Source
https://www.nrc.govt.nz/resource-library-summary/plans-and-policies/regional-plan/indicative-water-quantity-allocation-maps/ — original source (opens in a new tab; the file is not redistributed)
Northland indicative groundwater allocation, 2026
Summary
Northland Regional Council publishes an allocation state for its delineated groundwater units, expressed as a percentage of the unit’s allocation limit. This dataset is the layer behind that public map: 63 units, each with an allocation limit in cubic metres per year, total consented take, and percent allocated.
The distribution matters more than any single figure. Most of Northland’s mapped groundwater is lightly allocated, with a median of about 23 percent and 39 of 63 units below half their limit. But 11 units are at or over 100 percent, and they are almost entirely small coastal units. That pattern is what the plan’s own policy structure would predict, since coastal aquifers carry a limit of ten percent of average annual recharge against 35 percent for other aquifers.
Key claims
- claim: "63 delineated groundwater units carry a published percent-allocated figure. Median allocation is 22.6 percent; 39 units sit below 50 percent; 4 sit between 80 and 100 percent; and 11 are AT OR OVER 100 percent of their allocation limit."
source_location: "Layer 10 'Groundwater Units Percent Allocation', all 63 records, queried 2026-08-12"
- claim: "The eleven units at or over their limit, with percent allocated: Russell 1,316; Otehei Bay 533; Matapouri North 204; Ruawai 152; Whananaki North 133; Te Ngaere Bay 115; Whangaumu Bay 113; Ngunguru 106; Mangawhai West 104; Matapouri South 104; Tapeka 102. Russell's limit is 7,595 m3/yr against a consented take of 99,930 m3/yr."
source_location: "Layer 10, records sorted by Total_GWU_perc_allo"
- claim: "The over-allocated units are overwhelmingly small and coastal (Russell, Otehei Bay, Matapouri North and South, Whananaki North, Te Ngaere Bay, Whangaumu Bay, Ngunguru, Mangawhai West, Tapeka), consistent with the regional plan setting a coastal-aquifer allocation limit of ten percent of average annual recharge against 35 percent for other aquifers."
source_location: "Layer 10 unit names cross-read against the allocation-limit policy in the regional plan"
- claim: "Not all of Northland sits within a delineated unit. A point at longitude 173.78, latitude -35.55 returns no intersecting groundwater unit at 0 m and at a 5 km buffer; the nearest units within 20 km are Kaikohe at 27.4 percent allocated (limit 2,151,874 m3/yr) and Waimate at 6.6 percent (limit 6,521,479 m3/yr)."
source_location: "Layer 10 spatial query, point 173.78 -35.55, buffers 0 / 5,000 / 20,000 m"Neobiome Intelligence and regulatory relevance
This is the numerator the regional plan does not supply. REG_039 sets allocation limits as a share of recharge but says nothing about how much is already committed. This dataset provides that side, so a Northland site can be assessed against a published figure rather than an unknown.
Where a site is not in a mapped unit, there is no published allocation constraint. That is a real and reportable result rather than a gap in the data: most of the region’s area lies outside the delineated units, which are concentrated on the coast and around settlements. For such a site the binding questions revert to the statutory test and the physical resource, not to a numeric allocation ceiling.
The over-allocated units cluster where the plan is strictest. Coastal aquifers carry the ten percent limit precisely because they are vulnerable to saline intrusion, and they are the units that have exceeded it. A community siting decision that avoids the small coastal aquifers avoids nearly all of Northland’s published groundwater allocation pressure.
Notes
data_quality: high. The values are the council’s own, obtained by querying the published service directly rather than estimating from a map image, and the record count and field names are recorded above for reproducibility. It is not set to verified because the council labels the entire series indicative and states its exclusions on the source page: the surface-water layer omits section 14(3)(b) stock and domestic takes and permitted-activity takes, “because the council does not have records of permitted activity takes at specific locations”, so displayed allocation can understate actual. The groundwater layer, by contrast, does include an estimate of section 14(3)(b) takes.
⚠ Point-in-polygon results depend on the coordinate. The no-intersecting-unit result above is specific to the point queried and should be re-run for any other site rather than generalised.
Research targets
Research gaps
- Whether the units absent from the layer are genuinely unmanaged or merely undelineated, which determines whether “no published allocation constraint” means no constraint or an unquantified one.
Connections
Links to
Sources (1): REG_039
Referenced by
Sources (1): REG_039