1

EXPERT WITNESS REPORT FOR

CONSENT HEARING OF ‘THE POT’

Prepared by Dr. Marjan van den Belt,

Terra Moana Ltd, on behalf of WECA Inc.

21 Oct 2019

SUSTAINABILITY IS

A JOURNEY – IT’S

THE RIGHT THING

TO DO

www.terramoana.co.nz

Source of image: Horizons Regional Council

2

ABOUT TERRA MOANA Terra Moana Ltd and Associates (TML) bring a highly experienced team with expertise in natural resource management and

collaboration. We focus on primary industries, especially fisheries and oceans. Our areas of expertise include research, policy, business,

analysis, management, valuation, facilitation, regenesis, extensive global networks, cultural intelligence, and business development.

Terra Moana’s mission is grounded in natural capital “know how” and recognition of the need to regenerate human and natural

systems. This is predicated on a respect for, and understanding of, the multiple factors that must be considered to enable wise

stewardship of natural resources and the communities reliant upon them. We can support teams, executives, divisions and individuals

to do the right thing.

TML seeks to bring tailored, best practice evidence, assessment and valuation to these areas to enable sound decision-making support

for businesses and governments. Using careful design and sensitive engagement principles we work with both those who seek

economic development and those who may be affected by it.

Core Values

➢ Community and business credible collaboration. ➢ Combining the best of western and indigenous values. ➢ Using indigenous belief systems to drive improved resource management. ➢ Documenting indigenous stories to underpin product provenance. ➢ Valuing indigenous stories in product provenance to ensure the story owners see a return on their investment. ➢ Empowered, accountable, responsible local management. ➢ Transparent and fair business structures

3

Contents

A. Introduction and experience ........................................................................................................... 4

B. Background and organization of this report ................................................................................... 5

C. Section A: Reflection on the Applicant’s and background material provide before 23 August 2019,

organized under the Four Capitals .......................................................................................................... 6

D. Part B – adjusted from issues paper submitted to HRC on 5 September, based on Summary of

Andrew Bashford, published on the HRD website dated 23 August 2019. ........................................... 35

E. Part C – Review of Joint Witness Statements provided on 24 Septermber 2019 ......................... 46

F. Part D – Focused response to statement of evidence of David Clapperton and associated

responses from Applicant. .................................................................................................................... 49

G. Key points ...................................................................................................................................... 57

Acronyms

CHI Cultural Health Index

DO Dissolved Oxygen

DOC Department of Conservation

HDC Horowhenua District Council

HRC Horizons Regional Council

IFS Integrated Freshwater Solutions

IPBES Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

LGA Local Government Act

LWWLT Levin wastewater land treatment system

MFE Ministry of Environment

NPS National Policy Statement

NSFM National Statement on Freshwater Management

NZ New Zealand

RMA Resource Management Act

WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility

4

A. Introduction and experience

1. My full name is Maria Janna van den Belt (Marjan).

2. I hold a PhD in Marine Estuarine Environmental Science from the Univerisity of

Maryland, USA and a Masters in Business Economics from Erasmus University

Rotterdam, the Netherlands. My graduate certificate in Ecological Economics

demonstrates an ability to interlink natural and social sciences from a systems

perspective.

3. I have 28 years of combined post graduate experience in research, consulting,

enterprise and governance in Sweden, USA and New Zealand. From 2009 – 2016, I was

Director and Associate Professor in Ecological Economics at Massey University and

science leader on nationally funded, multi-million dollar research programmes,

including Integrated Freshwater Solutions (IFS). As Science Leader of the IFS

programme I was involved in applied research with four iwi and other stakeholders in

the Manawatu, including Muaupoko and Raukawa.

4. From 2016 – 2018, I was Assistant Vice Chancellor (Sustainability) at Victoria University

of Wellington, exemplifying one leadership role. During 2018 I was appointed by the

Minister of Finance to serve on the Tax Working Group as the ecological economist to

support it’s consideration of how the taxation system could contribute to positive

ecological outcomes. Relevant international appointments include being in the Pool of

Experts on the World Oceans Assessment and Intergovernmental Platform for

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) which I served in ‘values and valuation’

and ‘modelling and scenarios’.

5. Systems science aims to understand the complex ways human-ecological coupled

systems interact and apply that understanding and knowledge to management

practices. Systems science can be helpful in the understanding, evolution and

prognosis for sustainability of complex challenges. I have been fortunate to apply a

systems science approach in a variety of contexts, ranging from coastal zone

management, catchment management, 20-year planning for regional electric

plannning, through to organizational governance.

