"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.

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.