Fears waterways at risk from wastewater plans
The plan, proposed in a Water Services Authority — Taumata Arowai consultation that ended yesterday, could end regional councils' ability to issue disposal consents with higher standards that are considerate of local environmental impacts.
An official response from the Otago Regional Council is expected to flag that the plan risks a "one-size-fits-all approach".
A draft response from the Dunedin City Council, which has been given an extension to May 1 to respond, has expressed concern that resource management instruments, prepared with mana whenua and communities, would be "over-ridden" and result in a "more permissive" approach to discharges to water rather than land.
There needed to be a "backstop" opportunity for community engagement, it said.
The Environmental Law Initiative (ELI), a charity run by environmental lawyers, said the proposed standards risked further decades of sub-standard wastewater disposal to water bodies.
The charity flagged the Local Government (Water Services) Bill, which is progressing concurrent to the development of the standards, would give the power to set the standards to ministers rather than Taumata Arowai.
ELI legal adviser Reto Blattner de-Vries described the proposed changes as having "massive implications" that would "entrench" lower-cost wastewater treatment plants that would be given 35-year consents.
The changes would "allow councils to put their hands up and absolve themselves from pursuing culturally-appropriate discharge solutions which differ from the status quo, such as changing a discharge to water to a land-based discharge."
Councils would not be able to decline an application for a discharge consent for a wastewater treatment plant that met the standards even if it contributed to various adverse effects listed in s107 of the Resource Management Act, he said.
"A proposal of this gravity should be highlighted more by government ... The proposals take away localised discretion by councils which will mean councils won't have incentives to work with communities to find local solutions."
ORC deputy chairman Cr Lloyd McCall said the ORC had submitted a comprehensive submission on the proposed wastewater standards and councillors had been given opportunity to input. The submission had, overall, supported a drive for efficiency in dealing with wastewater, but also outlined concerns around the protection of coastal and freshwater environments.
"A proposed definition of pristine in its current form would not protect our highly valued lakes and their tributaries from degradation. The submission highlights this unintended consequence of a one-size-fits-all approach to water quality expectations."
He said there was a need for rationalisation of wastewater management and regulation and it was also "essential that there is the ability for significant local community input into the receiving environment's water quality visions and outcomes."
Cr Alan Somerville said: "The whole drive is to come up with standardised solutions that don't take into account environmental conditions and community aspirations for environmental protection.
"This doesn't allow for particular local circumstances."
He called for consideration of disposal to land, as a more mana whenua culturally appropriate response, and an end to an acceptance that wastewater could be dumped in the ocean without treatment if there was an overflow situation.
The DCC has four resource consents that allow it to discharge wastewater overflows to freshwater and the ocean.
Overflows can occur when wastewater pipes get inundated with stormwater.
In South Dunedin, overflows have been channelled down a pipe called the "contamination vector" leading into the harbour and have sometimes flowed out on to Surrey St.
Cr Andrew Noone said the government needed to now "set the bar high enough to ensure it was environmentally sustainable and doesn't cause greater degradation than we have currently got".
mary.williams@odt.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
Ngāti Kahungunu Slams The Government's Decision To Push On With Marine Legislation
Ngāti Kahungunu, who have the country's second largest coastline from Paritū, north of the Māhia peninsula to Tūrakirae on the southern Wairarapa coast, have slammed the government's decision to push on with new legislation to make it harder for Māori to get customary marine title. Ngāti Kahungunu Chair, Bayden Barber, speaking from the World Expo in Osaka Japan says, 'We are a moana iwi. Our people have lived along our coast for centuries. Our ancestors had names like Tiakitai, Te Hapuku and Te Moananui because of the intimate relationship they had with the ocean. I am appalled by the Ministers' decision to push on with changes to the Takutai Moana legislation that make it harder for us to get customary title. Again, we see this government undermining the rights of Māori.' Earlier in the week, the Minister for Treaty Negotiations Paul Goldsmith, said that the government intended to pass the Marine and Coastal Area (MACA) Bill by the end of October, effectively ignoring a Supreme Court ruling saying that Māori do have customary marine and coastal rights and that these changes were not consistent with the intent of the Takutai Moana Bill passed in 2010. Barber adds, 'The legislation, as it currently stands, still sets a high bar for Māori to prove customary title, but at least we can test it through the Courts. These intended amendments to the Bill will make it near impossible for us win in court.' He continues, 'I have spoken to a few of the iwi leaders that are here in Osaka as part of the Te Aratini kaupapa. We need to send a strong collective message to this government, that this behaviour is unacceptable. It saddens me that we are still fighting the same fight 21 years on from the hīkoi for the Foreshore and Seabed.' Ngāti Kahungunu has a population of 95,741, the third largest iwi in Aotearoa and has 96 marae and over 400 hapū.
