m Reduces wet weather wastewater overflows to Riddell Road watercourse.

Point England Storage Tank and Wastewater Pump Station Upgrade

Point England 2015-17 $18.8m Reduces wet weather wastewater overflows to Omaru Creek.

Dorset Road Separation

Grey Lynn/ Motions

2014-15 $500k Reduction in surcharging of the downstream wastewater network in William Denny Ave by Separating Dorset Street including installation of a new public stormwater, CIPP lining of existing combined sewer, and inflow and Infiltration surveys. Removal of CSOs from Motions creek.

Franklin Road Separation

Freemans Bay 2014/15 - 2016/17

$4.3m Improved stormwater quality and reduction of overflow volume and frequency at the Wellington Street CSO. The




Wellington Street CSO discharges to the Waitemata Harbour at Wynyard Wharf. Includes construction of a new wastewater network in Franklin Road and Collingwood Street, to facilitate separation. This is a joint Watercare, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport project.

Picton Street Separation

Freemans Bay 2014/15 - 2016/17

$3.7m Improved stormwater quality and reduction of overflow volume and frequency at the Wellington Street (CSO). The Wellington St CSO discharges to the Waitemata Harbour at Wynyard Wharf. Includes construction of a new stormwater network to separate approximately 10.0ha of the combined area. The project also reduces habitable floor flooding. This is a joint Auckland Council and Watercare project.

Otara Diversion Sewer

Otara 2016-19 $20.5m This will reduce wet weather wastewater overflows to the Otara Creek, the project consists of a new pump station, storage tank and associated network upgrades.

Howick Diversion Sewer

Pakuranga 2014-17 $34.6m Reduces wet weather wastewater overflows to Pakuranga Creek.

Blackbidge WW Pump Station Upgrade

Mangere 2013/14 $3.7m Reduce wet weather overflows to the Tararata Creek.

Northcote Central Trunk Sewer Upgrade

Northcote Central

2014/15 $6m Reduce wet weather overflows to the Hillcrest Creek which discharges into Shoal Bay near Barrys Point.

Olsen Ave Stormwater Upgrade and Wastewater Diversion

Oakley 2013/14 $150k Improved stormwater quality in the Olsen Ave stream and Oakley stream by completing wastewater diversion works. Diversion will reduce surcharging of the local wastewater network in Olsen Ave. This is a joint Watercare and Auckland Council project.

Carlton Gore Road Wastewater and Stormwater Separation Stage 2

Newmarket 2014/15 - 2015/16

$700k Improved stormwater quality and reduction in volume and frequency of CSOs to Newmarket Stream. Includes extending the stormwater and wastewater networks in Broadway , Morgan Street, Alma Street, Clayton Street and George St to facilitate separation . This is a joint Watercare and Auckland Council project.

Okahu Bay Separation

Okahu Bay 2014/15 - 2017/18

$3.0m Improved stormwater quality in Okahu Bay by a reduction in volume and frequency of CSOs flows to the stormwater network and facilitate proposed day lighting of the original stream in Orakei Domain. This is a joint Auckland Council and Watercare project.

Waterview Separation

Waterview 2015/16 -2017/18

TBA Improved stormwater quality and reduction in volume and frequency of CSOs to Waterview Inlet. Includes extending and upgrading the stormwater network in Waterview, to facilitate separation. Alternative project is the Waterview Central interceptor collector pipe. This is a joint Watercare and Auckland Council project.

424 to 464 Remuera Road Separation

Remuera Branch 1

2014/15 -2015/16

$627k Improved stormwater quality and reduction in volume and frequency of CSOs to Waiata Stream. Includes extending the stormwater network in Remuera Road to facilitate separation. This is a joint Watercare and Auckland Council project.

Pt Chevalier Separation Tidy Up

Pt Chevalier 2014/15 -2015/16

$10k Improved stormwater quality in the lower Meola Creek and Waitemata Harbour by reducing the frequency and volume of wastewater overflows at Oliver Street Pump Station. This project includes carrying out flow monitoring within the Pt Chevalier catchment to isolate the source of inflow and infiltration.