6. I published a book on how to engage multi stakeholder groups in model building for

environmental consensus building.

7. I have consistently worked across the four well-beings. My expertise includes forward-

looking collaborative and participatory processes interlinking information across the

four wellbeings.

5

8. I have experience with a consenting process while co-founding an eco-village in

Vermont, USA.

9. This is my first witness statement for a consent application under the current Resource

Management Act (RMA) in New Zealand (NZ).

10. In April 2019, I joined Terra Moana Ltd as a Strategic Partner and consultant.

11. WECA Inc. has engaged me via Terra Moana Ltd as an expert witness at the consent

hearing for ‘the Pot’ application.

12. I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses in the Environment Court

Practice Note 2014 and agree to comply with this Code of Conduct.

13. This report follows the issues raised in a paper submitted to Horizons Regional Council

(HRC) on 5 September 2019. The issues paper was not published or formally discussed.

I confirm that the issues previously raised and in this report are within my area of

expertise as an ecological economist; applied, interdisciplinary systems science, with

an emphasis on governance and participatory processes within the realm of the 4

capitals (natural, social, human and built capital) also referred to as the 4 well-beings.

B. Background and organization of this report

14. As an expert witness for WECA Inc and to the extent that allotted time allowed, I have

considered the information provided at http://www.horizons.govt.nz/managing-natural-

resources/consents/horowhenua-district-council-the-pot (application documents) and

http://www.horizons.govt.nz/managing-natural-resources/consent-hearings/horowhenua-

district-council-the-pot/horowhenua-district-council-the-pot (joint expert witness statements

and response of the applicant). This is a total of 71 documents to date.

15. In an attempt to keep up with the fast-evolving conversation, this report has 3

sections:

16. Section A. Consideration of relevant documents before 23 August 2019; this part of

the report summarizes initial concerns regarding 1) the draft consent application; 2)

underpinning reports about the proposed impact on the quality of catchment land,

streams, ground waters, coastline, shellfish beds and ocean. My concerns and

questions are synthesized from a systems perspective. The issues raised cover the four

well beings - Natural Capital, Social/Cultural, Human and Built/Financial Capital – as

per the recently updated Local Government Act. This is also in line with Treasury’s

Living Standards Framework which is increasingly setting the direction of travel for

6

integrated assessments at national, regional and local levels of government pertaining

to social, cultural, environmental and economic aspects of decision making.

17. Section B. The issues paper submitted on 30 August, where I acknowledge the

contextual summary of the application provided by Andrew David Bashford (available

per 23 August 2019); C, D, E. In the interest of time and efficiency, I followed Section

F-M of Mr. Bashford’s summary and raise issues accordingly, in preparation of a

conference call outlined in Minutes Direction 3. Participation in this conference call did

not ensue. The expert witnesses met independently regarding their areas of

disciplinary expertise. My absence was acknowledged in correspondence between

WECA Inc and Mr. Cowie. The issues paper was briefly discussed - informally and

primarily for clarification of the process - in a phone call with Mr. Bashford.

18. Section C. On 24 September 2019 five Joint Witness Statements were uploaded and

provided per email. This section reviews those documents.

19. Section D. On 3 October five joint witness statements in various disciplinary areas

became available. In addition, on 14 October the applicant’s response became

available; another 14 documents. In the interest of time and resources available, I will

focus in detail on the statement of evidence by Mr. Clapperton, similar to the Issues

paper presented under Section B.

C. Section A: Reflection on the Applicant’s and background

material provide before 23 August 2019, organized under the

Four Capitals

Section A is shared reflectively, to provide background and my initial thoughts regarding the

application. The conclusions from this section have been considered in light of the additional

material that became available in due course. Some concerns persist, while other concerns

have evolved.

Summary before 23 September 2019 After consideration of relevant documents regarding The Pot consent application, this report

summarizes issues and concerns regarding 1) the draft consent; and; 2) underpinning reports

about the proposed impact on the quality of catchment land, streams, ground waters,

coastline, shellfish beds and ocean. A third section 3) synthesizes the concerns are from a

systems perspective, introducing some drivers and considerations that do not appear to have

been considered.

7

This section argues that a systems perspective is relevant when a 35-year consent is sought

and when legislative changes to facilitate for desirable outcomes, such as the implementation

of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, is imminent. The Local

Government Act has also reinstated consideration of the four well-beings. A 35-year consent

that is developed from a reductionist, fragmented mindset, for dated technology and has no

firm financial commitments behind its improvements, is a recipe for disappointment in many

ways.

