Source
https://environment.govt.nz/assets/publications/nes-dw-marae-and-rural-water-supply-case-studies.pdf — original source (opens in a new tab; the file is not redistributed)
MfE/Beca — Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Proposed Changes to the NES-DW: marae & rural water-supply case studies (2022)
The govt-commissioned primary behind CR_050's "$10–30k applicant AEE/planner" consent cost (RT_320, resolved)
Beca Limited report prepared for the Ministry for the Environment, final issue 28 Feb 2022 (prepared by Kathryn Jessamine, approved by Garrett Hall). 37 pp. Supplements the July 2021 Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Proposed Amendments to the NES-DW with five worked case studies (four rural water supplies + one marae). Authoritative government primary, read verbatim via
pdftotext -layout— it is the source CR_050 pointed to for the non-notified resource-consent applicant cost.
Summary
A government-commissioned cost-benefit study of proposed amendments to the National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water (NES-DW). It introduces Source Water Risk Management Areas (SWRMAs 1/2/3) around drinking-water intakes and estimates the cost to “Resource Users” (landowners, farmers, water suppliers, households) of the resource consents newly triggered inside those zones. Five anonymised case studies span three NZ regions: a Southland surface-water rural agricultural supply (~215 people, 55 farms), three Waikato/other farms (Farm 1 = 12 houses, rainwater + bore), and a Waikato marae (spring-fed, five houses + marae + office, filtration + UV).
For Neobiome its value is one number, from a government source: the Resource-User cost of a low-complexity RMA resource-consent application = 10,000–30,000, plus a separate **30,000 risk assessment**, per consent (Table 3-1). This is the primary behind CR_050's "10–30k applicant AEE/planner [MfE CBA]” and independently brackets the engine’s interim water_take_consent_capex (~25–30k). It also supplies medium/high consent bands, annual compliance/reporting costs, and an aerated-wastewater-treatment install cost — useful context for the D03 consent-cost and sanitation cells. Caveat: these are generic per-consent RMA applicant costs (from the July 2021 CBA) applied to NES-DW source-protection consents (bore construction, agrichemical application, effluent/stormwater discharge) — not s14 water-take-specific — so it corroborates the cost driver (consultant AEE/planner time per consent) rather than being an exact water-take quote.
Key claims
- claim: "RMA resource-consent APPLICATION cost to Resource Users, by complexity (verbatim, Table 3-1): 'Additional applications for resource consents — Resource Users — Low complexity: $10,000 - $30,000; Medium complexity: $30,000 - $50,000; High complexity: $50,000 - $200,000' — Type of Cost: Per consent."
source_location: "Table 3-1 'Summary of costs for the proposed amendments to the NES-DW (adapted from Table 3-2 in the July 2021 report)', p.5"
- claim: "Risk-assessment cost to Resource Users (verbatim, Table 3-1): 'Risk Assessment — Resource Users — $30,000 — Per consent.' This is a SEPARATE line from the consent application above, so a low-complexity consent that also needs a risk assessment totals $40,000–$60,000."
source_location: "Table 3-1, p.5"
- claim: "Consent-PROCESSING cost (undertaken by Regional Councils but paid for by Resource Users), verbatim, Table 3-1: 'For a currently permitted activity that would become restricted discretionary: $3,000 to $16,000. For an activity that is already restricted discretionary or controlled: additional $400.' Type of Cost: Per consent. (Distinct from, and additional to, the applicant's own $10,000–$30,000 application cost.)"
source_location: "Table 3-1, p.5"
- claim: "Annual (recurring) costs to Resource Users, verbatim, Table 3-1: 'Consent compliance monitoring and enforcement (undertaken by Regional Councils but paid for by Resource Users): $2,000 to $20,000 — Annual.' 'Resource consent reporting: $5,000 - $15,000 — Annual, per consent.' 'Notification of non-compliance: $400 — Per event.'"
source_location: "Table 3-1, p.5"
- claim: "Consent-complexity definitions (verbatim, Section 3): 'A low complexity application is one where there are few affected or interested parties, and the level of input required to assess the environmental effects is low and relatively straight forward. This consent is unlikely to be publicly notified.' 'A medium complexity application is likely to be one that involves several affected or interested parties and require one or two technical assessments of environmental effects. This consent may be limited or fully publicly notified.' 'A high complexity application is likely to be one with a large number of affected parties, may be in a sensitive ecological area and/or requires a high level of technical inputs... This consent is likely to be notified.'"
source_location: "Section 3 'Costs', p.5"
- claim: "Aerated (advanced) on-site wastewater treatment installation cost (verbatim): 'The installation cost for a domestic aerated wastewater treatment system is between $15,000 - $20,000. These treatment systems can be installed as a supplementary treatment to the primary septic tank treatment or installed as a replacement alternative treatment process.' Cited where a council (e.g. Bay of Plenty in the Rotorua Lakes Area) requires nitrogen-reducing AWTS; also appears as 'Mitigation $15,000 - $20,000' in Table 4-2."
source_location: "Section 4.3.2 'Onsite Wastewater Disposal Systems', p.8 (and Table 4-2, p.12)"
- claim: "The applied cost combination used uniformly across all five case studies (verbatim, representative instance): 'Apply for resource consent and carry out risk assessments... at a cost of $10,000 - $30,000 for a low complexity resource consent application and $30,000 for a risk assessment.' The same $10,000–$30,000 + $30,000 pairing recurs for bore construction, agrichemical application, on-site wastewater and stormwater discharge consents in §4.3, §5.4, §6.4, §7.4, §8.3 and the Discussion."
