Council threatened over ponds

Maori committee members are threatening ‘enforcement action' against Tauranga City Council over the Te Maunga sludge pond issue.

Committee member Tama Hovell told members of the Wastewater Management Review Committee enforcement is being considered because of council's slow movement towards resolving the consents issue.


One of the Te Maunga ponds. File Photo.

The city council breached its resource consent over its use of the Te Maunga ponds to store sewerage sludge. The consent expired in 2012.

The Wastewater Management Review Committee, which is a creature of the consent, comprises appointed tangata whenua representatives from three iwi, and city councillors.

The tangata whenua representatives are united in their wish for the ponds to be closed because of environmental effects on the headwaters of Rangataua Bay and ongoing cultural impacts.

The fact council was continuing to use the pond for sludge storage when the consent expired in 2012, became public knowledge in March this year.

The committee is in the process of bringing forward $9-12 million in capital works so it can reduce the water content of the sludge before it is trucked to a Waikato landfill, but committee member Tama Hovell says council is moving too slow.

He thought from the conversation at the last committee meeting an agreement had been reached amongst committee members about the way forward, but things seem to be 'just dragging on more and more”, and it is four years since the breach of the consent.

'Seems the appropriate way to deal with this thing is to go down the enforcement path”, says Tama.

City council strategy group general manager Christine jones says the Wastewater management review committee doesn't make decisions, if makes recommendations to council that are then discussed and approved by council.

The council called for a report for further discussion at its upcoming meeting on September 20.

An additional three hour workshop concerning the issues and the actions is set to take place this morning.

Mayor Stuart Crosby says because of the processes council has to go through, nothing will happen with regards to the ponds until next year.

The other issue of contention is money. The resource consent required the council to set aside money for an environmental mitigation and enhancement fund to be paid out to affected tangata whenua.

The management of the fund is being challenged. It reached $250,000 before council paid out $130,000 to the Manaaki Te Awanui Charitable Trust, $29,100 to Nga Potiki a Tamapahore Trust. There is still $92,000 in the fund. There were 14 funding applications.

Tangata whenua members of the committee say the fund is for ongoing environmental and cultural effects and council is considerably behind on payments.

As a result, the committee decided in April to review the structure role and scope of the Wastewater Management Review Committee and review the Environment Mitigation and Enhancement Fund Policy, including the provision of funding.

Options developed by council staff were considered by the WWMRC in July. The recommendations from the WWMRC in relation to the preferred options were presented to council, which requested further information on the EMEF projects funded to date and their outcomes.

It is expected that decisions about the amount of the fund will be made on September 20.

Suggestions to the committee are that the fund can be used to develop and implement a coordinated programme of research focused around the Te Maunga WWTP wastewater treatment facility investigating new technologies for wastewater treatment, and the cultural and environmental effects of the wastewater scheme.

  • The development of a research partnership with the University of Waikato to aid in delivery of the above. This would be based around the Te Maunga wastewater treatment facility.
  • The development of a community wastewater educational programme focused around the Te Maunga WWTP wastewater treatment facility.
  • Capacity building opportunities for tangata whenua including involvement in education, sampling, testing and monitoring.

The plan would be developed collaboratively with tangata whenua and approved by the WWMRC.

The key outcome of the plan would be to deliver wastewater enhancement and mitigation projects in a coordinated way over the long term. This plan could be reviewed every three years to align with city council long term plan reviews.

This programme can be Council funded, or provided for though the EMEF or a combination of both.

You may also like....

18 comments

Oh I see

Posted on 01-09-2016 08:06 | By Gigilo

The issue is about an income stream not a stabilized waste water steam, silly me for thinking there was a major problem.


ponds

Posted on 01-09-2016 08:13 | By dumbkof2

chuck them a couple of mil and all will be fotgiven


all about the money?

Posted on 01-09-2016 08:50 | By BullShtAlert

This whole resource consent thing is just a moneymaker for a few consultants and gravytrainers in my opinion. There is very little wrong with these ponds and much better than people doing their business in backyards or direct into the water untreated. Get a life.


This IS so very wrong!