Based on the concerns raised in section A of this report, the following interim

recommendations are kept in mind as issues raised by witnesses (section B) and subsequent

response from the Applicant (Section C)

a. A delay in a consent approval decision awaiting the new freshwater policy

statement to be announced by central government in 2019 along with any

associated rules or requirements.

b. A 3-5 year agreement period for continuation of the Pot, instead of 35 years.

c. That alternatives are actively and rigorously explored by Horowhenua District

Council (HDC) in consultation with the community and to include input from

appropriate external specialists and support from Horizons Regional Council

(HRC) for the implementation of suitable alternatives.

d. Increased in-depth monitoring of the Waiwiri catchment, Waiwiri stream and

the groundwater nitrogen plume that is expected to reach the coast within 10

years. The health of the coastal shellfish beds and Macroinvertebrate

Community Index of the Waiwiri should be reported on annually – reflecting

seasonal variability - to the public, starting as soon as practicable after the

hearing.

Structure of the reflection on applicant and background documents This section of the report covers the four well-beings - Natural Capital, Social/Cultural, Human

and Built/Financial Capital – as per the recently updated Local Government Act. This is also in

line with Treasury’s Living Standards Framework which is increasingly setting the direction of

travel for integrated assessments at regional and local levels of government; social, cultural,

environmental and economic aspects of decision making. The synthesis provides the basis for

a hearing statement.

To assist in bringing together the four capitals, the report also loosely uses a DPSIR approach

(Driver, Pressure, State, Impact, Response) to broaden and/or enhance natural science

methods which to date are predominantly used in a narrow and fragmented way to focus on

direct negative impacts. The RMA tends to focus on mitigation and is notoriously weak on

fostering positive ecological outcomes; hence it is being reviewed.

8

Out of scope are a review of the aerosol consent also being considered in this process, as it

was not requested for review. Furthermore, the pipe that brings water from the treatment

plant to the Pot - a 7.4km piece of infrastructure of an age close to 30 years old but was

upgraded within the last 10 years. The pipe is not included in the consent application and is

not included in this review. However, the pipe and the Wastewater Treatment Plant as well as

‘The Pot’ – the subject of this consent application - are inseparable components of the Levin

Wastewater Treatment Facility (LWWT).

Review of documentation provided before 23 September 2019

Natural Capital Natural capital refers to our life support system represented by various ecosystems. Clearly,

ecosystems are interconnected and are often described in New Zealand as ‘from the

mountains to the sea’. People and our artefacts are part of these ecosystems. We depend on

these ecosystems for life support. From a Māori perspective, natural capital can be considered

‘mana atua’. From a western perspective, people derive ecosystem services from Natural

Capital. The term Natural Capital in this paper is used in a broad sense equivalent with ‘nature’

or ‘ecosystems’, beyond a utilitarian relationship. In this view, people and our economies are

dependent on nature. Nature does things for us that we often take for granted. Waste

assimilation is one such service. However, in towns and cities - where we are with many of us

in one place – nature has trouble keeping up with our metabolic rate of taking resources and

releasing waste. This is where technology working in harmony with ecosystems, helps us find

solutions to ideally work with nature. We then tread as lightly as possible and find ways to

regenerate our ecosystems as part of our activities.

The Pot is part of a catchment servicing Horowhenua. It is located 1.4km to between 260-500

meter from the sea. The Pot is a natural basin. A dune separates the Pot area from the Waiwiri

stream, except for the two 1.5 meter drains that have been dug from the Pot to the Waiwiri

stream.

From a consenting perspective, the focus is narrowed down to the direct activities of the Pot

area to its direct vicinity. In reality, the Pot is located at the bottom of the catchment, where

the surface and ground water flow pick up the impact of pollution from non-point sources

higher up in the catchment. Each of these point sources are independently consented, but

together they have led to degradation of this ecosystem; death by a thousand cuts.

At a global level this fragmentation has led to a climate and ecological crisis that now impacts

all our local decisions as well. The potential impacts of a changing climate and sea level rise

are not included in any of the reviewed assessments. Horizon’s One Plan and ten-year plan

(2018-2028) steers away from the inclusion of climate change mitigation and adaptation. The

report on Climate Change and Variability – Horizons Region (2016) provides a compilation of

9

various concerns for coastal and river infrastructure related assets, based on the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) at the time. This year (2019), the IPCC has

increased the urgency of climate action. NZ has a Zero Carbon Act and the final Zero Carbon

Bill is expected shortly. The impacts of climate change and sea level rise is a concern for a

consent with a proposed timeframe of 35 years, located at its closest, only 260-500 metres

from the sea.

