supported at levels of 50% to 75% by central government with maintenance and
operating costs at rates of around 33%. A review of documents from the time suggests this national support
typically amounted to over $114m per annum in today’s dollars.
In the three decades since the central government stopped funding flood protection works, the Crown’s
assets have received flood protection at a cost to regional and targeted local ratepayers, with no
contribution from the Crown1. These
including loss of gate control, the scheme operated with few major issues. In comparison with
previous monitoring years, compliance with residual flow requirements was high, continuing on from the
significant improvement noted in the 2014-2015 monitoring period. Management of the level of Lake
Opunake improved from the previous period, as maintenance works and changes to operations led to a
reduction in the rate of water lost during station shutdowns. Unfortunately, the maintenance works required
Council on
performance of scheme in all floods exceeding 2,500
cumecs at Bertrand Rd.
Funding
Maintenance funded by: Targeted rate over the New
Plymouth District
Damage repairs funded by: Rates (as above)
Financial reserves
Reprioritising works
Loan
Financial reserves
Aim to: - Build up reserves to meet above average planned
expenditure.
- Draw down reserves to meet unexpected
expenditure.
Review of plan Review when there is a change in
Council on
performance of scheme in all floods exceeding 2,500
cumecs at Bertrand Rd.
Funding
Maintenance funded by: Targeted rate over the New
Plymouth District
Damage repairs funded by: Rates (as above)
Financial reserves
Reprioritising works
Loan
Financial reserves
Aim to: - Build up reserves to meet above average planned
expenditure.
- Draw down reserves to meet unexpected
expenditure.
Review of plan Review when there is a change in
race and
lake water levels was generally good. With regard to the management and recording of flows within the
diversion race, performance has improved significantly compared to previous monitoring years, with no
significant loss of data. This is the second consecutive monitoring period to record no such occasions of lost
data since monitoring has focused on the continuity of the data record. There were only three occasions
where required flow rates were not complied with. The first related to
move closer to achieving sustainable development of the
region’s resources.
1.1.4 Evaluation of environmental performance and administrative compliance
Besides discussing the various details of the performance and extent of compliance by the consent holder/s
during the period under review, this report also assigns a rating as to each Company’s environmental and
administrative performance.
Environmental performance is concerned with actual or likely effects on the receiving environment
move closer to achieving sustainable development of the
region’s resources.
page
3
1.1.4 Evaluation of environmental performance and administrative compliance
Besides discussing the various details of the performance and extent of compliance by the consent holder/s
during the period under review, this report also assigns a rating as to each Company’s environmental and
administrative performance.
Environmental performance is concerned with actual or likely effects on
TDF is not operational during maintenance or breakdown;
the sludge volume exceeds the operational capacity of the TDF; and
the TDF is being upgraded.
8. The land proposed for the discharge in this application was approximately 4.2 ha. The
application states that it would therefore likely provide sufficient capacity for disposal
of 10,000 wet tonnes of sludge. However, recognising the maximum proposed
discharge rate of 2000 tonnes/ha, and taking account of buffer distances, NPDC
any discharge of waste material to the
‘collection pond’, or to the material stockpiled on Pad 3.
Under no circumstances must there be any discharge of waste material to the
‘collection pond’, or to the material stockpiled on Pad 3.
Incorporated into condition 12 above
Irrigation
14 From a date no later than 60 days after these consents commencing, the consent
holder must measure and record the rate and volume of discharge from the
Irrigation Pond at
the non compliances identified related to the non-submission of injection data and
supporting information during the previous 2009 -2012 monitoring period. This non-
compliance resulted in the Company’s compliance rating being downgraded for 2009-2012
page
period. This non-compliance has therefore not been taken into account when assessing the
Company’s compliance rating for the period under review.
A second unauthorised incident was registered when the Council became