East Coast Bays Trunk Sewer And

East Coast Bays

2013-18 $36.4m This project will lower overflows primarily from the coastal outfalls in Mairangi Bay, it also includes local




Sidmouth Wastewater Pump Station and Rising Main Upgrade

sewers in Mairangi Bay that are being upgraded, this will lower the wet weather overflows to the Mairangi Bay Stream near Sidmouth Street. The project has 4 components; the upgrade the Sidmouth wastewater pump station, replace the rising main, up-size local sewers in Mairangi Bay, and upgrade and replacing trunk sewer from Constellation Drive to Rosedale WWTP.

Forrest Hill Wastewater Catchment Diversion

Forrest Hill and Wairau

2018-20 $20.9m Reduces wet weather overflows in Forrest Hill and Becroft Park Wairau, these locations all discharge to the Wairau Steam. This project also relieves wet weather loads at Black Rock and Alma Street wastewater pump stations also reducing wet weather overflows from their constructed overflow points. The project consists of a new pump station, storage tank and associated network upgrades and involves diversion of wastewater catchments directly to trunk sewer close to the Wairau wastewater pump station. In budget, CAPEX still to be submitted for approval.

Wairau Wastewater Pump Station Reconstruction

Wairau 2017-20 $20.8m Reduces wet weather wastewater overflows to Wairau Stream.

Sunnynook Road Wastewater Upgrade

Glenfield Sunnynook

2014-15 $3.1m Eliminates wet weather overflows from Wairau Steam and upstream tributary.

Oteha Valley Trunk Sewer Upgrade

Albany Complete $11.3m Reduce wet weather overflows to the Lucas Creek.

Awaruku Bifurcation Pipe

Awaruku / Long Bay

Complete $800k Reduces wet weather wastewater overflows to Awaruku Stream and Long Bay.

Chelsea Pump Station and Storage Tank

Chatswood 14/17 $8.1m The diversion of wastewater flows from Chatswood to the Birkdale catchment. This alleviates wet weather overflows at Manganui and in the Le Roy Bush wetland in Little Shoal Bay. In budget, CAPEX still to be submitted for approval.

Source: Watercare, Infrastructure Planning Unit, 27 June, 2014.

The Auckland Council Stormwater Unit’s Progress toward Water Sensitivity

The Auckland Council Stormwater Unit’s Draft Strategic Direction

The Auckland Council Stormwater Unit’s draft Strategic Direction 2012/15 aligns with the

Council’s vision to be the world’s most liveable city by promoting a water sensitive community.

The following statements in the draft Strategic Direction manifest the Stormwater Unit’s

commitment to be a water sensitive city by taking into account the principles announced in the

Auckland Plan. As shown in Figure 1, the Stormwater Unit considers a water sensitive community

as the core objective.

The draft Strategic Direction states:

“The concept ‘water sensitivity’ is a shift in the focus of stormwater management from

removing and disposing stormwater as fast as possible via built infrastructure, to

recognising the value of stormwater, its close interrelationship with natural freshwater


systems, and how it can enhance the liveability of our cities” (Auckland Council, 2014a, p.

6).

The Auckland Council Stormwater Unit sets out the vision for Auckland to be a ‘Water Sensitive

Community’, which will:

Value stormwater as an essential part of our built environment and our freshwater system

Maintain and enhance the health of streams, groundwater and coastal waters

Manage and build resilience to flood risk through retention of flood plains, overland flow

paths, and appropriate land use

Embrace the Maori cultural and spiritual significance of water and value the Mauri of

water, as well as the amenity, open space and community values

Commit to water sensitive and low impact design during new development and

redevelopment of land

Contribute to the integration and interaction of communities with their streams and

coastal areas

Explore use and reuse of stormwater as part of total water cycle management, including

harvesting, cleaning and reusing stormwater in public open spaces

Contribute to biodiversity, carbon footprint reduction and reduction of urban heat island

effects through use of green infrastructure and natural systems (Auckland Council, 2014a).

The draft Strategic Direction states:

“The move to a water sensitive community is a significant change in approach and will

take time. Built infrastructure will be a primary component of the stormwater network

and its on-going efficient and effective operation and renewal is fundamental to

sustainable stormwater management” (Auckland Council, 2014a, p. 6).