Posted on 01-09-2016 08:51 | By Murray.Guy

The recourse consent was an outcome of a consulted and lawful process. ANY non-compliance MUST go back to the Environment Court to determine an appropriate way forward. The $250,000 fund was NOT an on-going gravy train requirement of the consent but a 'one off fund' to be used for specific purposes on application. Once gone, it is gone. The impacts of the outfall and sludge ponds are monitored extremely closely and zero impact have been identified at the outfall and minimal and very confined impacts on the inner harbour marine life directly adjacent the ponds. This not remove the obligation from the Council to comply with the consent but nor does it validate attempts to re-interpret and or taken advantage of this unacceptable non-compliances.


Who uses it ?

Posted on 01-09-2016 09:01 | By sobeit

Sadly that's true.The ponds are treating Maori wastewater too. An ongoing cash payment will fix all. BTW the ponds don't contaminate the Bay.


ponds

Posted on 01-09-2016 09:39 | By sobeit

My comment 'sad but true' referred to post by dumbkof2


Hmmmm

Posted on 01-09-2016 10:05 | By How about this view!

This is one of the MANY core responsibilities of a city council and it is not receiving the attention that it deserves. I scratch my head at times, particularly when statements about "Cultural impacts" raise their ugly heads, as I feel this is just a poorly disguised claim for a cash hand-out. That being said, we are being represented by a cohort of self-aggrandising sycophants, hell-bent on funding lavishly over-extravagant monuments and irrelevances to bolster their egos and to appear relevant to a small socially elite sector of our city. We need a council that is thinking past buildings, Stadiums and museums and looking PROPERLY at our declining infrastructure and a growing population that want the basics of first class drinking and wastewater and a QUALITY roading network that is capable of actually moving traffic.


Do not forget

Posted on 01-09-2016 11:05 | By Gigilo

Operation stop a pipe even though I don't own the land. A right of way robbery where illegal compensation is the aim. This little number has slipped under the radar, anybody know the outcome.


Fund top ups?

Posted on 01-09-2016 11:40 | By Crash test dummies

Apparently there is a move afoot to dip into rates for $50,000 annually and back dated. Some $1.7m total cost to ratepayers? Like that is not part of the Consetn now is it?


Ask C A G

Posted on 01-09-2016 13:53 | By Dazed and Confused

They have all the answers They will know how to save us...Or will that just add another smell?


The Waikato!!

Posted on 01-09-2016 13:58 | By Taurangaboy

So we send out sludge to the Waikato... I assume at a cost both in transport and dumping costs...what on earth do they do with it, that we couldn't do here. Shouldn't we be dealing with our own C&#& (you know) here in Tauranga! And should we be asking Maori to pay their share as well


This

Posted on 01-09-2016 19:04 | By Capt_Kaveman

is a joke pretty much like the water issue


Good Reason

Posted on 01-09-2016 19:16 | By Jitter

This is one reason why TCC should not accept non elected Maori representatives on the council.


Whois accountable and who has been fired then ?

Posted on 01-09-2016 19:40 | By kellbell

TCC Council have fouled this thing up completely and should be taken to task by BRC the consenting authority who was also remiss in not having reliable records to show RMA Consent expired 4years ago for gods sake!!It effects all TCC citizens not just the gravy trainers looking for the usual handouts.


to pond or not to pond

Posted on 24-09-2016 09:09 | By flyingtoaster

Yet, more of failings by the council. If this had been a private venture, the council would have shut this down long ago, and significant penalties would have been incurred. The council needs to pull their head out of their a$$, and do the job that they are being paid for.As far as the The tangata whenua representatives are concerned, shutting down the ponds will hurt EVERYONE maori and non-maori alike. Where do you think the sewage will go if the ponds are shut down? should the council just shut off everyone's sewage, so it backflows into your house? or should they pump it directly into the harbour?


Sewage

Posted on 24-09-2016 09:12 | By flyingtoaster

Perhaps the The tangata whenua representatives, should be charged with dealing with their own sewage, and that generated by the iwis they represent.


Never learn?

Posted on 25-09-2016 15:35 | By Crash test dummies

If there is not a consequence for the failings of the oxidation ponds to contain the sewerage. Obviously been happening for a while and should not have been allowed to continue. The short term answer is to stop using the pond until fixed, why isn't that happening?


Double standards?

Posted on 30-09-2016 17:53 | By Crash test dummies

Obviously Regional Council are not wanting to attack their mates at TCC, rather they want to let them do whatever they want and that is ok. That is all looking like a huge disparity to recent prosecutions of an oil company for a minor and small spill compared to years of raw sewerage floating up and down the Harbour ... don't figure?


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.