Permission to pollute one of Auckland’s
critical underground water resources?
His Worship, The Mayor of Auckland
Mr Len Brown
Auckland Council
Private Bag 92300
Auckland Central 1142
Wednesday 2 March, 2011
Dear Mr Brown,
I am writing to you because I have recently become aware of a major issue for Auckland. I am at a loss to understand how Three Kings Quarry owner, Winstone Aggregates, was granted consent by the Auckland Regional Council a year and a half ago to fill the Mt Eden Road quarry, unlined and without a leachate collection system, with waste material that is permitted to contain elevated levels of contaminants including arsenic, copper, zinc, DDT and hydrocarbons.
This and other related resource consent decisions have been appealed to the Environment Court. I understand this appeal is set down for a two week hearing beginning Monday 7th March.
Have you considered Auckland Council’s position in regard to this matter?
The Mt Eden Road quarry – also known as Three Kings Quarry – is above, and drains into, a large fresh water aquifer from which water is already drawn by some (including Auckland Zoo), and which is a back-up drinking water source for Auckland in the event of a natural disaster, such as the one we have just seen in Christchurch.
It is unclear to me after the recent re-structuring of Auckland local government, exactly whose responsibility it is to defend the public interest in Auckland’s underground water resources.
The proposed Mt Eden Road quarry landfill project may result in Auckland’s aquifers becoming too contaminated over time to be used as a much-needed water source. Why should Auckland take that risk when industry best practice options exist to avoid it? If a natural disaster hit in Auckland – volcano or earthquake – good civil defence planning would be reliant upon Auckland’s underground water resources to meet the need for drinking water. Surely Auckland Council would not support any activities which might degrade the quality of Auckland’s underground water resources.
I note that Watercare’s 2010 Statement of Corporate Intent contains the following objective: “To provide leadership within the water industry and participate in public policy initiatives and statutory submissions.”
My reading of Watercare’s involvement in this central city landfill project suggests it is not opposed to it, and thereby tacitly endorses the establishment and operation of a contaminated landfill which everybody agrees will drain into Auckland’s freshwater aquifer system, without any guarantees – or collection and treatment systems in place – to prevent contaminants leaching into Auckland’s underground water resources. This is despite the leachate collection and treatment duties that have been imposed on Watercare in regard to its proposed Puketutu landfill project. I have written to Watercare’s CEO and Board Directors about its “leadership” on this matter.
I have analysed information associated with this application and believe the ARC’s decision to permit this activity was not well informed, primarily because the focus was on immediate effects to local groundwater, rather than on the more fundamental matter of cumulative effects over time on Auckland’s potable freshwater aquifers.
The rationale for granting this landfill permit is like permitting a dairy farm discharge into a river, because by themselves the adverse effects are deemed “less than minor”, when it is plain for all to see that the river is nearly dead because of all the other farm discharges in its catchment.
There were many opposed submissions to this “consent to pollute” process including a wide range of community interests whose concerns have not been addressed. Concerns include the critical water issues outlined and relating to you, but also include noise, up to 750 trucks (many of them articulated) per day carrying fill to the quarry, dust, noise and traffic management issues.
Responsibility to protect Auckland’s resources clearly lies with Auckland Council. I consider that Auckland’s fundamental interests in protecting underground water resources from contamination have not been well served in the handling of consents for this new central Auckland landfill. I believe the new amalgamated Auckland Council has an obligation to the people of Auckland to reconsider this matter and to participate fully in the coming Environment Court hearing.
It is your duty to ensure that whatever happens in the Mt Eden Road quarry does not subject Auckland’s underground water resources to any risk of contamination. I have also raised this issue with Watercare.
I seek your personal re-assurance on this.
Yours sincerely,
Joel Cayford
NB: This letter will be copied by email and post to Auckland City Councillors.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Letter to Auckland Councillors & Mayor
Permission to pollute one of Auckland’s
critical underground water resources?
His Worship, The Mayor of Auckland
Mr Len Brown
Auckland Council
Private Bag 92300
Auckland Central 1142
Wednesday 2 March, 2011
Dear Mr Brown,
I am writing to you because I have recently become aware of a major issue for Auckland. I am at a loss to understand how Three Kings Quarry owner, Winstone Aggregates, was granted consent by the Auckland Regional Council a year and a half ago to fill the Mt Eden Road quarry, unlined and without a leachate collection system, with waste material that is permitted to contain elevated levels of contaminants including arsenic, copper, zinc, DDT and hydrocarbons.
This and other related resource consent decisions have been appealed to the Environment Court. I understand this appeal is set down for a two week hearing beginning Monday 7th March.
Have you considered Auckland Council’s position in regard to this matter?
The Mt Eden Road quarry – also known as Three Kings Quarry – is above, and drains into, a large fresh water aquifer from which water is already drawn by some (including Auckland Zoo), and which is a back-up drinking water source for Auckland in the event of a natural disaster, such as the one we have just seen in Christchurch.
It is unclear to me after the recent re-structuring of Auckland local government, exactly whose responsibility it is to defend the public interest in Auckland’s underground water resources.
The proposed Mt Eden Road quarry landfill project may result in Auckland’s aquifers becoming too contaminated over time to be used as a much-needed water source. Why should Auckland take that risk when industry best practice options exist to avoid it? If a natural disaster hit in Auckland – volcano or earthquake – good civil defence planning would be reliant upon Auckland’s underground water resources to meet the need for drinking water. Surely Auckland Council would not support any activities which might degrade the quality of Auckland’s underground water resources.
I note that Watercare’s 2010 Statement of Corporate Intent contains the following objective: “To provide leadership within the water industry and participate in public policy initiatives and statutory submissions.”
