In Confidence
Office of the Minister for Building and Construction
Cabinet Economic Growth and Infrastructure Committee
Proposals to improve the Dam Safety Scheme
Proposal
1 This paper proposes amendments to the Building Act 2004 (the Act) and the
Building (Dam Safety) Regulations 2008 (the Regulations) to improve the Dam
Safety Scheme (the Scheme).
Executive summary
2 The Scheme, which is a light-handed risk-management scheme for large dams in
New Zealand, was recently the subject of an independent review, prior to taking
effect, to determine whether it was fit for purpose. This Review addressed
concerns that the current requirements of the Scheme might capture dams for
which the impact of failure is low, resulting in unnecessary compliance costs for
these dam owners.
3 The Review concluded that while the Scheme is necessary – in terms of protecting
human safety, property, infrastructure and the environment, from the risks of a
large dam failure – it could be better targeted and made more efficient. The
commencement of the Regulations setting out the details of the Scheme was
consequently deferred until 1 July 2012, to allow time for Government to consider
the Review’s recommendations and make changes to the Scheme.
4 Most, but not all, of the Review’s recommendations are being proposed for
implementation. The recommendations that are not favoured relate to reviewing all
dam-related legislation, and setting up a central dam safety authority to administer
the Scheme. There is a divergence of views on one recommendation regarding
the size threshold of dams that should be covered by the Scheme.
5 The proposals in this paper should collectively improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of the Scheme, whilst reducing compliance costs. The proposals seek to
retain the light-handed nature of the Scheme (whereupon dam owners are primarily
responsible for ongoing monitoring of their dam) while enabling regional councils to
act if a dam might be unsafe. The proposals fall into two categories:
a.
those that better target those dams to be covered by the Scheme – either
automatically by virtue of their size, or as required by regional authorities
based on risk factors; and
1
b.
those that clarify requirements, so as to improve administration of the
Scheme.
Background
6 Once dams are constructed and commissioned, they require ongoing monitoring,
maintenance and repair in order to maintain their integrity. The failure of a dam
could result in damage to life, property, infrastructure and the environment. The
potential impact of a dam can change over time due to downstream developments.
7 The Scheme, a light-handed risk-management scheme for large dams, seeks to
manage these ongoing risks through assessing the risks of individual dams and
then ensuring the owners undertake appropriate ongoing monitoring. All regional
authorities are responsible for the administration and monitoring of the Scheme in
their regions. A summary of requirements of the Scheme is included in Appendix
1.
8 The Scheme was established in 2004 under the Act, but requires Regulations to
bring it into effect. These Regulations were promulgated in July 2008, and were
due to come into effect in July 2010.
9 Prior to the Scheme coming into effect, concerns were raised that the Scheme may
impose unnecessary costs on owners of some low-risk dams, including small dams
on farms in remote areas where a dam failure may only impact the dam owner’s
land. As a result, the Government agreed to a review of the Scheme [EGI Min (10)
1/12 refers]. The purpose of reviewing the Scheme was to ensure it was 'fit for
purpose' – with the costs posed by the Scheme being balanced with the potential
risk to human safety.
Review of the Dam Safety Scheme
10 An independent reviewer was engaged to assess the Scheme. The Review
concluded that while the Scheme is necessary – in terms of protecting human
safety, property, infrastructure and the environment – improvements could be
made to its efficiency and effectiveness, and to reduce overall compliance costs.
11 The Review recommended possible changes to the Scheme. A summary of the
Review’s recommendations and commentary by the Department is included in
Appendix 2. These recommendations were considered by the Economic Growth
and Infrastructure Committee on 2 June 2010. It was agreed that the Scheme
should be deferred until 1 July 2012, to allow time for Government to consider the
Review’s recommendations and make changes to the Scheme [EGI Min (10) 12/9
refers].
12 The Department subsequently consulted with stakeholders to seek feedback on the
Review’s recommendations and how they would apply in practice to the operation
and management of dams. Feedback received showed a lack of consensus
between large dam owners, and regional authorities on the key recommendations.
13 The Review primarily identified that the current size threshold of a large dam (being
three metres in height and 20,000 cubic metres in volume), captured too many
2
1
dams, which consequently placed unnecessary compliance
costs on the owners of these dams. It therefore recommended that the size
threshold be raised to eight metres in height and 50,000 cubic metres in volume
(with such dams being called ‘classifiable dams’) – but also that regional authorities
be given the power to issue a notice requiring classification of any other large dam
if there is reason to believe the dam may put persons at risk (with such dams being
called ‘referable dams’).
