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.