On the other hand, the Ecological Assessment reflects an acknowledgement that shellfish are

disappearing, either by natural movement or affected by larger systemic changes. It is

indicative of a narrow approach and mindset to conclude that – because there are now fewer

shellfish - the Pot does not have a direct negative impact on shellfish or on these changes.

From a systems perspective, what is true at the global level is also true at the catchment level.

As HRC has responsibility for water quality it must also assume responsibility for the eco-

system health of the catchment in its relationship with local government. The current

management approach suits a siloed engineering-only approach. This is now out of date as it

neglects to properly consider the biological and human impacts on the more complex eco-

system in which we as human animals live.

Following is an assessment of the specific areas of natural interest.

Soil

The Pot presents a highly diverse soil profile with dunes, inter-dunes and sand plains. While

the sandy dunes drain well, the inter-dune areas drain poorly; Well drained 165ha = 78%;

Imperfectly drained 18ha = 8% and Very poorly drained 29ha = 14%. (LEI2016:B9)

‘Many of the sandy soils in the study area appear to be hydrophobic judging from the irregular

wetting patterns within the soil (Fig, 3). Organic Soils of the inter-dune area on the Tucker

Block also show signs of hydrophobicity. Hydrophobicity may need to be considered when

designing the effluent irrigation system, but limited observation suggests hydrophobicity does

not seem to be negatively impacting the existing operation in sandy soils. However,

observation of a sandy soil soon after irrigation showed a wet surface layer over “dry” sand in

the upper subsoil over “wet” sand.’ (LEI2016:B91 p4)

The diverse soil types including the sandy soils repel water to an extent. The effluent irrigation

system seems to be catching 80% of the irrigation water in the drains, which may be one

explanation why the soil does not seem to be negatively impacted. Irrigation to ‘land’ seems

to have a few pathways; uptake and evaporation through vegetation, leaking to groundwater

1 Manaaki Whenua (Landcare Research) contributed two reports titled ‘Soil of The Pot and Tucker Block’ via LEI:2016:B9. For some reason, it is dated to 2018 and posted twice on the Horizon’s website.

10

connected to the stream and coast, movement over land to surface water and a short

movement through land to drains, exiting into the Waiwiri stream. This mass balance should

be clearly established and its changes over time monitored.

Draining also cause peat shrinkage:

‘Very poorly drained Organic Soils in the inter dune area of Tucker Block show signs of

shrinkage due to drainage and loss of organic matter (Fig. 6). Peat shrinkage is rapid when

drains are first installed then shrinkage rates decline. Without a detailed drainage history, it is

difficult to know where in the cycle the Tucker Block lies. There is a balance between deep

drains and agricultural convenience. In many instances after deepening drains with

consequent peat shrinkage, stumps become a problem again in the drained paddocks. It is best

practice to operate Organic Soils with as high a water table as possible to minimise

shrinkage.’LEI2016:B9

The Tucker Block is not part of the consent application. Its soil is not monitored, however, it is

part of the considered alternatives. Soil is a critical factor in carbon sequestration and water

management. Diverse planting tends to encourage nitrogen uptake. Soil of the Tucker Block

would need to be further examined if this is used as an additional irrigation site.

The combination of drains and irrigation is a way to create a controllable farming and

wastewater dispersal area. It sounds like the farming on the Tucker Block is benefiting from

and possibly dependent on receiving wastewater effluent to put through its drained soils. ‘To

the north west of Tucker Block, The Pot area is irrigated with effluent from The Pot and is

predominantly in pine trees with some extensively grazed pasture. Irrigation of the pasture

makes a visible difference to pasture growth.’LEI2016:B9

Furthermore, farming and forestry in the area means there are impacts. Nutrients and other

pollutants don’t ‘disappear’, as discussed below. In addition, harvesting pine trees leads to soil

vulnerable to wind erosion. Measures can be taken to reduce dune blow-out; however, it was

observed that ‘Pine, will not provide enough protection to the erodible dune soil.’LEI2016:B9

Before the Manaaki Whenua report in 2016 – which seems simply to have been re-dated to

2018 -, the quality of catchment land was assessed in 2015 (Ross & Dando). It uses a different

method and found that ‘Health and structure of soils, plant and herbage, plus growth, rooting

depth and species development at the wastewater application and sludge discharge sites are

annually assessed in line with resource consent requirements.’ This argument hinges on a

belief that measuring within consent requirements using snapshots is sufficient to understand

the state of the ecosystem in response to the introduced stress.

