Got this news later last week. I haven't seen the ARC report to the hearing into Watercare's application to use part of Puketutu Island in the Manukau Harbour for biosolids disposal. But it does not support the application.
The hearing starts next week. It will be a big one.
I am opposed to using that place for biosolids disposal. Watercare argue that it is not disposal, it is "rehabilitation of the quarry", bringing it back to natural contours.
Yeah, right.
It is interesting to note that ARC carries the costs of maintaining the Hunua and Waitakere Regional Parks in pristine condition, so that runoff from those places, can produce the very pure water retained in Watercare dams for Auckland water supply. ARC and ratepayer carries those water purity related costs. Watercare does not pay them, and does not collect those costs in its water charges. This is an example of costs not being properly internalised. The same potentially applies to Puketutu. If that Island was a Regional Park, would ARC allow it to be used to dump biosolids? Probably not! If it did, you'd think there would be a good case for charging Watercare for each tonne of biosolids put there.
Right now, Watercare may claim that the cost of biosolids disposal there, is cheap. Because Watercare is not being charged a fair whack for the priviledge of dumping biosolids there. So when Watercare does a Benefit/Cost comparison of the Puketutu option, versus other options (which are presumably fully costed, all costs included), Puketutu will top the list as being the most cost-effective.
But that's because the true costs of using what might become a regional park, as a dump, are not included in the costs of the Puketutu dumping option.
This needs fixing. Watercare needs to think like other cities around the world when it comes to biosolids: allow less toxic trade waste into the sewers; get a cleaner biosolids product; apply it back to land. It's a resource, not a way to dispose of heavy metals waste.
I will try and find links to the ARC report, so you can read it yourself.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
ARC Officers recommend declining Puketutu for Biosolids
Got this news later last week. I haven't seen the ARC report to the hearing into Watercare's application to use part of Puketutu Island in the Manukau Harbour for biosolids disposal. But it does not support the application.
The hearing starts next week. It will be a big one.
I am opposed to using that place for biosolids disposal. Watercare argue that it is not disposal, it is "rehabilitation of the quarry", bringing it back to natural contours.
Yeah, right.
It is interesting to note that ARC carries the costs of maintaining the Hunua and Waitakere Regional Parks in pristine condition, so that runoff from those places, can produce the very pure water retained in Watercare dams for Auckland water supply. ARC and ratepayer carries those water purity related costs. Watercare does not pay them, and does not collect those costs in its water charges. This is an example of costs not being properly internalised. The same potentially applies to Puketutu. If that Island was a Regional Park, would ARC allow it to be used to dump biosolids? Probably not! If it did, you'd think there would be a good case for charging Watercare for each tonne of biosolids put there.
Right now, Watercare may claim that the cost of biosolids disposal there, is cheap. Because Watercare is not being charged a fair whack for the priviledge of dumping biosolids there. So when Watercare does a Benefit/Cost comparison of the Puketutu option, versus other options (which are presumably fully costed, all costs included), Puketutu will top the list as being the most cost-effective.
But that's because the true costs of using what might become a regional park, as a dump, are not included in the costs of the Puketutu dumping option.
This needs fixing. Watercare needs to think like other cities around the world when it comes to biosolids: allow less toxic trade waste into the sewers; get a cleaner biosolids product; apply it back to land. It's a resource, not a way to dispose of heavy metals waste.
I will try and find links to the ARC report, so you can read it yourself.
The hearing starts next week. It will be a big one.
I am opposed to using that place for biosolids disposal. Watercare argue that it is not disposal, it is "rehabilitation of the quarry", bringing it back to natural contours.
Yeah, right.
It is interesting to note that ARC carries the costs of maintaining the Hunua and Waitakere Regional Parks in pristine condition, so that runoff from those places, can produce the very pure water retained in Watercare dams for Auckland water supply. ARC and ratepayer carries those water purity related costs. Watercare does not pay them, and does not collect those costs in its water charges. This is an example of costs not being properly internalised. The same potentially applies to Puketutu. If that Island was a Regional Park, would ARC allow it to be used to dump biosolids? Probably not! If it did, you'd think there would be a good case for charging Watercare for each tonne of biosolids put there.
Right now, Watercare may claim that the cost of biosolids disposal there, is cheap. Because Watercare is not being charged a fair whack for the priviledge of dumping biosolids there. So when Watercare does a Benefit/Cost comparison of the Puketutu option, versus other options (which are presumably fully costed, all costs included), Puketutu will top the list as being the most cost-effective.
But that's because the true costs of using what might become a regional park, as a dump, are not included in the costs of the Puketutu dumping option.
This needs fixing. Watercare needs to think like other cities around the world when it comes to biosolids: allow less toxic trade waste into the sewers; get a cleaner biosolids product; apply it back to land. It's a resource, not a way to dispose of heavy metals waste.
I will try and find links to the ARC report, so you can read it yourself.
2 comments:
-
Interesting news about Puketutu. I think dumping biosolids on a waahi tapu site (which Puketutu Island is scheduled as in the District Plan) was always going to be quite a stretch. A lot of iwi have submitted in strong opposition to the proposal.
The Manukau City Council planning report is the most incomprehensible piece of garbage I've ever read. 170 pages and no contents page! -
May 10, 2009 at 5:07 PM
-
Watercare will be very surprised and disappointed that they have not been able to "control" ARC officers writing the report. Watercare will be bending over backwards to bring a silver bullet to the proceedings. Watch this space....
-
May 15, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Interesting news about Puketutu. I think dumping biosolids on a waahi tapu site (which Puketutu Island is scheduled as in the District Plan) was always going to be quite a stretch. A lot of iwi have submitted in strong opposition to the proposal.
The Manukau City Council planning report is the most incomprehensible piece of garbage I've ever read. 170 pages and no contents page!
Watercare will be very surprised and disappointed that they have not been able to "control" ARC officers writing the report. Watercare will be bending over backwards to bring a silver bullet to the proceedings. Watch this space....
Post a Comment