14 Consultation with stakeholders on these key recommendations identified significant
concerns from regional authorities, on two levels. Firstly, that the current threshold
already excludes some small dams, they considered to be at-risk, so instead of
increasing the size threshold (as recommended in the Review), it should actually
be reduced to capture more dams. This would obviously increase (not reduce)
compliance costs.
15 Secondly, the size threshold should remain as the only means by which dams are
covered by the Scheme. Regional authorities did not want to take on the perceived
additional liability associated with having the power to require that a dam be
classified. Moreover, if they were given such a power, some regional authorities
advised they would likely investigate every dam in their region to assess whether
any may put persons at risk, as a means of reducing their liability. The costs of
such investigations would need to be met by ratepayers.
16 The Department considered this feedback, and developed an alternative approach
that seeks to achieve the same outcome as that of the Review but taking into
account the issues raised by regional authorities. These revised proposals were
the subject of further consultation with key stakeholders and the reviewer.
Proposals to narrow the scope of the Scheme
17 The amendments proposed below collectively seek to better target the dams that
should be subject to the Scheme due to their size and potential impact. Better
targeting ensures the costs imposed by the Scheme are balanced with the potential
risks to people and property.
Proposals
18 It is proposed to amend the Act to introduce ‘classifiable dam’ and ‘referable dam’
categories. These categories of dam will be used to identify the large dams, as
presently defined by the Act, that are to be subject to the requirements of the
Scheme.
19 A ‘classifiable dam’, which will automatically require classification under the
Scheme, will be defined in Regulations as a large dam that is:
a.
three or more metres in height; and holds 100,000 or more cubic metres
volume of water or other fluid; or
b.
is eight or more metres in height, and holds 20,000 or more cubic metres
volume of water or other fluid.
1
Under the Building Act, the owner of a large dam is required to classify the dam as having a low,
medium or high potential impact (PIC). The different classifications refer to the potential impact of a
failure of the dam on persons, property, and the environment.
3
20 A ‘referable dam’ will be defined in Regulations as a ‘large dam’ that is not a
‘classifiable dam’. Referable dams may be forwarded for classification under the
Scheme, if the potential impact of the dam is considered great enough.
21 It is proposed to amend the Act to give regional authorities the discretion to
investigate whether to refer a ‘referable dam’ for classification, where there are
reasonable grounds to so. ‘Reasonable grounds’ will be aligned with the existing
medium and high potential impact dam grading as prescribed in Schedule 1 of the
Regulations.
22 The following diagram illustrates the concept of classifiable dams and referable
dams, as a subset of a large dam as currently defined in the Act:
4
Discussion
23 Establishing the classifiable dam category to increase the size threshold of dams
that would be automatically included in the Scheme results in a significant number
of low potential dams being excluded, thus reducing compliance costs for the
sector.
24 The proposed definition of classifiable ensures dams that either have a high height
or a big capacity are captured by the Scheme. Advice from the reviewer is that an
eight metre high and 20,000 cubic metre volume dam has the same risk
characteristics as a three metre high and 100,000 cubic metre volume dam. This is
also supported by submissions that referred to empirical guidelines from
international literature for the likely peak breach outflow from an earth-fill dam
based on data from historical earth-fill dam failures.
25 This proposal has been modified from the size threshold of eight metres in height
and 50,000 cubic metres in volume recommended in the Review. The proposed
dam size threshold has been selected on the basis that it provides a better
coverage of high potential impact dams - it captures the majority of the higher risk
dams (high and medium potential impact) and does not include many low risk
dams.
26 Out of an estimated 1,150 large dams in New Zealand, it is estimated that 712
would become classifiable dams under the proposed approach. This is
approximately 40 percent fewer dams than under the current size threshold. At an
estimated cost of $3,000 per classification of dam, this should reduce compliance
costs by an estimated $1,314,000 to low potential impact dam owners.
27 Establishing the referable dam category reduces the risk that raising the
quantitative threshold for the automatic inclusion would result in some medium or
high potential impact dams being excluded from the Scheme. Of the remaining
438 dams, it is estimated 10 percent would be high potential impact and 15 percent
would be medium potential impact. If regional authorities referred these dams for
classification, this would mean approximately 70 additional dams would then be
classified under the Scheme. This still results in a 33 percent reduction in the
overall number of dams that would be subject to the Scheme compared to the
current size threshold, resulting in a saving of $1,141,500 for low potential impact
dam owners.