‘In 2015, that is 4 years ago, it found that ‘Most parameters showed little change over time

and often had similar results compared to non-irrigated soil at the Site. The main factors that

11

appear to be influenced by the irrigation when compared to 2009 results are Olsen P (steady

increase), Exchangeable Ca, Mg, K and Na (slight decreasing trend) and Physical properties –

Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (significantly higher in subsoil compared to non-irrigated

site).’ Manaaki Whenua report (2016)

While the report in 2015 showed little change over time, there are factors that did

demonstrate a negative trend. The subsequent assessment does not.

The consent application indicates a commitment to yearly soil tests for negative impacts.

The soil was to be assessed to 1 meter depth. Question: Is this deep enough, when ground

water reports point at a ground water nutrient plume at 5-10 meter depth? Or does most of

the water travel primarily via artificial drains to the stream? And/or does the pond leak

substantial amounts to the ground water?

The ecosystem will dilute to an extent and pass on the problem to other receiving

environments, in this case surface, ground water, beach and ocean. The challenge is again, as

with most of the western reductionist sciences, that the ability to measure snapshots and

setting limits is fragmented and does not readily allow for deduction of the systemic changes

that are created.

Streams and surface water

While the map indicated a measuring point upstream, there does not seem to be a

measurement point for concentrations downstream of the Pot. This could be because there

is limited comparability – i.e. for Macroinvertebrate communities as well as influences of tidal

variability.

Furthermore, because the pollution from ruminants is so high in the stream, the Pot’s

contribution is difficult to distinguish. Allan et al (2012) established that E. Coli from faecal

matter originates from ruminants, not from humans. The difficulty to measure a difference

against background pollution levels is no excuse; it’s a systems failure, for which the WWLT is

co-responsible. Following this logic and therefore concluding to a ‘less than minor impact’ is

deeply concerning.

The following reads like an excuse:

‘In summary, the investigations and monitoring undertaken by the HDC for the Levin

wastewater land treatment system (LWWLT) system have indicated that nutrient levels in

waterways surrounding the LWWLT system are elevated. However, with the exception of

nitrogen there is compliance with national and regional water quality targets. With respect to

ecological impacts, while the Waiwiri Stream catchment can be considered to be degraded,

there are no impacts from the LWWLT which are distinguishable over and above the

12

background water quality e.g. the upstream conditions are degraded and the impact of the

LWWLTS system is barely distinguishable. The water quality in the Waiwiri Stream is not ideal,

but the condition of the stream in the proximity of the LWWLT system is similar to that

upstream in the catchment.’

Will the ‘compliance with national and regional water quality targets’ – which is exceeded

already for nitrogen – hold when the new freshwater standards come into effect?

Historically Dissolved Oxygen (DO) and Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) was flagged as a

problem before 2008 (LEI, 2017:A1b). It is not clear how the subsequent improvements of

DO and BOD was verified. Aquanet 2016:B6b sets out a different set of measurements that

don’t seem to significantly contribute, given that this is a degraded stream already. Would its

contribution have been significant if the stream was pristine? Systemically, that line of

argumentation is a race to the bottom and does not set itself up for more integrated solutions.

Continuous monitoring on DO from the mountains to the sea, including the top and the

bottom of The Pot could be one component in developing a more comprehensive picture for

the catchment as well as the role of The Pot.

Furthermore, ‘soluble inorganic nitrogen and total nitrogen increased significantly in the

Waiwiri Stream between upstream and downstream of the site. Nitrate-nitrogen

concentrations also increase significantly in the Waiwiri Stream downstream of the “Pot” and

exceed national bottom lines in one of the drains within the irrigation area.’ (Aquanet,

2016:B6b). Two reasons are given that the reader should not find these findings problematic:

1) site specific water hardness reduces its toxicity; and 2) ‘no ecological effects of the increases

in nutrient concentrations were detected’.

In other words, no deceased in wildlife was found that succumbed from high nutrient

concentrations. However, the absence of dead wildlife (including fish) in a stream that is not

conducive to support life is not surprising or encouraging for local Māori kai awa collection.

This is elaborated on in Section C.

This seems similar to the year before (Aquanet 2015)

‘Surface water monitoring by Aquanet Consulting (2015) indicated increased nitrate-nitrogen,

soluble inorganic nitrogen and total nitrogen, and to a lesser extent phosphorus,

concentrations in Waiwiri Stream between upstream and downstream of the Pot. The

concentration of metals in the main drain running through the irrigation area were below

[Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council] ANZECC 95% species

protection levels and concentrations in sediment from the Waiwiri Stream upstream, adjacent

to, and downstream of the Pot irrigation area were also below ANZECC ISQG-Low trigger

levels. (Aquanet, 2015)’

13

Yet, various reports have interpreted the state of the surface water. For example, the

Assessment of Alternatives report states a recommendation that needs to be addressed:

‘Increased nitrogen concentrations in the Waiwiri Stream downstream of The Pot.’ Similarly,

the Enhancement report includes ‘the acknowledgement that The Pot is a contributor to the

health of the stream’. See Section C.