The Auckland Council Stormwater Unit’s Objectives

In order to achieve its vision, the Stormwater Unit established three core and three supporting

objectives, which are strongly connected to the Auckland Plan transformational shifts and

strategic directions most relevant to stormwater, as shown in Figure 1 below.


Source: Auckland Council (2014a)

The Stormwater Unit’s objectives will:

Support the Stormwater Unit’s vision

Guide expenditure over the short, medium and long term

Contribute to the delivery of the regional outcomes

Ensure good quality built and green infrastructure for present and future generations

(Auckland Council, 2014a).

Auckland Council Annual Report

The results published in the Auckland Council Annual Report 2012/2013 show that Auckland

Council is making good progress towards becoming a water sensitive city, as detailed below.

Council extended the Sustainable Catchments programme to six catchment areas – the

Waitematā (Project Twin Streams, Oakley, Motions and Meola creeks); Mahurangi Harbour;

Kaipara (Hoteo); North East Coast (Whangateau Harbour); Manukau (Papakura Stream); and the

Greater Tāmaki. Council worked with iwi and community leaders such as the Integrated Kaipara

Harbour Management Group and the Tāmaki Estuary Environmental Forum.

Auckland Council runs the State of the Environment monitoring programme, and Council has

provided funding for a rural Waterway Protection Fund (WPF), a non-regulatory incentive (grants)

programme to address water quality issues in priority catchments through stock exclusion. The

WPF’s current priority catchments are the Papakura and Ngakaroa with $154,000 available

annually in grants. Grants are provided to rural landowners, including farmers and lifestyle block

owners, to undertake improvement projects that are designed to protect and enhance land,

streams and waterways, and reduce the potential for erosion and water contamination. Projects

supported by the WPF focus on fencing off streams and waterways and the installation of

alternative water supply systems.

Figure 1: Stormwater Unit Objectives


The Annual Plan 2012/2013 had a target of 5 percent of environmentally significant catchments

with Catchment Management Plans (CMPs); the result for 2012/2013 was 6 percent. CMPs

provide key information on network management and flood hazards for environmentally

significant catchments. CMPs are now based on the 10 consolidated receiving environments

(CREs) identified for the region. It should be noted that Council has recently advanced its CMP

programme.

The Annual Plan 2012/2013 target for the proportion of instances where beaches are tested to be

safe for swimming and contact recreation was 92 percent. The actual result exceeded the target

at 93 percent.

Council implemented Wai Care, a water quality monitoring, education and action programme

that works with communities towards a sustainable future for waterways and catchments. Wai

Care facilitators work with individuals, community groups, schools, businesses and private

landowners to help them protect and care for local waterways.

Examples of inclusion of Māori in water related environmental programmes include:

Working with iwi through the Tāmaki Estuary Environmental Forum to plan joint action

with the council and community towards achieving improved water quality in the Tāmaki

catchment including work on an integrated environmental restoration plan for the

Tāmaki Estuary

Working with Ngāti Whātua Ōrakei to implement Project Twin Streams using traditional

Matauranga Māori approaches to ecological restoration and enhancement

Ōrakei Stream restoration with Ngāti Whātua Ōrakei

Provision for active participation of mana whenua at all levels of the Hauraki Gulf Marine

Spatial Plan project, including the project steering, stakeholder working and expert

advisory groups.

In 2012/2013, Council spent about $90m as part of its stormwater environmental improvements

programme designed to prevent stormwater from contributing to the erosion of streams and

foreshore areas. This included:

Oakley stream widening project ($21m): This will raise the level of flood protection to 89

homes and enable further risk reduction to other homes upstream. It also includes

community and environmental programmes to enhance natural and social habitats.

Portland Road ($1.3m): This will resolve flooding issues and complete environmental and

social improvements around the Portland stream and adjacent reserve.

La Rosa Stream Daylighting ($1m): This will restore 180 metres of the Avondale and

Parahiku streams in the La Rosa Gardens Reserve in West Auckland to a more natural

profile. Sections of the streams in the past had been directed through long sections of

concrete piping as a result of urban development. This project will replace the pipes with

planted stream banks, a process known as daylighting. This will support plant life, provide

a haven for native birds and strengthen the stream banks from erosion. The new

wetlands will also act as a natural filter to prevent harmful pollutants from reaching the

sea.

