The summary for this week’s Wastewater Management Committee (WMC) meeting indicates an increasing suitability for recreational use of coastal waters the further one moves away from the mouth of the Turanganui River. The report shows there is a persistent source of contamination from the rivers, independent of emergency wastewater overflows. This is also substantiated by a decrease in bug counts the further you move away from the river mouth. So in terms of recreation use, with the outfall discharge working, suitability at The Cut is “poor” but is “very good” at Midway.
Water sample monitoring undertaken for the council does not evaluate whether wastewater from the marine outfall presents a risk at city beaches. Predicted water quality after upgrades are that at 500m from the outfall discharge point (how much contact recreational use is there out there?), water suitability for recreation use will move from “Poor to Fair” to a standard of “Good”.
In the absence of any significant or useful improvement to the water in the bay, the status quo for the outfall discharge should remain until the river contamination problem is resolved.
5. Given current consent compliance and that the outfall plume appears to be inconspicuous, it is difficult to see a consent authority, or a court, not allowing further time to enable the council to get to grips with the point-source contamination of our rivers. DrainWise and whatever else is required ought to be the first priority in a pathway to an environmental improvement.
6. A mere possibility of endless clean water for irrigation should remain confined to council files. A report to the WMC in June of this year clearly stated that GDC had not been able to identify and conclude any alternative use and disposal options as feasible.
This is a recurring theme. In 2003 it was estimated by a GDC engineer that something like 700 hectares of land would be needed if treated wastewater was to be irrigated. And it would not cover all seasons and climatic conditions.
While perceptions about wastewater reuse are changing and, with increasing demand for and the cost of water it is realistic to have one eye to the future, I suggest the level of disquiet about it from end users — and the cost to have it at the ready — is such that a great deal more work is required to arrive at a sensible recommendation. Who will pay to pipe this irrigation water around the Waipaoa, is its use acceptable, and what do you do with the water when it’s not being so used?
Costly duplication springs to mind.