The monitoring the right items for negative impact needs to continue and significantly

improve. However, these measurements are sufficiently limited in scope that the perceived

absence of negative impacts is not sufficient to continue business as usual, missing the bigger

picture.

Ground water

It appears that regular monitoring within the consent requirements has not given cause for

any concerns while executing consent requirements: ‘Groundwater levels have been

historically monitored twice a year at five boreholes to satisfy resource consent requirements.

No matters have arisen from this monitoring to alert any concern (LEI,2017:A1b).’

The monitoring of ground water should be set up and executed to a level that monitoring of

behaviour of the nitrogen plume is clear as well as a full understanding of the water and

pollution balance that the Pot exchanges with all its receiving environments.

A previous report (LEI, 2016:B3b) indicates a cumulative issue that will not show up in

measurements that follow the consent protocol:

‘The Pot Groundwater Monitoring Report (LEI, 2016:B3b) determined characteristics of the

groundwater predominantly from data collected over a 12-month period from March 2015 to

2016’. Its findings included:

• There is leakage from The Pot Pond that has created groundwater mounding;

• The movement of groundwater is in all directions out from the pond and then is dominated

by a westerly movement towards the coast; and

• The nutrient plume moves from the pond predominantly in the top 5 to 10 m of groundwater.

Leakage from the pond has caused mounding and this may mobilize contaminants that are in

soil or groundwater.’

‘The application of wastewater to land and storage of wastewater at the Pot pond have

resulted in localised mounding of groundwater. Surveys of groundwater indicate low levels of

metals are present (below human drinking standards), in addition to nutrients (ammonia,

nitrate nitrogen and phosphorus). Surface drains provide a mechanism for intercepting

shallow groundwater impacted by wastewater, which ultimately flows to the Waiwiri Stream

and then to the coast. It is estimated that a high proportion (approximately 80%) of shallow

groundwater is captured by surface water system, with the remaining 20% likely to seep out

14

directly onto the beach, bypassing Waiwiri Stream (Stephen Douglass, pers. comm. 26 July

2019). (LEI, 2016:B3b)

The Pond is a significant part of the Pot infrastructure. In additional information request (9

Aug 2018) the concern of Dissolved Oxygen monitoring was raised. The reply (18 October

2018) concludes that ‘low DO results are recorded from The Pot however this is a dynamic

measurement that fluctuates. Ongoing low DO results have not occurred.’ Low DO results may

not have occurred because snapshot measurements have been used as a method. In order to

confirm that there is no DO issue, the site would need to be monitored continuously. Ideally,

this should happen in the Pond, at the Pot’s head of the Waiwiri stream and at the stream

confluent.

In addition, monitoring of the sludge in the Pond is not included in the proposed monitoring

regime. Since there is interaction of the Pond with the broader ecosystem through

groundwater, it is unclear if heavy metals as well as nutrients are escaping to the coast.

Desludging of the Pond is not covered in this consent. (more later).

Furthermore, the Assessment of Alternatives report states the recommendation that needs

to be addressed: ‘Pond leakage contribution to nitrogen concentrations.’

Coastline

Similar to above, the argument seems to be that the water quality along the entire

Horowhenua coast has elevated nutrients and faecal coliform concentrations and therefore,

the Pot doesn’t appear to add much to the background concern. HRC is responsible for the

quality of all water going to this coast until it intersects with Greater Wellington Regional

Council at Otaki. Again, there is a need to seamlessly develop long term desirable outcomes.

‘Waiwiri Stream flows out of a shallow dune lake (Papaitonga) and meanders through pastoral

land use to the south of The Pot, ultimately discharging to the west coast between Hōkio

Stream to the north and the Ōhau River to the south. The water quality of Waiwiri Stream is

characterised by having elevated nutrients and faecal coliform concentrations, which is similar

to other waterways along the Horowhenua coast. Observations by shellfish survey teams in

2014 included noting a freshwater seepage of water through the sand at 20-200m down the

shore at a site south of Waiwiri Stream. Freshwater seepages are common along the

Horowhenua coast (e.g. south of Hōkio, north of Ōhau, north of Waikawa) (Newcombe,

Poutama, et al., 2014).’