28 The concerns of regional authorities have been addressed under the proposed
approach by limiting a regional authority’s discretion to investigate a referable dam
for classification, by narrowly defining the reasonable grounds on which they can
investigate. This in turn will limit their potential liability, and remove their perceived
need to investigate all dams in their region. Because the costs of any
investigations undertaken fall on the regional authorities, this should provide an
additional discipline on them to ensure they use their discretion in a balanced and
moderate manner.
29 It should be noted that since 2004, under the Act, if a dam, small or large, is likely
to pose immediate danger to the safety of people, property or the environment, a
regional authority can issue a warrant to take action to mitigate the immediate
danger posed by the dam, with the owner being liable for the costs of the action.
5
30 Despite the proposed new threshold better targeting the medium and high risk
dams that should be subject to the Scheme, and the new role of regional
authorities being limited as a means of reducing their potential liability, regional
authorities remain opposed to the proposals, and consider that the Scheme needs
to cover more dams and impose greater costs on dam owners. Given the
Government’s aim of reducing compliance costs, this view is not supported by the
Department.
Proposals to improve administrative efficiencies
31 The Review also recommended a number of changes to improve the administration
of the Scheme.
Defining how to measure a dam
32 There is currently some confusion around the depth measurement of a dam
reservoir. Specifying in the Act how dam height is to be measured would remove
this confusion and ensure the Act and the Scheme are consistently applied.
33 In line with the recommendation of the Review, it is proposed to amend the Act to
specify that dam height is defined as the vertical distance from the top of the dam
and measured:
a. in the case of a dam across a stream, from the natural bed of the stream at the
lowest downstream outside limit of the dam; or
b. in the case of a dam not across a stream, from the lowest elevation at the
outside limit of the dam.
Increase the review period for a Dam Safety Assurance Programme from five to seven
years
34 Under the Act, dam owners are required to prepare a dam safety assurance
programme (DSAP) and have it verified by a recognised engineer, as defined
under section 149 of the Act. Section 146 of the Act requires owners of medium
potential impact dams to review their DSAPs:
a. within ten years after the date on which the regional authority approves the
DSAP; and
b. at intervals of not more than five years after the first review.
35 The subsequent review period of five years, is the same review period to which
high potential impact dams are subject.
36 In line with the recommendation of the Review, it is proposed that the review period
for the DSAP be increased from five yearly to seven yearly for medium potential
impact dams. This will align the DSAP with the guidelines produced by the New
Zealand Society on Large Dams. Compliance costs for the owners of medium
potential impact dams will be further reduced, whilst still maintaining an appropriate
level of risk management for dams classified as medium potential impact.
Reducing the review period has the benefit of balancing the demand of recognised
engineers by allowing them to focus their limited resources on higher risk dams.
6
Complying with the Annual Dam Compliance Certificates
37 Section 150(2)(b) currently requires that dam compliance certificates must state
that all procedures in the DSAP have been “fully complied with” during the previous
12 months. Compliance must be confirmed by a category A recognised engineer,
as defined in the Regulations, and signed by the dam owner.
38 There are many valid reasons why a DSAP may not be fully compliant that do not
impact on the overall safety of the dam. During the consultation process,
submitters highlighted that the current strict compliance requirement may result in a
risk that DSAPs will be written less rigorously in such a way that avoids compliance
requirements.
39 In line with the recommendation of the Review, it is proposed to amend section
150(2)(b) of the Act with a less strict requirement for dam owners to “comply” with
criteria and standards of the DSAP, and where necessary, include a list of any noncompliances that warrant corrective action.
40 Removing the requirement for strict compliance and allowing for immaterial noncompliances to be noted, will ensure owners take the appropriate level of
responsibility by implementing good practice DSAPs for their dams. This
amendment enhances the effectiveness of this element of the Scheme.
Removing references to earthquake-prone and flood-prone dams
41 The Act currently requires regional authorities to develop a region-specific policy on
earthquake-prone and flood-prone dams, and gives them the ability to request the
owners of such dams to review their DSAP to ensure their relevance. The intention
behind specifying these dams in the Act was to ensure deficiencies in earthquake
or flood-prone dams are addressed.
