The proposed Wastewater Performance Standards will mean a step-change for the way that wastewater infrastructure is developed and managed. Water New Zealand members’ reactions to the proposed technical content are covered on page 18.

However, one key aspect of this change is the implications the new standards will have for Resource Management Act (RMA) consenting processes, in combination with changes to the RMA introduced by the Local Government (Water Services) Bill.

This article highlights key changes in the bill, and what they are likely to mean based on indicative proposals in the discussion document for the wastewater standards.¹

Standards to prevail over other RMA instruments

Significantly, the standards (made under the Water Services Act) will ‘prevail’ over RMA instruments such as plans, policy statements, and national environmental standards, in the event of inconsistency.² In addition, councils will need to amend any rules³ that conflict with or duplicate the standards as soon as practicable, and without using the formal plan change process.

In many cases, what amounts to ‘inconsistency’ or ‘conflict’ will be fairly obvious. However at the margins, it will be important to ensure the standards are clear in terms of the matters to which they don’t apply (such as particular contaminants, in the case of the discharge to water standards⁴); and the extent to which activities regulated by the standards are also caught in other ways; for example, network discharges could also contravene specific rules or national environmental standards around discharges to wetlands or other sensitive environments.

Activity status and notification

Wastewater standards can set the activity status for wastewater projects, providing greater certainty of outcome (e.g. controlled activity status through the standards would mean consent cannot be declined, and the consent authority must instead focus on conditions – to the extent the standards allow).

In this regard, the discussion document indicates that in many cases activities that comply with the standards will be classed as a controlled activity (notably including network overflows). The biosolids standard is likely to assign permitted, controlled, or restricted discretionary status depending on the categorisation grade.⁵

In addition, standards will be able to specify whether public or limited notification of applications can occur.⁶ The discussion document does not comment on notification, but it seems likely that in at least some circumstances (if not all) public notification will be precluded for compliant applications.

Regional councils cannot impose conditions that are more onerous than the standards

It has been well-signalled that the proposal is to put in place singular standards, rather than simply minimum standards. The Bill amends the RMA⁷ so that a consent authority ‘must include, as a condition of granting consent, requirements that are no more or less restrictive than necessary to give effect to’⁸ the standards or an infrastructure design solution.⁹

Again, how this applies will depend on the final drafting of the standards. Clearly there will be no room for more stringent conditions in relation to the named contaminants in the discharge to water standard, for example, but what is less clear is whether consent authorities will be able to regulate other contaminants¹⁰ in a way that has the effect of raising the overall level of treatment required. On the other hand, where matters such as discharges to air are clearly exempted from the standards, consent authorities will have the same discretion to impose conditions as they do now. In addition, if the standards stop short of prescribing set parameters for network overflows,¹¹ then difficult decisions will still have to be made at the local level regarding the extent of environmental improvement required, the cost of achieving it, and the timeframes for doing so.

Fewer statutory hurdles for applications that ‘comply’ with the standards

If an application ‘complies with’ or ‘meets the requirements’¹² of the standards, then normal RMA restrictions on granting discharge consents under sections 105 and 107 would not apply¹³ (which means less need to consider alternatives, or to avoid certain kinds of effects in the receiving environment); and consents would have to be granted for a period of 35 years.¹⁴

Again, it will be important for the final standards to provide clarity on exactly when an application should be treated as complying with or meeting the requirements of them (for example, if an activity can meet some but not all applicable requirements, or for activities such as network overflows and discharges to land where there are few substantive requirements included in the standards).

Transitional arrangements

Finally, there are a number of important transitional arrangements to be aware of, including:

• New standards coming into force (or being amended) would enable consent authorities to initiate a review of existing resource consent conditions regulated by the standards.¹⁵ Depending on the current conditions, this may mean an adjustment to improve performance, or changes to relax the current requirements in line with the new standards.¹⁶
• Any existing consents for WWTP discharges that are due to expire within the first two years of the Bill being passed¹⁷ will instead expire at the end of that two-year period. This will allow operators time to consider the standards in preparing their applications.¹⁸
• In the future, the ability to rely on expired consents after a replacement application has been lodged will be capped at two years (it is currently unlimited).¹⁹

This article was posted in the Water New Zealand magazine for the May/June 2025 edition and is republished with permission.

1. Noting the Bill also proposes equivalent changes to the RMA in relation to stormwater environmental performance standards (if or when made).
2. Clause269 Local Government (Water Services) Bill inserts RMA s 58JA(4).
3. Clause 269 of the Bill inserts RMA s 58JA(5). There is no equivalent requirement to amend existing polices.
4. For example, it is not entirely clear from the Discussion Document how heavy metal levels in a treated discharge will be regulated. While it is indicated that heavy metals will not be covered by the proposed standard, the Discussion Document also suggests that the Total Nitrogen limit will also regulate levels of heavy metals in a treated discharge.
5. Discussion document, page 33. The discussion document does not expressly state which status would apply to discharges to water (although that may well be controlled if all relevant parameters are met) or discharges to land.
6. Clauses 271 and 272 of the Bill amend RMA ss 95A and 95B.
7. Clause 273 of the Bill amends RMA s 104(2D)(a) and (b) and adds new section 104(2DA).
8. The current wording in s 104(2D) RMA is “no less restrictive”, which would still allow more restrictive conditions.
9. Infrastructure design solutions, also made under the Water Services Act, will effectively set out means to comply with the standards.
10. For example, as discussed above, it is unclear from the discussion document how heavy metal levels in a treated discharge will be regulated.
11. Such as the frequency, volume, or contaminant load of discharges.
12. It remains to be seen if this scheme will apply in all parts of the standards; for example, the discussion document proposes to apply controlled activity status to bypasses and network overflows, but to otherwise leave decisions in the hands of regional councils.
13. Clauses 274 and 275 of the Bill amend RMA ss 105 and 107 so that they do not apply where an application ‘complies with’ relevent environmental performance standards.
14. Clause 277 of the Bill amends s 123 of the RMA.
15. Clause 279 of the Bill inserts s 128(1)(bc) to the RMA.
16. Operators would also be free to amend their conditions under s 127 to align with the standards.
17. Or, more precisely, the relevant part of the Bill coming into force – in the event that this occurs later. Clause 280 of the Bill inserts RMA ss 139B – 139D.
18. Noting there is no similar grace period proposed for activities that are not already consented, such as network overflows (in most cases).
19. The Discussion Document at page 40 proposes that this new two-year deadline would not apply in the first five years following the Standards being made. See also clause 278 of the