The fact that freshwater seepage is common means that there is active ground water

movement across the Horowhenua coast; it is an intertidal zone. This can only be enhanced

by a perpetual and significant flow of water to the Pot and through irrigation.

15

However, ‘Water quality samples collected by Aquanet Consulting in 2015 at sites to the north

and south of the Waiwiri Stream mouth, although limited, generally indicated low

concentrations of nutrients in the coastal waters (mostly below detection limits), with no

significant differences observed between any of the sites, including a reference site

approximately 1.6 km further north along the coast’ (Aquanet, 2015).

Clearly, the ocean provides us a service by diluting the confluent of the rivers and streams to

an extent and as a result, it is therefore difficult to establish direct causation without the

benefit of more extensive monitoring and modelling and synthesis.

Shellfish beds

The Cultural Health Index for the area confirms the cultural importance. Shellfish such as Pipi,

Tuatua and Toheroa are historically important sources of kai for local Māori. During 2010 –

2013, I was Science Leader of a nationally funded programme Integrated Freshwater

Solutions. Muaupoko, Raukawa and Rangitaane collaborated on this programme and each had

their local, on the ground projects. Muaupoko chose to focus on shellfish restoration and

initiated a community-based shellfish monitoring programme. Community from afar joined

for this event. It was very touching to experience the disappointment of an elderly kuia who

remembered an abundance of much larger shellfish. Mātauranga Māori is essential

knowledge in the absence of historical monitoring and collection of consistent, longitudinal

data. There is evidence of shellfish beds in living memory, which could be collated.

The Ecological Assessment (2016:B10) implicitly dismisses local knowledge of abundant

shellfish, by starting with: ‘The marine environment that Waiwiri Stream discharges to is a

moderate-high energy exposed beach. There is limited existing information on the marine

ecological values of beaches on the Horowhenua coast, including the Waiwiri Stream mouth.’

(2016:B10). The observation that shellfish on high intensity coasts are naturally low in numbers

and varieties (depauperate), mainly amphipods and isopods (crustaceans) does not square

with what iwi and local pakeha seem to remember. Nor is it consistent with Iwi aspirations

(Rangitaane) to develop the shellfish fishery sustainably here [aspirations based on personal

communications with Terra Moana Ltd].

Furthermore, the Ecological Assessment concludes that: ‘It is unlikely that treated wastewater

that finds its way to the coast is responsible for a decline in shellfish abundance. However, a

survey of the body burden of wastewater contaminants in tuatua flesh may be appropriate.’

(2016:B10)

This recommendation was only mentioned in the text and not repeated in the final

recommendations. This should be followed up.

However, there clearly is an ecosystem problem, whether blame can be attributed directly to

the Pot or not: ‘The benthic marine invertebrate taxa and assemblages that have been

16

identified adjacent to the Waiwiri Stream mouth in low intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats

are common species, with no Threatened or At Risk species present. We note that there has

been a documented decline in toheroa along the Horowhenua coast, and that tuatua, which

were able to be sampled in 2014 at 12 sites between Ōtaki and Hōkio, were not detected in

any abundance in our survey between Hōkio and Ōhau.’ 2016:B10

And,

‘It is unlikely that the discharge of treated wastewater to the coast via the Waiwiri Stream and

via groundwater seepages onto the beach is the cause of the decline in toheroa and tuatua

along the Horowhenua coast. The presence of Paphies spp. (pipi, tuatua and toheroa) are

known to be highly variable in space and time (Marsden, 2002). The decline of tuatua along

the coast is likely due to movement of tuatua beds, a cohort of shellfish reaching the end of

their natural life span, and lack of recruitment of juveniles in that particular area. Habitat

parameters appear to be suitable for recruitment, but recruitment success depends on a

number of factors, including local hydrodynamic conditions, currents and long-shore drift and

substrate. Toheroa have declined at a number of locations around New Zealand and are known

to be affected by vehicles driving along the mid shore habitat at low tide.’ 2016:B10

Yet, for intended purpose of consenting the Pot and its direct impact on shellfish and the

coastal ecosystem, the ecological value of the marine habitat is considered high to very high.

This is based on high water and sediment quality, sand grain sizes, the low level of

modification, and likely presence of typical benthic invertebrate assemblages for the type of

habitat. In addition, even though the marine habitat is considered suitable, ‘Vehicles may have

contributed to the decline along the Horowhenua coast.’ 2016:B10. This is an important

research topic to complete the systemic picture of the Pot in its context. ‘Iwi in the far north

are starting to monitor and restrict the use of vehicles on beaches, in part for its potential

impact on shellfish [Katherine Short – Marine Conservation Expert, personal communication

18/10/2019]’. Could a stop or limit to vehicles on the beaches to help alleviate the pressures

on kai moana species be part of the stipulations for this consent?