42 As noted by the Review, it is no longer necessary to refer to earthquake-prone and
flood-prone dams in the Act. This is because the amendments proposed in this
paper give regional authorities more responsibility for dams in their region,
including the discretion to refer a dam for classification. This new power should
ensure any risks associated with medium or high impact dams, including
deficiencies that could cause a dam to fail in an earthquake, are adequately
managed.
43 In line with the recommendation of the Review, it is therefore proposed that all
references to earthquake-prone and flood-prone dams be removed from the Act.
44 The proposed amendment does not compromise risk management because any
issues with dam safety that arise due to earthquake or flood proneness will be
identified during assessment and are required to be noted in the DSAP. These
dams will be subject to review requirements appropriate for their classification
under the programme – prepare and submit a DSAP to the regional authority, and
provide ongoing evidence of implementing surveillance and maintenance
procedures in accordance with the approved DSAP through submitting an annual
Dam Compliance Certificate, and seek advice from a recognised engineer to certify
future, ongoing audits of the DSAP.
7
Recognised Engineers to report dangerous dams
45 The Act currently requires regional authorities to develop a dangerous dams policy
within their regions. The purpose of this policy is to help prevent catastrophic
failure of a potentially dangerous dam. The regional authority has functions and
powers under the Act, including putting up hoardings, attaching a warning on the
dam, and requiring work to be carried out on the dam to reduce or remove danger.
46 In line with the recommendation of the Review, it is proposed to include a provision
in the Act that requires a recognised engineer, if during the process of certifying a
dam it becomes apparent that the dam is dangerous, to notify the regional council
and the dam owner. The notification must be provided in writing within five working
days.
47 It is also proposed to include a provision in the Act that requires dam owners to
notify the regional council if the owner becomes aware their dam is dangerous.
48 The proposed amendments will ensure regional authorities are notified of
dangerous dams in their region, making sure that such dams are then subject to
the dangerous dam policy.
Determination of appurtenant structure
49 Under the Regulations, the requirements of appurtenant structures are to be noted
in the DSAP. An appurtenant structure is a structure that is integral to the proper
functioning of the dam, such as intake towers, powerhouse structures and surge
tanks and towers.
50 In line with the recommendation of the Review, it is proposed that the appurtenant
structures for each dam be determined by the recognised engineer responsible for
certifying the DSAP.
51 The appurtenant structures that need to be subject to the Scheme are different for
each dam and therefore difficult to prescribe. A recognised engineer is the most
appropriate person to define what structures are appurtenant to the safe operation
of each individual dam.
Review recommendations not adopted
52 In the review of the Scheme, the reviewer also made two other significant
recommendations which have not been adopted.
Comprehensive review of all dam-related legislation
53 The Review recommended that legislation, as it applies to dams (including
resource consent and building consent legislation) be reviewed as a whole in order
to provide effective, clear legislation that reduces compliance costs and provides
consistent implementation across the sector.
54 Although the scope of the Review did not include the resource consent and
building consent processes required under the Resource Management Act 1991
and the Building Act, the Review noted there is a potential for some overlap
between the two Acts and the Scheme.
8
55 This recommendation is not supported as a major review of the Building Act has
only recently been completed. This resulted in the review of the Scheme, the
Department developing options to improve the administration of building regulatory
functions, including their consolidation across local authorities or centralisation.
56 A review of the Resource Management Act is currently underway. The Resource
Management Act is being reviewed with the aim of streamlining and simplifying
provisions, and focussing on improving process. The focus on improving process
will include the resource consenting process in relation to dams.
Establishment of dam safety authority
57 The Review also recommended that a new central government body (an authority
specific to dam safety management) be established to administer and monitor the
Scheme to provide a nationwide consistent approach.
58 This recommendation is not supported. In accordance with Cabinet direction [CAB
Min (10) 5/3 refers], the Department is currently looking at options to improve the
administration of building regulatory functions, including their consolidation across
local authorities or centralisation. The aim is to develop a more nationally
consistent approach to administering all building regulatory requirements. This
broader project will include consideration of building control functions in relation to
dams, as well as dam safety management. Advice on the preferred option for
improving administration, and how it could be implemented, will be provided to
Ministers in April 2011.
59 Although this work could result in future changes to the way the Scheme is
administered, it is not recommended that decisions about the Scheme are
postponed. This would result in further delays to the commencement of the
Scheme, creating uncertainty for industry about whether or not their dams are
affected by the revised requirements.
