New Zealand Waterfalls

These pages depict a random selection of New Zealand waterfalls. There are a huge number of waterfalls in the country, most of them small and known only locally, the more you go looking, the more pop up. This site just lists a few that I've noticed. Some of them I didn't even know existed, I'd be driving down a back road and see a sign that said 'Waterfall' - Waitanguru, Mount Damper and Te Reinga falls come into that category.

Any heights given here I've found by searching the net, though I have to say that some of the figures cover a fairly wide range of opinion. I've quoted the figures that seem most likely to bear some resemblance to reality. To do any better, I may have to resort to visiting some of these falls with a very long tape measure with a weight on the end.

I've split them into two pages, for North Island and South Island. To North Islanders, the South Island (whose locals call it 'the Mainland') is almost like a foreign country, we have to actually get out of our cars and get on a boat (or a plane) to get there. However, when it comes to waterfalls, South Island has them like a dog has fleas.

I've also given a separate page to the Waitakere Ranges (near Auckland). These are mostly minor falls of purely local interest, with the exception of Waitakere waterfall which - when it flows - is the third highest in North Island. Rather than clutter the main pages up with these mostly small falls, it seemed better to put them on a separate page.


North Island Waterfalls	South Island Waterfalls	Waitakere Ranges waterfalls

Footnote on photography

Many waterfalls are in deep gorges or steep-sided valleys which make it very difficult to get a good view of them. Often trees get in the way - in many cases the authorities have considerately cleared a gap in the trees or built a viewing platform.

Quite frequently, for example Mt Damper Falls or Bridal Veil Fall, a standard 35mm or 40mm (equivalent) lens such as is fitted to most compact digital cameras can't get them 'in one', a wide-angle lens such as 28mm (equivalent) is needed. The alternative is to take several shots (allowing a good overlap) and using software to join them together - the 'free' programs given out with digital cameras are weighted towards being easy-to-use and sometimes give good results, but often get caught out with blurry transitions. More sophisticated software can do an excellent job - I use Hugin+enblend, which are free (open source) programs and there are packages for all the major Linux distributions (I use Debian), and Windows.
Of course, a helicopter would in many cases give the ideal viewpoint, but hire costs would be rather prohibitive.

Sunshine can give you a hard time. Again, because of their frequent location in deep valleys (and always on the side of cliffs), waterfalls can often be in shadow. Film or digital cameras are far less tolerant of contrasting light and shade than the eye. On clear sunny days it's essential to get the entire fall in sunshine (or alternatively entirely in shadow). The sunlight makes the fall stand out beautifully, but patches of shade can make it impossible to photograph satisfactorily. On such days, being there at the right time can be vital.
A day with light overcast, on the other hand, is far more tolerant of timing - almost any time of day will do so long as there's enough daylight.

Another factor is the New Zealand bush - very dense and dark, as soon as the sun is off it. This can provide a good contrast with the waterfall, but too much of it can make the picture look very gloomy - see the second photo of Marokopa Falls (North Island) for an example.

Heights of Falls

The heights of waterfalls seem to be one of those topics where numbers get thrown around with great abandon, and it's hard to know whether they've been accurately measured or are just someone's optimistic guess. Searching on the Net doesn't always help much as figures are quoted without attribution. There's also the question of whether smaller falls above or below the main fall are included in the quoted height, or should be.

Generally, I'd accept figures quoted on the 1:50,000 maps of the NZMS 260 series published by Land Information NZ (formerly Lands & Survey), or their equivalent at NZTopoOnline. However not all falls have their heights shown; Devils Punchbowl Falls for example doesn't have a height shown in the online map.

Sometimes, as in the case of Thunder Creek Falls or Tawhai Falls, the quoted heights vary by a factor of three to one, which makes one wonder if someone hasn't made a metres-for-feet error somewhere.

In these pages I've sometimes fallen into the error of quoting heights without giving their sources; I'll try and tidy this up. Where I say 'survey map' or '1:50,000' map I mean the NZMS series mentioned above; generally I would regard this and NZTopoOnline as the most credible source. I would regard DOC (Department of Conservation) and regional council (parks) figures as reasonably credible, though not always infallible. Local tourism sites I would suspect of optimism on occasion.

Estimating height

In a couple of cases, where there is no published height for a fall, I've calculated the height myself from my photos. This method only works where the fall is reasonably vertical, seen roughly square-on by the camera (i.e. at the same level), and where the camera's distance is known.

For an example, I'll explain how I calculated the height of 'Hidden Fall' at Arthurs Pass (last item on the 'South Island waterfalls' page).
The EXIF data buried in the JPG image gives a focal length of 36.6mm (which happens to be full zoom for my Panasonic LZ2). At full screen, on my monitor, the fall measures 190mm on the screen.
I took, for comparison, a shot of a steel rule at exactly 2m distance and with the lens at a focal length of 36.6mm. Bringing this photo up on screen, full-screen, 190mm (screen length) equates to 223mm actual length on the steel rule.
Using the large-scale map at NZtopoOnline, the distance from the railway track to the base of the slope is 160m. Then, by proportion, the fall must be 0.223 x (160/2) = 18m high.

The opportunities for error in the measurements are obvious. However, in the absence of a proper survey, the result (treated with due caution) is probably at least as accurate as most measurements.

Another good source for estimating the horizontal distance information is available at Google Maps, the aerial photos (select 'Satellite') come with a scale on them.

Made with Bluefish HTML editor.

Any comments or questions, email:



Powered by	Best viewed with

GNU / Linux	Firefox	or Opera