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
Mayor demands U-turn on ‘totally unaffordable' Ruapehu water plan
'Ruapehu has the highest levels of deprivation in the country. Continuing with the current model will drive unacceptable and unnecessary financial hardship.' He has formally asked councillors to revoke the July resolution and instead join a four or five-council option with the Palmerston North, Horowhenua and Rangitīkei councils and Whanganui, if it wished to join. The larger groupings would deliver significantly lower water charges for ratepayers, Kirton said. The council voted 6-4 on July 9 to reject the officer-recommended four-council model. Kirton and three councillors were in favour. The bid to overturn the decision comes after new affordability guidance from the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA). Kirton said the advice showed the decision would increase all Ruapehu water bills well above what was considered affordable. In the first year of the two-council entity, charges would be nearly $2500 per household – almost $1000 more than under a five-council model. For affordability, the DIA recommends water charges stay under 2.5% of median household income. Updated financial modelling shows Ruapehu would breach that benchmark under the two-council arrangement. 'Totally unaffordable' For the poorest households, particularly in northern Ruapehu, water charges could climb to nearly 6% of median household income within 10 years – more than double the threshold. 'These costs are totally unaffordable for many of our people and will be especially severe for Māori communities.' New regulatory requirements would further increase cost pressures, Kirton said. National water regulator Taumata Arowai has told the council to bring forward upgrades to its non-compliant wastewater plants sooner than planned. This meant water charges under the two-council model were forecast to rise to $2800 per connection within a few years and reach more than $4000 by 2033/34. The estimated cost for the upgrades ranged from $66 million for wastewater dispersed to water, to more than $200m if dispersed to land. River protection Kirton said he was not rejecting Whanganui or the many constructive partnerships between the two districts. 'We have strong and ongoing collaboration with Whanganui across multiple areas, such as the Mountains to Sea cycle trail and economic development, which will continue regardless of our water services structure.' A five-council model would deliver the lowest possible user charges for all water users, the greatest operational efficiencies, and align the Whangaehu and Whanganui river catchments under a single regulator and service provider. Existing commitments to river protection and shared services would not be compromised by moving to a larger model. Kirton said some councillors had downplayed financial concerns, arguing that affordability could be addressed by the new entity or the Commerce Commission. 'At our workshop this week, the only proposed solution to unaffordable charges was 'writing a letter to the Minister'. That's not good enough. 'I'm not prepared to defer responsibility and hope someone else sorts it out. This is our chance to act decisively and protect the people of Ruapehu from excessive costs.' 'Blood out of a stone' Councillor Fiona Kahukura Hadley-Chase told Local Democracy Reporting she thought it unlikely the decision would be overturned. She was unconvinced by the cost projections. 'There's no clear data, information or evidence. The modelling, the forecasting and the legislation keeps changing. They're plucking figures out of the sky. 'Because of that, I'm going to say the relationship with Whanganui must stay strong. If we don't have that, then we're paddling upstream.' Hadley-Chase said the district's 5500 ratepayers could not afford upcoming water costs and the council should seek a partnership with the DIA to pay for water. 'Dumping us in a bigger pool is not going to help. Our people can't afford to pay for water, full-stop. 'We cannot afford to build this infrastructure. It shouldn't mean we should go into millions worth of debt. It's unreasonable for the Government to put that on us. 'The DIA should develop a unique solution to help those [councils] who are struggling. You cannot get blood out of a stone.' Decision looms on water plan U-turn The council will consider the motion to overturn the two-council decision on August 13. Kirton is encouraging the public to contact their elected members or speak in the public forum before the vote. Whanganui Mayor Andrew Tripe said he was surprised to learn that the decision was being reconsidered. 'It was disappointing to learn of this without direct contact to me – fortunately, I was advised informally. 'I am confident that when this matter goes to vote next week, the majority will continue to support the two-council water services CCO.' Tripe said the councils were to consider a joint water services delivery plan (WSDP) for adoption next week to make sure they meet the September 3 deadline. 'It's a strong model, which balances local voice, and the benefits of scale and consolidation. A majority of Ruapehu councillors recognised this when they also adopted it as their preferred model.' Tripe said if Whanganui's preferred model became unavailable, the council would have to reconsider its remaining options, revise its WSDP and work to meet its legislative obligations. LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
Pointless foreshore debate a distraction from economic crisis