Monitoring of proposed amendments
60 The Scheme will become effective on 1 July 2012. Following the commencement
of the Scheme, the Department will closely monitor the operation of the Scheme to
ensure it meet its objectives.
61 It is expected the monitoring will include, but not be limited to:
a. the number of referable dams investigated by regional authorities and/or
required to be classified;
b. the proportion of referable dams regional authorities require to be classified that
turn out to be low, medium or high impact dams, respectively;
c. the size, by height and volume, of dams that are low, medium or high impact
dams; and
d. benchmarking of quality of DSAPs (detailing best practice and shortcomings,
based on international experience); with a particular emphasis on dams such as
hydro dams where the impact of failure could be particularly substantial.
62 There is currently a degree of imperfection in the information available for
determining which large dams should be referable and which should be
9
Consultation
63 The following Departments have been consulted on the proposals in this paper and
their views incorporated: The Treasury, Ministry of Economic Development,
Department of Internal Affairs, Ministry for Culture and Heritage, Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry, Ministry for the Environment, Ministry of Justice and Te
Puni Kōkiri.
64 The Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management has been informed of
the paper but was unable to provide comment due to involvement in the
Christchurch earthquake.
65 The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet has been informed.
Financial implications
66 There are no financial implications from the specific proposals set out in this paper.
Any costs will be covered from the Department's baseline funding.
67 The benefits and costs associated with the proposals are detailed in the attached
Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS).
Human rights
68 The proposed amendments are unlikely to raise issues under the New Zealand Bill
of Rights Act 1990 or Human Rights Act 1993. A final view will be possible once
the legislation has been drafted.
Legislative implications
69 The proposals in this paper involve amendments to the Act and the Building (Dam
Safety) Regulations 2008. The amendments proposed to the Act in this paper will
be binding on the Crown.
70 The Building Amendment Bill (No 4) has a category 3 priority (to be passed in 2011
if possible) in the 2011 Legislation Programme. If possible, the amendments
proposed in this paper could be included in that Bill.
Regulatory impact analysis
71 Regulatory Impact analysis requirements apply to the proposal in this paper;
consequently the Department has prepared a RIS. The Department confirms the
10
72 The RIS is attached to this paper as Appendix 3.
73 Alison Geddes, Deputy Chief Executive Sector Capability has reviewed the RIS
prepared by the Department and considers the information and analysis
summarised in the RIS meets the quality assurance criteria.
74 I have considered the analysis and advice of my officials, as summarised in the
attached RIS and I am satisfied that, aside from the risks, uncertainties and
caveats already noted in this Cabinet paper, the regulatory proposals
recommended in this paper are consistent with our commitments in the
Government statement “Better Regulation, Less Regulation”.
75 The RIS was circulated with this Cabinet paper for Departmental consultation.
Disability perspective
76 There are no disability implications associated with these proposals.
Publicity
77 The Department has developed a communications plan to communicate with dam
owners and other stakeholders, including publicising the requirements of the
Scheme and providing suitable support material.
Recommendations
78 The Minister for Building and Construction recommends the Committee:
1. note the Government agreed to a review of the Dam Safety Scheme (the
Scheme) prior to its implementation to ensure the Scheme was fit for purpose
[EGI Min (10) 1/12 refers].
2. note the commencement of the Building (Dam Safety) Regulations 2008 (the
Regulations) were deferred until 1 July 2012 to allow time for Government to
consider the Review’s recommendations and make the necessary changes to
the Scheme [EGI Min (10) 12/9 refers].
3. note the Department of Building and Housing is currently developing options to
improve the administration of all building regulatory functions, including
functions relating to dams and dam safety management.
4. note that although this work could result in future changes to the way the
Scheme is administered, it is not recommended that decisions about the
Scheme are postponed because this would result in further delays to, and
uncertainty about, the Scheme.
5. agree to amend the Building Act 2004 (the Act) to introduce the concept of a
‘classifiable dam’ and ‘referable dam’ for the purposes of the Scheme.
11
6. agree the definition of a ‘classifiable dam’ be prescribed in the Regulations as a
large dam that:
i.
is three or more metres in height; and holds 100,000 or more cubic
metres volume of water or other fluid; or
ii.
is eight or more metres in height, and holds 20,000 or more cubic
metres volume of water or other fluid.