My reading of Watercare’s involvement in this central city landfill project suggests it is not opposed to it, and thereby tacitly endorses the establishment and operation of a contaminated landfill which everybody agrees will drain into Auckland’s freshwater aquifer system, without any guarantees – or collection and treatment systems in place – to prevent contaminants leaching into Auckland’s underground water resources. This is despite the leachate collection and treatment duties that have been imposed on Watercare in regard to its proposed Puketutu landfill project. I have written to Watercare’s CEO and Board Directors about its “leadership” on this matter.
I have analysed information associated with this application and believe the ARC’s decision to permit this activity was not well informed, primarily because the focus was on immediate effects to local groundwater, rather than on the more fundamental matter of cumulative effects over time on Auckland’s potable freshwater aquifers.
The rationale for granting this landfill permit is like permitting a dairy farm discharge into a river, because by themselves the adverse effects are deemed “less than minor”, when it is plain for all to see that the river is nearly dead because of all the other farm discharges in its catchment.
There were many opposed submissions to this “consent to pollute” process including a wide range of community interests whose concerns have not been addressed. Concerns include the critical water issues outlined and relating to you, but also include noise, up to 750 trucks (many of them articulated) per day carrying fill to the quarry, dust, noise and traffic management issues.
Responsibility to protect Auckland’s resources clearly lies with Auckland Council. I consider that Auckland’s fundamental interests in protecting underground water resources from contamination have not been well served in the handling of consents for this new central Auckland landfill. I believe the new amalgamated Auckland Council has an obligation to the people of Auckland to reconsider this matter and to participate fully in the coming Environment Court hearing.
It is your duty to ensure that whatever happens in the Mt Eden Road quarry does not subject Auckland’s underground water resources to any risk of contamination. I have also raised this issue with Watercare.
I seek your personal re-assurance on this.
Yours sincerely,
Joel Cayford
NB: This letter will be copied by email and post to Auckland City Councillors.
critical underground water resources?
His Worship, The Mayor of Auckland
Mr Len Brown
Auckland Council
Private Bag 92300
Auckland Central 1142
Wednesday 2 March, 2011
Dear Mr Brown,
I am writing to you because I have recently become aware of a major issue for Auckland. I am at a loss to understand how Three Kings Quarry owner, Winstone Aggregates, was granted consent by the Auckland Regional Council a year and a half ago to fill the Mt Eden Road quarry, unlined and without a leachate collection system, with waste material that is permitted to contain elevated levels of contaminants including arsenic, copper, zinc, DDT and hydrocarbons.
This and other related resource consent decisions have been appealed to the Environment Court. I understand this appeal is set down for a two week hearing beginning Monday 7th March.
Have you considered Auckland Council’s position in regard to this matter?
The Mt Eden Road quarry – also known as Three Kings Quarry – is above, and drains into, a large fresh water aquifer from which water is already drawn by some (including Auckland Zoo), and which is a back-up drinking water source for Auckland in the event of a natural disaster, such as the one we have just seen in Christchurch.
It is unclear to me after the recent re-structuring of Auckland local government, exactly whose responsibility it is to defend the public interest in Auckland’s underground water resources.
The proposed Mt Eden Road quarry landfill project may result in Auckland’s aquifers becoming too contaminated over time to be used as a much-needed water source. Why should Auckland take that risk when industry best practice options exist to avoid it? If a natural disaster hit in Auckland – volcano or earthquake – good civil defence planning would be reliant upon Auckland’s underground water resources to meet the need for drinking water. Surely Auckland Council would not support any activities which might degrade the quality of Auckland’s underground water resources.
I note that Watercare’s 2010 Statement of Corporate Intent contains the following objective: “To provide leadership within the water industry and participate in public policy initiatives and statutory submissions.”
My reading of Watercare’s involvement in this central city landfill project suggests it is not opposed to it, and thereby tacitly endorses the establishment and operation of a contaminated landfill which everybody agrees will drain into Auckland’s freshwater aquifer system, without any guarantees – or collection and treatment systems in place – to prevent contaminants leaching into Auckland’s underground water resources. This is despite the leachate collection and treatment duties that have been imposed on Watercare in regard to its proposed Puketutu landfill project. I have written to Watercare’s CEO and Board Directors about its “leadership” on this matter.
I have analysed information associated with this application and believe the ARC’s decision to permit this activity was not well informed, primarily because the focus was on immediate effects to local groundwater, rather than on the more fundamental matter of cumulative effects over time on Auckland’s potable freshwater aquifers.
The rationale for granting this landfill permit is like permitting a dairy farm discharge into a river, because by themselves the adverse effects are deemed “less than minor”, when it is plain for all to see that the river is nearly dead because of all the other farm discharges in its catchment.
There were many opposed submissions to this “consent to pollute” process including a wide range of community interests whose concerns have not been addressed. Concerns include the critical water issues outlined and relating to you, but also include noise, up to 750 trucks (many of them articulated) per day carrying fill to the quarry, dust, noise and traffic management issues.
Responsibility to protect Auckland’s resources clearly lies with Auckland Council. I consider that Auckland’s fundamental interests in protecting underground water resources from contamination have not been well served in the handling of consents for this new central Auckland landfill. I believe the new amalgamated Auckland Council has an obligation to the people of Auckland to reconsider this matter and to participate fully in the coming Environment Court hearing.
It is your duty to ensure that whatever happens in the Mt Eden Road quarry does not subject Auckland’s underground water resources to any risk of contamination. I have also raised this issue with Watercare.
I seek your personal re-assurance on this.
Yours sincerely,
Joel Cayford
NB: This letter will be copied by email and post to Auckland City Councillors.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment