1. “Engaging Compliance”: Attempting to improve engagement with Dairy Effluent Compliance in the Waikato Region Scott Cantley Proactive Monitoring programme Waikato Regional Council

2. OVERVIEW Background Changes from 2012-13 onwards Risk assessment/rating New monitoring approach/method Site selection Review of responses: quantity / quality What next?

3. Context / Background (1) Discharging treated effluent to water = Resource Consent required. Land disposal of farm effluent = Permitted Activity (P/A), subject to conditions >90% of farms = P/A

5. Irrigation to land

7. Context / Background (2) Not every farm, every year. How monitoring had been done: o Random selection o Deterrence-based... enforcement action o Focus on “SNC”* Majority of non-compliance = poor infrastructure Statistics / compliance levels “Seasonal”

8. Consequences

11. What changed for 12-13 & 13-14 Stronger focus on ability to comply, not just “on-the-day” Prioritise risk (“level 1” to “level 6”) Promote engagement for most-risk sites (e.g. small storage)  Request/”require” improvement plans  Refer to industry resources: accredited designers, CoP, etc  “2 months, 2 years” (flexible) Targeted selection, not random selection Education days (x2) (Role of enforcement unchanged)

12. Motivation for compliance Where we want to be: “All dairy farmers comply with the dairy effluent rules.” Our purpose: Motivate farmers to operate within farm dairy effluent standards. A council is restricted to what levers we can pull. Education Enforcement

13. New rating system (1) “Priority Rating System”– Levels 1 to 6 Distinct from compliance status Some sites (high risk)  improvement plans “required” Other sites (less risk)  recommendations only; or  no action required

14. New rating system (2) Level 1 – Sites requiring immediate action (SNC’s) Level 2 – Sites with grossly inadequate storage Level 3 – Sites with ponds with obvious issues ----------------- ↑ REQUIRE ----------------- ↓ RECOMMEND ----------------- Level 4 – Sites with storage, but sealing questionable Level 5 – Well-constructed ponds, but lacking QA docs and/or unconfirmed system design Level 6 – Well-constructed ponds & system, with records

15. Examples: storage facilities

16. Examples: small storage facilities

18. Examples: storage facilities …

19. New Monitoring Approach Two pronged: 1. SNC’s assessed as per the national standards for compliance on the day. 2. All other compliance levels are assessed for compliance 365 days of the year (assuming reasonable management). Greater emphasis on re-inspections Embrace industry resources

20. Aerial survey (1) Use of the helicopter: Providing triage, Able to sight different issues than on ground, General deterrence, Others benefits … Use of the helicopter would continue *

21. Aerial survey

24. Method (1) Pre-visit: Letters sent in advance  “sometime this season” Aerial survey (helicopter) of a district Saturate vicinity / “compliance wave” “Priority inspections” = straight away  no prior notice Others: phone contact made prior to visit

25. Method (2) Seek to engage: on-site discussions Letters may require, or recommend, improvements Improvement plans:  did not approve plans;  acknowledged/received only;  some feedback offered (ad hoc). Consider timeframe and works planned Risk assessment

26. New Selection Method Random monitoring – statistically robust measure – does little to address environmental risk Targeted monitoring – potential risk to environment (or) – factors indicating less likely able to comply o High Risk Soils

27. Review of 12-13 & 13-14 (1) Fewer site visits in first year Requests to supply an improvement plan: >315 sites Improvement Plans received during each season: 51-54% positive response After more time, positive responses for 12-13: approx 60%

28. Review of 12-13 & 13-14 (2) Info on ability of storage ponds to comply with sealing rule, with recommendations to progress: = 206 other sites (12-13 only) Compliance statistics: SNC’s varied Quality of improvement plans: varied Quality of actual commitment (2 years on)

29. What now? Similar method but:  Without aerial survey  Site selection differs Continue with:  “Pre-visit” letter  Attempt to contact prior to inspection  Improvement plan requests