Sunnynook Park Dry Pond upgrade ($4.2m): This project will improve capacity within the

park to hold and temporarily retain stormwater to reduce flood risk to properties


downstream. Approximately 30,000m3 of soil will be removed at the same time as other

improvements are made, including Watercare’s upgrade of the wastewater pipe that runs

through the park.

Council worked with the local community on the North Shore to enhance and revitalise a stretch

of the Eskdale Stream, which is an important natural part of the stormwater system. The Mid-

Eskdale Stream Enhancement project engages with over 50 homes along the stream to carry out

planting and stream enhancement to restore the stream’s biodiversity and improve its natural

ability to manage stormwater. The work will enhance and improve water quality as native plants

and soils filter and remove many of the pollutants that can be carried by stormwater into streams

and harbours. The project provides one-on-one support and advice to residents, local schools

and community groups to equip them with the tools, knowledge and support to restore the

streams on their properties. By working alongside communities, the project will achieve more

than just a physical improvement, since it enables residents to develop closer connections

between both themselves and with their natural environment.

The stormwater team responsible for the Martyn Wilson Reserve upgrade in Hobson Bay won an

Ingenium Excellence Award for public sector engineering projects under $2m at the Institute of

Public Works Engineering Australasia NZ Excellence Awards in June 2013. This important project

will improve reserve and the water quality in Hobson Bay. The team built a stormwater treatment

pond, cleared mangroves and planted native plants along the Remuera Stream to improve water

quality, reduce pollution and attract native wildlife. A new timber boardwalk enables the public

to enjoy the enhanced environment.

Sixteen floors in the central area, 21 in the western area and 16 in the southern area were

protected. While the number of floors to be protected in the 2013/2014 works programme has

yet to be determined, it is anticipated that the number protected will be at similar levels to the

number in 2012/2013. The habitable floors protected are the floors of private dwellings identified

as being at risk from flooding and which are being protected by works carried out by Council as

part of their capital works programme (Auckland Council, 2013a).

Little Shoal Bay Stormwater Catchment Management Plan

An example of a water sensitive approach can be found in the Little Shoal Bay Stormwater

Catchment Management Plan which is a catchment located in the southern part of North Shore.

The catchment contains a large bush reserve where a majority of the stream network runs

through. In the lower catchment, the estuary was reclaimed allowing a freshwater wetland to

form. The key issues for the Little Shoal Bay catchment are: stream bank erosion; water quality;

and riparian habitat degradation. The Little Shoal Bay catchment is located in the southern part

of North Shore. The catchment contains a large bush reserve where a majority of the stream

network runs through. In the lower catchment, the estuary was reclaimed allowing a freshwater

wetland to form. Development of the Little Shoal Bay catchment began during the late 1800s and

now is almost fully developed.

Following an assessment and consultation on a range of options, a series of tailored

recommendations have been proposed in the Little Shoal Bay Stormwater Catchment

Management Plan, as summarised below:


Catchment Wide Guidelines/Recommendations

- Any structures within the water course should provide for the passage of native

fish (climbing species).

- Stream banks and beds should be kept natural as far as practicable. Where

artificial lining is proved to be required it must provide habitat for the native flora

and fauna.

- Wetlands should be retained and/or enhanced.

- The piping of any permanent watercourse should be avoided.

- Overland flow paths should not be impeded or obstructed by any structure.

- Buildings should be kept clear of the 100 year flood plain.

- Buildings or structures should be kept out of the riparian margin (10m either side

of water course) particularly along the main channel and selected tributaries to

enable a continuous vegetative riparian margin.

- Priority should be placed on ensuring adequate sediment control measures are

implemented on subdivision/construction sites.

Stormwater Management Areas

- Native vegetation and noted specimen trees (riparian and catchment) shall be

retained as far as practicable.

- Head-water streams should be retained and/or enhanced and their catchments

should be protected from changes in hydrology as well as changes in vegetative

cover.

- All wastewater discharges or overflows to the receiving environment should be

avoided.

- Riparian vegetation should be retained and enhanced where possible.

- Low Impact Design (LID) should be implemented on all new development and/or

redevelopment.

- Council initiated projects should apply LID in all cases (Auckland Council, 2013c).