PAUL HUTCHISON* says a planned dump in the Waikato raises questions about waste disposal, resource consent procedures and Auckland's water supply.
No one wants a dump at their back door, especially if it has a capacity of about 30 million cubic metres of refuse disposal.
The Hampton Downs site, near Meremere, is said to provide a secure refuse disposal facility for a significant proportion of the refuse needs of the Auckland and Waikato regions for at least 35 years.
In its extremely professional and thorough application for resource consent, EnviroWaste states; "The design philosophy has been to ensure that there will be no adverse environment effects beyond the site boundaries." This feature must be particularly important because the Waikato River is within 500m.
People from the city often don't think about where their rubbish goes, but it might excite them that the landfill will be several miles kilometres from a major water supply for Auckland. Their children will be drinking this water for many generations to come.
Over the past few months a large number of constituents, especially from around Te Kauwhata and Meremere, have expressed serious concern about the dump. They feel they have little chance to present their view fairly, considering EnviroWaste's financial resources.
EnviroWaste has a bevy of international environmental experts as well as a rack of lawyers, including a Queen's Counsel. The local objectors say they have to find $100,000 security in order to appeal. This has left them feeling helpless.
While many are impressed by the in-depth risk-management measures that will be required of EnviroWaste, doubts have been expressed about unforeseen occurrences, such as heavy flooding or an earthquake. EnviroWaste must have enormous confidence in their ability to contain leachate.
It is also claimed by locals that there is a conflict of interest because the chairman of EnviroWaste also chairs WaterCare (the company responsible for piping the water to Auckland).
And Waikato Maori consider the river to be a life source. At a recent meeting in Te Kauwhata, they also expressed deep concern.
A survey carried out by EnviroWaste showed that over half the adjacent residents anticipated that they would be harmed by the landfill. The key effects included property devaluation, odour and traffic.
Increased traffic generated for the landfill will rise to 269 vehicle movements a day. An information pamphlet states that on-site operation will be 6 am to 10 pm, seven days a week.
I have written three times to the Minister for the Environment, Marian Hobbs, urging her to use her powers to ensure a fair and balanced hearing by instructing the ministry to appeal at the Environment Court hearing in September. So far she has refused.
As I move around the Port Waikato electorate, I hear a shrill cacophony of pain regarding the Resource Management Act. At one end of the spectrum, people complain that it is an affront to their democratic private property rights and, at the other, some say it doesn't go far enough. All agree that compliance costs and bureaucracy are expensive and exasperating.
Both local and central government should encourage modern methods of waste disposal, with active recycling and reuse of organic materials where possible. This should be at all levels, from private homes to preschools to farms and factories, to ensure people start thinking where their waste goes. It is vital that we engender a national consciousness of recycling. A national waste management strategy is needed.
A vast landfill for raw waste by the Waikato River will give a large number of people in the North Island a signal that recycling and waste minimisation is not a necessary option for many decades to come.
At some stage, best practice and practical costs must also come into the equation. There is huge controversy over the optimal method of refuse disposal.
Many of the Waikato appellants are upset that the Olivine thermal waste project did not achieve consent. Similar projects are displacing the use of landfills in many parts of Europe.
The Resource Management Act can be a formidable and rigorous hurdle. Provided all parties are given fair hearing, a few objectors with unfounded argument should not hold the majority to ransom. If the objectors have quantitatively solid arguments, the act should be used as a guardian of the environment. If the public does not approve of the act, it must clamour to have it modified.
It may seem very unfair that people who choose to live in the country are often the ones who, through no fault of their own, have a landfill imposed on them. They should be thoroughly compensated.
If a state-of-the-art landfill is the best we can do, a levy should be imposed on all waste material brought to it. From that money, compensation would go not only to individuals harmed, but also to an area within a specified radius.
Sufficient money would be available for specific environmental enhancement projects, such as restoring a natural wetland or a park that neighbours could enjoy. In that way, the local community would at least receive some benefit.
A significant levy would also act as a signal to keep up the search for alternative or superior waste disposal methods.
Over the next few months, we will see whether the appellants to the landfill at Hampton Downs are taken notice of by the Environment Court. The minister should take an active stance.
It is important that this issue is widely debated and carefully scrutinised because it could set a precedent at our back door that will have an impact for at least 35 years and possibly for much longer. We have to be sure that the drinking water for Auckland is of a very high standard.
* Dr Paul Hutchison is the National MP for Port Waikato.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.