"Crap Tax" to buy off Puketutu Tangata Whenua?

You can tell, can't you, that this blog is going to be a crap one.

Having been immersed in North Shore City's sewage for the best part of 6 years while I was a councillor there, and having been involved as a commissioner consenting an extension to Watercare's current disposal to Pond 2 Landfill in the Manukau Harbour, I have learned a lot about what we do here in Auckland, and what they do in more civilised parts of the world.

The United Nations Environment Programme has spent time analysing this issue too. They have produced An Introductory Guide To Decision-Makers, entitled: Biosolids Management: An Environmentally Sound Approach for Managing Sewage Treatment Plant Sludge. The introduction to this guide is helpful and brief:

"...Throughout North America and Europe, the application of biosolids to land is continuing to increase. As shown in Table 1, current biosolids applications to agricultural land in Europe and North America has become significant.
Although biosolids disposal in a landfill site is common, it should not be viewed as a long term solution. This option is considered to be environmentally beneficial only when such disposal includes methane gas recovery for application as a fuel. Modern landfills are complex and costly facilities to build and operate. They must be carefully engineered and monitored to ensure protection of both groundwater and surface water. In many locations, accessible, long-term landfill capacity is limited. Engineering and siting requirements can make the construction of new landfills prohibitively expensive. Most importantly, landfill disposal does not take advantage of the nutrient value and soil-building properties of biosolids, and takes up landfill space that can be better used for other materials. However, landfill is the unavoidable choice when municipal sludge is contaminated with industrial waste and municipal authorities are unable to monitor and control industrial discharges...."

This table is salutory. Auckland puts 100% of our biosolids in a landfill. Quite close to Greece at 97%. But the OECD average (based on this country list) is 43%. We would quite like NZ to shoot up the OECD charts when it comes to GDP, but we're quite happy it seems, to languish at the bottom of the list when it comes to crap. Makes our slogan and brand "100% Pure" seem a bit hollow doesn't it? But it's the last sentence in that quote above that you need to stare at: "...landfill is the unavoidable choice when municipal sludge is contaminated with industrial waste..." Sydney is a great example of a city that has gone to great lengths to get industrial waste out of its sewers. Metals like Chromium, Mercury, Zinc, Lead and Copper are all banned from Sydney sewers. I've seen Sydney's biosolids mixed with green waste, composted, and used as soil conditioner. But we can't do that with our biosolids because we contaminate them. Here in Auckland we actually make money from dumping industrial wastes into our drains. Or to more precise, Watercare Services Ltd makes money from it. Under Auckland's ancient system of trade waste permits, polluters are able to tip their industrial wastes down the drain, pay a fee to Watercare, and she'll be right mate. Don't you worry about it anymore. We'll sort it out, and thanks for the fee. So Third World. So banana republic.....

The revenue stream that Watercare collects from Trade Waste fees is a nice little earner. Subsidises all sorts of other activities and that's probably a good thing. But it means that Watercare has an excuse not to do the right thing. It has to find a hole in the ground to put Auckland's crap - albeit processed, methane extracted, partly dried, and lime added.

The problem for Watercare, and for Auckland, is that the Pond 2 Landfill in Manukau Harbour is filling up, and so Watercare applied for consent on 10 November 2008 to put Auckland's biosolids in a quarry on Puketutu Island in the Manukau harbour. There's been lots of news about this in NZ Herald, and there are other blogs of mine about it.

Commissioners hearing the consent application declined it. Among their reasons were:

(a) There would be severe and irreversible adverse effects on the spiritual and cultural wellbeing and values of tangata whenua and their ancestral relationship with the island if this proposal was permitted to proceed;

(b) The proposal would have adverse effects on the natural character of the coastal environment and the cultural values of tangata whenua which are both matters of national importance of regional significance. These effects could not be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated and in the case of iwi values would be irreversible;

(c) The properties of biosolids are far from favourable, and will restrict the landform to a very flat, distinctly unnatural appearance, with prolonged and intrusive aftercare likely to be required...