7. note that the size threshold of a ‘classifiable dam’ was modified from eight
metres in height and 50,000 cubic metres in volume, as recommended in the
review of the Scheme, to the definition proposed in recommendation 6 (above).
8. note that the size threshold in recommendation 6 (above) provides the best
balance of capturing high and medium potential impact dams, while excluding
many low potential impact dams.
9. agree the definition of a ‘referable dam’ be prescribed in the Regulations as a
large dam that is not a classifiable dam.
10. agree to amend the Act to give regional authorities the discretion to investigate
and refer a referable dam for classification where there are reasonable grounds
to do so.
11. agree that ‘reasonable grounds’ be prescribed in the Regulations and align with
the existing provisions for the potential impact grading prescribed in Schedule 1
of the Regulations.
12. agree to amend the Act to specify that dam height is defined as the vertical
distance from the top of the dam and measured:
i.
in the case of a dam across a stream, from the natural bed of the
stream at the lowest downstream outside limit of the dam; or
ii.
in the case of a dam not across a stream, from the lowest elevation at
the outside limit of the dam.
13. agree to amend the Act to increase the review period for the Dam Safety
Assurance Programme to an interval of not more than seven years for medium
potential impact dams.
14. agree to amend section 150(2)(b) of the Act by removing the requirement for a
dam owner to have “fully complied with” the criteria and standards of the Dam
Safety Assurance Programme, and replacing it with the less strict requirement
to “comply” with criteria and standards of the Dam Safety Assurance
Programme, and where necessary, include a list of any non-compliances that
warrant corrective action.
15. agree to remove all references to “earthquake-prone dams” and “flood-prone
dams” from the Act.
16. agree to amend the Act to require a recognised engineer, if during the process
of certifying a dam it becomes apparent that a dam is dangerous, to notify the
regional authority and the dam owner. The notification must be provided in
writing within five working days.
12
17. agree to amend the Act to require dam owners to notify the regional authority if
the owner becomes aware their dam is dangerous.
18. agree to amend the Act to require the recognised engineer to determine the
appurtenant structures for each dam, for the purposes of the Dam Safety
Assurance Programme.
19. agree that the Minister for Building and Construction has delegated authority to
approve amendments to correct any minor errors, omissions and
inconsistencies that may be identified, where no new policy matters arise.
20. note the Building Amendment Bill (No 4) has a category 3 priority (to be passed
in 2011 if possible) on the 2011 Legislation Programme.
21. invite the Minister for Building and Construction to issue drafting instructions to
Parliamentary Counsel Office to draft amendments to the Act to give effect to
the proposals.
Hon Maurice Williamson
Minister for Building and Construction
____/______/___
13
Appendix 1
Requirements of the Dam Safety Scheme
The Dam Safety Scheme (the Scheme) currently applies to large dams as
defined by section 7 of the Building Act as being a dam that retains three or more
metres depth, and holds 20,000 or more cubic metres volume of water or other
fluid.
Requirements of large dam owners
The Act requires the owner of a large dam to:
 Classify the dam as either a low, medium or high potential impact category
(PIC) dam. The different classifications refer to the potential impact of a
failure of the dam on persons, property, and the environment. The owner of
a large dam will need a recognised engineer to audit and confirm the dam’s
classification in a certificate.

Classify the dam and submit the classification of the dam to the appropriate
regional authority.

For medium and high PIC dams, prepare and submit a Dam Safety
Assurance Programme to the regional authority.

Provide ongoing evidence of implementing surveillance and maintenance
procedures in accordance with the approved Dam Safety Assurance
Programme. This is done by submitting an annual Dam Compliance
Certificate.

Seek advice from a recognised engineer to certify future, ongoing audits of
the Dam Safety Assurance Programme.
Role and responsibility of a regional authority
The Act requires regional authorities to:
 Perform the function of a building consent authority (if accredited and
registered)

Carry out a variety of other building control functions such as issuing project
information memoranda and issuing certificates of acceptance (in relation to
unconsented building work on dams)

Administer and monitor the Scheme, which means that regional authorities
must:
- establish and maintain a register of large dams in their region
- consider and approve (or not approve) dam classifications of large dams
- consider and approve (or not approve) the Dam Safety Assurance
Programmes for each medium and high PIC dam in their region
- consider and approve (or not approve) annual Dam Compliance
Certificates

Adopt and implement a policy on dangerous dams, flood prone dams and
earthquake prone dams. This includes setting up processes and procedures
that would be triggered for medium or high PIC dams should they be
determined to be dangerous, flood prone or earthquake prone.