source_location: "e.g. Section 4.3.4 'Pastoral Farming', p.9; Section 8.3.4, p.32; Discussion, p.34"
- claim: "Scope and provenance (context, verbatim): 'Five case studies have been selected to represent small water supplies in rural settings across three regions of New Zealand... Four rural water supply case studies and one marae case study have been selected.' Water supply sizes: the Southland rural agricultural surface supply 'serves a population of about 215 people and 55 farms' (237 unmetered water units); Farm 1 'household drinking-water supply serves 12 houses' (rainwater supplemented by a bore); Marae 1 spring supply 'serves five houses, the marae and the marae office' (filtration + UV). Report supplements the July 2021 CBA and 'is intended to inform the Ministry for the Environment's regulatory impact assessment.'"
source_location: "Executive Summary p.1; Introduction p.2; §4.1 p.6; §5.1 p.14; §8.1 p.29"Neobiome Intelligence relevance
**This resolves RT_320 — it is the government primary behind CR_050’s “applicant AEE/planner 10–30k [MfE CBA]", i.e. the source under the engine's `water_take_consent_capex`.** The number that flows into NI is Table 3-1's Resource-User cost for a **low-complexity resource-consent application: 10,000–30,000** (midpoint ~20,000). It independently brackets the interim water_take_consent_capex (~25–30k, previously assumed and supported by CR_045 25–35k and [[cr_052_nz-bore-consent-cost-legume-luc-yield|CR_052]] 12–30k all-in). Because it is a government-commissioned CBA read verbatim, and it converges with two independent AI-compiled syntheses, the consent-cost band is now corroborated from a primary — data_quality: verified.
| Line (Table 3-1, 2022 NZD) | Cost | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Resource-consent application — low complexity | 10,000–30,000 | per consent, applicant cost |
| Resource-consent application — medium complexity | 30,000–50,000 | per consent |
| Resource-consent application — high complexity | 50,000–200,000 | per consent |
| Risk assessment (separate line) | $30,000 | per consent |
| Council processing (paid by resource user) | 3,000–16,000 (+$400 if already restricted) | per consent |
| Compliance monitoring + enforcement | 2,000–20,000 | annual |
| Resource-consent reporting | 5,000–15,000 | annual, per consent |
Two things the primary sharpens for the model:
-
**The
30,000 risk assessment is a *separate* line.** If `water_take_consent_capex` is meant to cover the full applicant cost of getting a consent *including* the hydrogeological/source-water risk assessment (which CR_045/CR_052 fold into their "hydrogeology/AEE-dominated" band), then a low-complexity consent **requiring** a risk assessment totals **40,000–60,000** — the current ~25–30k is *low* for that case. Where no formal risk assessment is required, the10–30k application-only figure sits right on the model value. This is a genuine bracketing decision for the parameter, not just a confirmation. -
Inflation. These are 2021/2022 NZD (the underlying costs come from the July 2021 CBA). Apply ~×1.15–1.20 to reach 2026 — e.g. the
10–30k band → ~11.5–36k, the30k risk assessment → ~34.5–36k.
What this primary is NOT
These are generic per-consent RMA applicant costs replicated from the July 2021 CBA (Table 3-2) and applied here to NES-DW source-protection consents — bore construction, agrichemical application, on-site effluent and stormwater discharge consents inside a drinking-water source zone. They are not s14 water-take-specific, and they are estimates within a regulatory-impact CBA, not a priced consultant quote. So this corroborates the cost driver behind
water_take_consent_capex(consultant AEE/planner time per RMA consent, which is identical across consent types) — it does not close RT_297 (a real NZ water-take consultant quote is still the missing anchor). Treat it as a strong government bracket on the band, not a water-take price.
Secondary value for D03 sanitation cells. The 15,000–20,000 aerated (AWTS) install cost corroborates CR_048’s NZD 20–30k advanced/AWTS band from the bottom end (CR_048’s figure is the full installed system; this is the aerated-treatment upgrade component), and the report’s framing — that mandatory AWTS “can be a significant cost burden for low-income households… However, it can also become an incentive for the reticulation of sewage in small communities” — is a real NZ statement of the community-scale-reticulation tipping point the D03 cascade models.
Research targets
Documents to retrieve
- RT_361 — MfE, Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Proposed Amendments to the National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water (July 2021 report). The parent CBA this case-study report supplements: its Table 3-2 is the origin of every cost figure replicated in this report’s Table 3-1 (the
10–30k application,30k risk assessment,3–16k processing,2–20k/yr monitoring). Retrieving it would expose the derivation basis (assumptions, hours, rates) behind thewater_take_consent_capexband — currently taken on trust from the summary table. Retrievable environment.govt.nz PDF.
Research gaps
- RT_297 stays open. This government CBA corroborates the consent-cost band but is not a priced consultant quote for a water-take consent (the dominant, hydrogeology-dominated cost driver). A real NZ hydrogeological/AEE quote remains the missing anchor for firming
water_take_consent_capex.
Notes
Authoritative government-commissioned document (Beca Limited for the Ministry for the Environment, 28 Feb 2022) — not AI-prepared → figures read verbatim via pdftotext -layout; data_quality: verified (primary read + corroborated by CR_045/CR_050/CR_052).
URL: canonical PDF at https://environment.govt.nz/assets/publications/nes-dw-marae-and-rural-water-supply-case-studies.pdf; publication landing page https://environment.govt.nz/publications/cost-benefit-analysis-of-the-proposed-changes-to-the-nes-dw-marae-and-rural-water-supply-case-studies/ (confirmed by web search 2026-07-16).
Provenance nuance: the cost figures are 2021/2022 NZD and are generic per-consent RMA costs, not water-take-specific — do not let the “verified” quality tag be read as “this is a verified water-take price”. It verifies the band and the driver, not a water-take quote.
Connections
Links to
Referenced by
EDT domains (1): D03: Water, Waste & Circular Systems
Sources (1): CR_053