And so it goes on. Needless to say, Watercare has appealed this decision, and the matter is in front of the Environment Court. Mediation proceedings are underway...

In the background there have been a number of curious games underway. One of these has the ARC taking over the Island when the quarry has been filled up, and turning it into a Regional Park. This suggestion has the ARC getting the park for nothing. There is a little conflict of interest of course - because it's the ARC that's one of the consenting authorities for Watercare's biosolids disposal application.

The other game is one between iwi and Watercare. ARC has been kept a little bit in the loop about this, and I understand Watercare wants to come and talk to us about their updated plan in a few weeks. However all of this is happening far below the public radar, and I think it stinks.

Watercare is acting independently, unaccountably, though it will argue it is acting in Auckland's best interests. Across Auckland there is enormous pressure to resolve outstanding court appeals and environment court proceedings. (I think that some of these have lingered far too long and lawyers have got rich out of delays in resolution.)

But is it right that the process of transition to one Auckland Council should mean that an issue like the long term management of Auckland's biosolids should be rushed through in a quick expedient settlement? I don't think so. I think we need to clean up our act, and this is the time to be doing it.

However, and this is the nub of this blog, on Thursday 15 April, 2010, Watercare Services Ltd, Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority Incorporated, and Makaurau Marae maori Trust Incorporated (the parties) signed a document entitled Puketutu Island Heads of Agreement.

Among other things the parties agreed that:

• Puketutu Island is to be owned by Tangata Whenua;


• There will be an operating licence fee of $2 per tonne (plus GST if any) of biosolids placed there, for 30 years;


• The operating licence fee is to be ring-fenced for Tangata Whenua;


• Parties to agree that Environment Court appeals to be resolved by consent order...

So that is the price of "...the spiritual and cultural wellbeing and values of tangata whenua and their ancestral relationship with the island..."

Two dollars for every tonne of crap dumped there. A maori crap tax.

Watercare declares independence from Auckland

Watercare is the ONLY local government entity that will survive Auckland's draconian re-organisation unabolished, unscathed, and - in fact - considerably enlarged.

I've had a lot of interaction with Watercare over the years.

Between 1994 and 1998 I was occupied - some might say pre-occupied - with the Waikato Pipeline project (in its emergency guise and then as permanent supply, see elsewhere in this blog for info about the Manukau Agreement that arose). And then from 1998 to 2004 I was North Shore City Council's main man on the Watercare Shareholder Representative Group (each of Auckland's councils hold shares in Watercare, and these give them the right to govern Watercare through a Statement of Intent and through appointment of directors to Watercare's Board).

I have been on ARC since 2004, and note here that ARC's role in respect to Watercare is a environmental regulator. ARC does not hold shares in Watercare. I was ARC commissioner when Watercare sought extensions to its resource consents to operate its "Pond 2 Landfill", which is on the edge of the Manukau Harbour, and is where most of Auckland's sewage sludge is presently disposed of. On the periphery of this, I have also acted as Conmmissioner on other wastewater related consents - notably North Shore City Council's wastewater and stormwater network discharge consent hearings.

Under SuperCity legislation, all of the Auckland Region's wastewater and freshwater networks and systems will be integrated, and transferred to Watercare. I understand that Watercare will maintain its status as a "Council Controlled Organisation", and that Auckland Council will "govern" it through an Annual Statement of Intent and through the hiring and firing of Watercare Board Directors.

I have to say that this is a remarkably arms-length arrangement. It would be hard to name a single project or initiative that Watercare has been responsible for over the past decade that has been driven by the collective will of Auckland ratepayers and exercised through the governance arrangements that exist, and which serve to protect Watercare - shelter it - from the will of the people.