At the same time, our second biggest export market has just imposed 15% tariffs on our products – higher than on our direct competitors – and its rival for global hegemony is extending its influence and projecting its military power into our region and even our realm. Yet despite all this – or perhaps because of it – some within the coalition Government and fringe groups aligned to them think it's a good idea to have another argument about race. Maybe that's not surprising. With the working and middle classes crying out for an explanation for why things are so bad and the country's prospects so bleak, some within the old political and business establishments dare not admit it is because of poor policy and commercial decisions they themselves contributed to over recent decades. As in other nations facing seemingly irretrievable decline, it's much better to point to a minority and blame them. 'It's not your fault, or mine, that you're doing it tough,' this old elite tells those who are struggling. 'We're all just victims of the 'grievance economy' where Māori keep taking what is rightfully yours.' The worst thing is that it works, at least with perhaps 20% of voters. That rump, which polls suggest consists mainly of white baby-boomer men, is particularly important electorally to NZ First and Act, who fight over them. You may think that the biggest issues in this year's local government elections are out-of-control rates and councils' cumbersome and incompetent application of the Resource Management Act. But, according to Hobson's Pledge, 'the most important fight of 2025' is around Māori wards. 'Across the country,' it says in an apocalyptic fund-raising email, 'local councils have become the frontline in a slow, stealthy assault on democracy. Behind closed doors, race-based policies are being pushed through. Co-governance is being installed without consent. And representation is being carved up based not on merit or votes, but on ancestry.' Hobson's Pledge says it will 'go big with this campaign', including 'billboards, signage, social media, and engaging with new voices'. The campaign's integrity is already under question, after it was revealed that Hobson's Pledge used, without her permission, a photograph of an elderly Māori woman in a billboard implying she opposes Māori wards. Rotorua kuia Ellen Tamati is devastated after discovering her image is being used by a political lobby group that's pushing to abolish Māori wards. Photo / Aukaha News In fact, she supports them. She never agreed for anyone to use her image commercially, and the agency which sold it anyway was clear it could not be used in advertising. Hobson's Pledge has since asked the billboard company to remove the advertisement and said it would contact the woman to ensure she was okay and let her know her image was publicly available as a stock image. Hobson's Pledge has form with this sort of thing, setting up a 'We Belong Aotearoa' campaign before the last election, falsely suggesting a grassroots movement by immigrants concerned about co-governance. Next time, Hobson's Pledge ought to use one of its own supporters – of which it claims to have many – in its advertisements. It might also give greater attention to telling the truth, after its advertising about the foreshore and seabed in the New Zealand Herald was found by the Advertising Standards Board to be materially misleading. Hobson's Pledge will continue to do its thing, and its antics are probably best seen as another small price to pay for the benefits of free speech. More worrying is internal coalition politics pushing Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith to proceed with new foreshore and seabed legislation. This is certain to arouse all the passions of the Clark Government's 2003 and 2004 fiasco that the Key Government resolved so successfully in its first term by passing then-Attorney General Christopher Finlayson's Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011. The Luxon Government – or at least a powerful faction within it – seems to want a repeat of Act's failed Treaty Principles Bill, with all the associated division and distraction from the real economic crises. There might have been a case for the bill Goldsmith is fronting had the Supreme Court upheld a recent novel interpretation of Finlayson's legislation by the Court of Appeal. But the Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeal, making the proposed bill seem redundant. We must now choose whether Finlayson or Goldsmith is likely to be the better jurist. Finlayson says the Supreme Court left things as Parliament intended back in 2011 and that Goldsmith's bill would compromise existing Māori rights. Goldsmith says the Supreme Court made it too easy for Māori to have their rights recognised by the courts and that the bill is needed to return things to the status quo the Key Government established. Since the whole foreshore and seabed controversy emerged in 2003, it has been based on what Finlayson calls a 'lie': concerns about public access to beaches. Hobson's Pledge now goes so far as to claim there's a risk of 'kissing our entire coastline goodbye'. Yet beach access was never an issue, even when the Court of Appeal made its original 2003 ruling that kicked off the controversy. It certainly isn't an issue under the 2011 law or the Supreme Court's decisions. The rights that an iwi can have recognised over bits of the foreshore and seabed are highly limited, and nothing like ordinary property rights. Underlying all this is another lie: that there is something activist, radical or woke about the courts acknowledging Māori customary law. Yet in Africa, India, Southeast Asia, North America and New Zealand, the British Empire and its common law always acknowledged that customary law continued after colonisation, unless it was specifically repealed. The truly radical or activist judges have been those who historically tried to deny this. It can be annoying when other people's legal rights are upheld, like farmers being able to stop hikers from walking across their property. But that is no reason to deny such rights. To the contrary, it is an essential democratic principle that the specific legal rights of individuals and other minorities are upheld, whatever the majority may think. It's wrong to keep changing the law on the foreshore and seabed or anything else when it looks like the courts may uphold some specific legal rights that someone else might find annoying. If they can do it to an iwi, they can do it to you. And, with all New Zealand's economic and social crises, ask yourself whose interests are served by trying to turn your attention to race.