Take action if necessary, if any dam, large or small, poses an immediate
danger to the safety of persons, property or the environment.
1
Appendix 2
Review of Dam Safety Scheme – Recommendations
#
Recommendation
Comment
1
That a Dam Safety Scheme (the Scheme) is needed in New
Zealand.
Agreed.
2
That the Scheme in its current form needs modifying to improve
its efficiency and effectiveness and to reduce compliance costs.
Agreed.
3
That the definition of large dams be changed (for the purpose of
the Scheme) to include dams having the capacity to hold a
reservoir of 50,000m³ or more and to be at least eight metres
high.
This recommendation has been modified to better target the
medium and high potential impact dams that should be subject to
the Scheme.
Large dams will be required to be classified if they are either
20,000m³ in capacity and 8 metres high OR 100,000 m³ in
capacity and 3 metres high.
4
That a dam requiring classification under the Scheme be
described as an Inventory Dam, Classifiable Dam or a Referable
Dam (and not a Large Dam as at present).
This recommendation has been adopted.
Two sub-categories of Large Dam will be established: Classifiable
Dam and Referable Dam.
A new dam definition is needed (rather than changing the
definition of a Large Dam) to adopt the recommendation above
because the Large Dam definition is used in the Building Act for
more purposes than dam safety.
5
That dam height is defined as the vertical distance from the top
(crest) of the dam measured:
This recommendation has been adopted.
 in the case of a dam across a stream, from the natural bed of
1
Review of Dam Safety Scheme – Recommendations
#
Recommendation
Comment
the stream at the lowest downstream outside limit of the dam,
or
 in the case of a dam that is not across a stream, from the
lowest elevation at the outside limit of the dam.
That the body responsible for administering the Scheme have the
power to issue a notice requiring classification of any dam,
regardless of whether the dam meets the dam criteria. Any such
notice will only be issued if there is reason to believe the dam
may put persons at risk.
This recommendation has been adopted.
7
That Appurtenant Structures for each dam be determined by the
recognised Engineer responsible for certifying the Dam Safety
Assurance Programme (DSAP).
This recommendation has been adopted.
8
That the start date for the Scheme be delayed sufficiently to
allow any legislative changes arising from this Review to be
passed, to allow sufficient publicity to be communicated to dam
owners and other stakeholders and to allow the Scheme to be
properly implemented.
This recommendation has previously been adopted.
That a period of twelve months be allowed after the Scheme’s
start date for dam owners to have the dam classifications
certified by a recognised engineer.
This recommendation has not been adopted.
6
9
Regional authorities will have the discretion to investigate and
refer a dam for classification. Boundaries will be placed around
the use of this discretion to prevent regional authorities
investigating and referring all dams in their regions.
The Building (Dam Safety) Regulations 2008, which set out the
details of the Scheme, were due to come into force on 1 July
2010. These have been deferred until 1 July 2012, to allow time
for the Government to consider the review’s recommendations.
This is because:

there has already been a two year delay in the introduction of
2
Review of Dam Safety Scheme – Recommendations
#
Recommendation
Comment
the Scheme

delaying the Scheme further will result in the time frame for
production of DSAPs being pushed out a further nine months
(to two or three years after commencement of the Scheme)

as long as amendments to the Scheme are made well before
1 July 2012 (when the Scheme comes into effect) dam
owners will have considerably more than three months after
1 July to have their dam classifications certified.
10 That no change be made to the methodology for classifying
dams.
This recommendation has been adopted – no legislative
amendment required.
11 That category B engineers be required to undertake a one or two
day dam classification training course before being able to
classify dams. This course to be organised by the Department in
conjunction with NZSOLD.
The Department will consider this recommendation when
implementing the Scheme. No legislative amendment is required
for this amendment.
12 That a panel of two or three category A engineers be established
to review all dam classifications at the end of the classification
period and recommend any needed legislative changes to the
Department at that time.
The Department will consider this recommendation when
implementing the Scheme. No legislative amendment is required
for this amendment.
13 That the authority(s) responsible for administering and monitoring
the Scheme monitors the availability of recognised engineers
during the Scheme’s implementation.