Before I get too carried away here, I will talk only about 3 things:

Puketutu. Watercare sought a designation and resource consents to dispose of biosolids (Auckland sewage) into Puketutu. Manukau City Council did not accept the designation, and ARC declined the resource consents. Among the reasons for the rejections were that there were significant Maori concerns over what Watercare intended, and also that commissioners did not accept watercare's contention that its activities would "rehabilitate" the quarry on Puketutu. There were other reasons. Watercare has appealed those decisions - as is its right. Unusually - even significantly - Watercare has gone public in NZ Herald and its own oublic magazine (Interflow) to assert that: "Watercare continues to support vision for Puketutu Island..." Extraordinary really. This public body is giving two fingers - in public - to Auckland's regional environmental regulators. This is heading to a gunfight. Reason: Watercare has backed itself - and Auckland - into a shitty little corner. Critical to this is Watercare hanging onto the right of commercial polluters to dump heavy metal contaminants into sewers, thereby contaminating otherwise clean sewage, rendering it dangerous to apply to land - as is the practice in Northern hemisphere cities, Sydney, and so on. Dumping sewage biosolids in a hole in an island in a harbour is dark age stuff. But Watercare wants that "vision", and is pressing on its independent, unaccountable course.

Bureaucracy: A thickening layer of bureaucracy is growing between Auckland Council and Watercare - between elected decision-makers, and the managers responsible for delivering Auckland's water and wastewater services. Some degree of transparency is possible now - and is reported - comparing and bench-marking the relative performance of local services provided by North Shore, Waitakere, Manukau and Auckland City. This is good for performance management and reporting. After the integration, this separation will be absorbed into the Watercare corporation. Councillors will want to get a good handle on what Watercare is doing - and bureaucrats will be needed to extract useful information. But information assymetry will be alive and well: Watercare will know everything and Council bureaucrats will only be able to guess at the facts. Unless there is an independent audit. In my memory - there has only been one such independent audit. While I was on the SRG I managed to get support for international authority - Halcrow - to investigate Watercare's performance. No filing cabinet remained closed - in theory. It was a very useful report - which Watercare sought to influence, manipulate and deflect relevant recommendations - even going so far as to commission Price Waterhouse (if my memory serves me right) to rebut Halcrow. The thickening layer of bureacrats will further distance elected representatives from what is happening....

Wastewater network overflows: In this issue of Interflow, Watercare admits to 9 overflows from its sewer network to 30th September due to stormwater getting into the network, and 1 due to external power failure. Interflow notes that: "illegal stormwater inflows into Local Network Operators' sewers can cause overflows in heavy rain...." Speaking from experience, I am aware that exactly this problem applied on the North Shore. It's sewere network overflowed in heavy rain, and also when there was a power failure. That is why North Shore has invested heavily in storage systems to collect overflows (before they overflow), and why most pump stations have standby generators that kick in when there is an external power failure. In this way, North Shore is aiming to achieve a target of no more than 2 overflows per year. North Shore is setting an example. And here's the rub: a little birdie has told me that Watercare is propsoing a target of 6 overflows/year from local networks. 300% worse than North Shore's target. Talk about lowest common denominator. That's what integration will give Auckland I think - a decline in environmental standards and a structural failure of governance.

There's a lot more to say on this. Keep watching.

Puketutu - Not a Dump for BioSolids - So Far

On the 9th July 2009, independent commissioners - chaired by Leigh McGregor, declined Watercare's applications for consents needed to dispose of sewage biosolids into the quarry hole that will be left on Puketutu Island when Winstone Aggregates finish their rock quarrying operation there. I breathed a sigh of appreciation.

There is a god....

This project - continuously referred to as a "land rehabilitation" by Watercare - has been around for a while. ARC has been dragged into it - reluctantly as far as I am concerned, willingly as far as some others are concerned - because the temptation of a free regional park was dangled in front of it. Like this: Watercare buys the Island and uses a chunk of it as a biosolids dump, and ARC can have the balance for a regional park immediately, and the whole of it for park when the quarry hole is fully "rehabilitated"....

Stank, as far as I was concerned.

Made me think of Goebbels. He used to say, " if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." Felt the same to me, the use of the word "rehabilitation" to describe the dumping of partly processed human sewage as a "beneficial use" of this material, as a good way of "rehabilitating" this hole in the Island.