This recommendation has not been adopted.
The Department and nearly all submissions received from
consultation did not believe monitoring the availability of engineers
should be a regional authority responsibility, primarily due to
3
Review of Dam Safety Scheme – Recommendations
#
Recommendation
Comment
questions around how this would work in practice.
14 That a new body responsible for administering and monitoring
the Scheme on a nation-wide basis be established within central
government and that the new body is named to clearly identify its
role (such as the “Dam Safety Authority”).
This recommendation has not been adopted.
This is because:

it is not certain the benefits of establishing a Dam Safety
Authority would outweigh the costs

it provides a potential disconnect between building consents
and the Scheme (as noted in the Dam Safety Review
Report).

the role of the Authority would be limited – the only grounds it
would have for not approving dam classifications, DSAPs
and Dam Compliance Certificates is if the engineer is not a
category A engineer.
The Department is reviewing the current regulatory system and
aims to develop a more nationally consistent approach to
administering regulatory requirements through either a
regionalised or centralised system. The management of dam
safety can be included in this review.
15 That consideration is given to (at least partially) funding the body
with a simple low fee charge regime to all dam owners included
in the Scheme.
This recommendation has not been adopted.
The recommendation is not applicable as recommendation 14, to
establish a new body responsible for dam safety, has not been
adopted.
4
Review of Dam Safety Scheme – Recommendations
#
Recommendation
Comment
16 That the DSAP for a medium PIC dam be required to be in place
twelve months after the date on which the Scheme authority
approves the classification for the dam.
This recommendation has not been adopted.
17 That DSAP review periods be increased from five to every seven
years for medium PIC dams to align with NZSOLD Guidelines.
This recommendation has been adopted.
18 That the wording of the Annual Compliance Certificate be
changed so that there is not a requirement for the DSAP to be
“fully complied with”. Instead the category A recognised
engineer and dam owner (or chief executive) will certify that the
dam owner has complied with the criteria and standards of the
DSAP as set out in section 8 of the Building (Dam Safety)
Regulations 2008 and where necessary, include a list of any noncompliances that warrant corrective action.
This recommendation has been adopted.
19 That consideration be given to allowing a dam owner to supply
bi-annual Dam Compliance Certificates provided a category A
recognised engineer certifies the implementation of the DSAP
warrants it.
This recommendation has not been adopted.
20 That if in the process of certifying a dam it becomes apparent to
the recognised engineer that a dam is dangerous then it will be
This recommendation has been adopted.
Dam owners have had a significant notice period of the need to
produce a DSAP ready for submission to their regional authority.
It should not take 12 months (let alone two years) to produce a
DSAP.
Dam owners are currently required to undertake an annual
inspection of their dams. The additional costs from certification
are not substantial.
5
Review of Dam Safety Scheme – Recommendations
#
Recommendation
Comment
notified as such to the Scheme authority.
21 That all references to earthquake-prone and flood-prone dams
are removed from the Act.
This recommendation has been adopted.
22 That a communications plan be developed to communicate with
dam owners and other stakeholders, including publicising the
requirements under the Act, and providing suitable support
material.
The Department will develop a communications plan prior to
implementation of the Scheme – no legislative amendments
required.
23 That, for owners of a portfolio of dams, a recognised engineer be
able to review any existing dam safety management systems that
are in place, and certify the system meets the criteria and
standards as set out in section 8 of the Building (Dam Safety)
Regulations 2008.
Recognised engineers are able to do this under existing
legislation. No legislative amendment is required.
24 That legislation as it applies to dams (including resource consent
and building consent legislation) be reviewed as a whole in order
to provide effective, clear legislation that reduces compliance
costs and provides consistent implementation across the sector.
This recommendation has not been adopted.
This recommendation is not favoured by the Department. This is
because a major review of the Building Act 2004 has only recently
been completed, and a review of the Resource Management Act
1991 is currently underway. As a consequence of a recent review
of the Building Act, the Department is reviewing the current
regulatory system and aims to develop a more nationally
consistent approach to administering regulatory requirements
through either a regionalised or centralised system. The
management of dam safety can be included in this review.
6
Review of Dam Safety Scheme – Recommendations
#
Recommendation
25 That following consideration of this Review, Government should
consult stakeholders before making changes to the Dam Safety
Scheme.
Comment
The Department has undertaken two rounds of consultation with
industry on the recommendations presented in the review.
7