Anyway, this picture comes from Watercare's website and is an aerial view of Puketutu. To the right, you can see the edge of watercare's Mangere Wastewater treatment plant. The sort of triangle area, also to the right, is the current Pond 2 Landfill site used to deposit biosolids now. It's capacity is to 2012 or thereabouts...
And, this picture shows Puketutu in the middle distance. The picture is taken from Mangere Mountain. In the background you can see the Waitakere's. And the Manukau Harbour is the water you can see. None of these pictures give a good idea of the topography of Puketutu. It is steep and undulating, and is about 140 hectares in area. It would make a fanatastic park. Views from it toward Manukau Heads are great. But please hold the biosolids...

I guess the decision will be appealed. But it must help push Watercare in a different direction. And about time. It's a worry with Watercare being supported as the vertically integrated entity in charge of all of Auckland's 3-waters, if it so resolute about least cost, business friendly approaches to water.

To quote summarised reasons for the decision to decline:

"...(a) There would be severe and irreversible adverse effects on the spiritual and cultural wellbeing and values of tangata whenua and their ancestral relationship with the Island if this proposal was permitted to proceed;
(b) The proposal would have adverse effects on the natural character of the coastal environment and the cultural values of tangata whenua which are both matters of national importance and of regional significance. Therse effects could not be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated and in the case of iwi values would be irreversible;
(c) The properties of the biosolids are far from favourable, and will restrict the landform to a very flat, distinctly unnatural appearance, with prolonged and intrusive aftercare likely to be required;
(d) In purely physical terms consent to the proposal might be granted, subject in all respects to the imposition of appropriate conditions. However, the purely physical considerations are considered to be far outweighed by the significant adverse effects that would be caused for matters of national and regional importance;
(e) The disposal of biosolids is not an appropriate way to "rehabilitate" Puketutu Island: it will degrade the island environmentally and leave it in a worse state than that prior to its "rehabilitation"..... etc

Just as an end note to this posting, I note that Auckland's wastewater system needs a policy upgrade. For a start the "trade waste" option of tipping heavy metals etc into the sewer, in exchange for a nominal trade waste fee, must be stopped. Sydney Water stopped this practice almost 20 years ago. Their goal was to reduce the heavy metal contaminants that render biosolids dangerous to life and healthy land. Stopping trade wastes would begin the slow process of creating a better quality organic biosolids that is more likely to be composted usefully with greenwaste and used as a soil conditioner. I appreciate there are challenges with this. But it is becoming the Western world norm to genuinely reuse biosolids, and to recycle their organic content back into the ground.

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.

Puketutu Landfill Proposal against Public Interest

I sent this letter to NZ Herald last week, knowing that Watercare had publicly notified its consent application to discharge sewage biosolids into Puketutu, on the Monday after the General Election. Sure - this complies with the letter of the law - but the public now have just a few days before Christmas to lodge an appeal....

"...The public interest is poorly served when expediency and cost minimisation drive major public infrastructure decisions.

In newspaper notices published the Monday after an exciting election, Watercare notified its intention to dump sewage sludge from the Mangere Wastewater Treatment Plant onto Puketutu Island in Manukau Harbour. Submissions will close a few days before Christmas.

Modern cities around the world keep trade waste chemicals out of sewage pipes, and apply treated sewage back to land where the nutrients can be reused. Landfilling of biosolids is mostly not permitted.

There’s a whiff of wishful thinking in Watercare’s claim that its proposed Puketutu Sewage Landfill is a land rehabilitation project that will eventually become a park promised to Auckland Regional Council. Auckland’s City Councils own Watercare and presumably supported this proposal at a confidential meeting.

But it’s actually a cheap dump that will belch methane for decades, just as Watercare’s sewage landfills do today on the edge of the Manukau.

We would not allow a private operator to do this. Auckland's public services can do better...."

Again, this letter was not published.