Clearly, there are multiple stressors at work. There are also assumptions made: ‘We have

assumed that best practice erosion and sediment controls will be put in place during

earthworks and therefore the discharge of sediment-laden water to surface water and then

the coast will be avoided or minimised.’ 2016:B10

Does the reporting of The Pot validate this assumption?

‘The application of treated wastewater to land and storage of wastewater at the Pot pond

has resulted in and will likely continue to result in the treated wastewater through surface and

ground water ultimately to the coastal environment. The proposed activities which will likely

involve increased seepages from all parts of the upgraded irrigation area, temporarily divert

17

groundwater, and discharges to groundwater are unlikely to have a significant effect on

marine ecological values. This is on the basis that the secondary treatment of the water

remains as good as it has been, or is improved upon as proposed, and on the marine receiving

environment which is a moderate-high energy sandy beach that provides significant dilution

and dispersion of discharges to the coast from streams and seepages, and that there is no

evidence of adverse effects from the current discharge of treated wastewater. The magnitude

of effect of the discharge of treated wastewater on marine ecological values (historic and as

proposed) is assessed as negligible. In combination with High to Very High ecological values,

the overall level of effect is Low to Very Low.’ 2016:B10

There is also no actual evidence that there is an absence of adverse causal effects, when most

of the shellfish is simply not there anymore. This is not evidence of ‘less than minor impact’.

There is no direct causation between the findings of the study and the recommendations from

the ecology study. The recommendations (July 2019) align with the proposed steps regarding

the consent application (2018). The Boffa Miskel project team proposes that measures are

implemented. It is great that the ecology team are looking beyond the reductionism that is

expected from scientists.

However, the Project Team propose the following mitigation measures to be implemented

within 5-30 years include:

• Upgrade of the irrigation system

• Harvesting of pines and replanting some areas with native trees

• Denitrification walls

• Catchment management

• Identifying additional land areas for irrigation

• Ecosystem trials (planting manuka and kanuka to inhibit nitrification and kill bacteria)

• Riparian planting

• Wetland establishment to filter suspended material and nutrients

Many of these measures will reduce the mass of contaminants discharging to the receiving

environment. Other mitigation measures will result in ecosystem enhancement in the Waiwiri

catchment and Waiwiri Stream.

Ocean

All drains lead to the ocean. Regarding the Pot, it is no longer about its direct and isolated

impacts. However, the Alternatives Report has briefly explored the idea of pumping the waste

directly into the ocean, if it wasn’t for the cultural opposition that iwi would raise to such a

proposition. This is not an acceptable way to manage human waste, on any ecosystem, in the

21st Century.

18

Given the 35-year long term consent period that is sought, the application should have taken

climate change and sea level rise into account.

Monitoring for Natural Capital

The proposed annual reporting – which I perceive to be a new feature of this consent

application – is a step in the right direction. However, the monitoring regime is fragmented

and does not provide a coherent and consistent overview that allows an assessment of

ongoing improvement. Following are several issues related to monitoring that should be

addressed:

The Pond

The Pond, as part of the Pot, used to be a natural lake, which is now used as the unlined

holding area for wastewater that is to be irrigated. Given that it is a natural feature that is now

used for man-made purposes, the Pond is included in this section as well as in the Built Capital

section.

Ground, surface and coastal waters are interconnected with the Pond. It is possible that the

height of Pot water level may be influenced by the tides. Through this interconnectivity

between the Pond and groundwater it is feasible that a greater quantity of ground water is

escaping the Pot than is currently being considered. Because of this interconnectivity between

the Pond and groundwater, the behaviour of the groundwater system should be sufficiently

monitored. The proposed 3 groundwater measurements per year do not provide enough

information to understand (and model) the speed and quality of the ground water in relation

to the Pond, stream and coastal area. The consent holder does not evidence the capability to

model groundwater quality and movement sufficiently on an ongoing basis. There are

insufficient bores to spatially monitor the groundwater. Given that there is mounding as well

as a nutrient plume (described in LEI, 2016:B3b), the consent holder should develop the

capability to include in its annual reporting how the groundwater system in quantity and

quality is behaving in relation to receiving water bodies (stream and coastal water).

Furthermore, the quality and depth of accumulating sludge in the Pond should also be

included in the reporting requirements, along with how this will change over time and what

the forward looking, alternative options for dealing with accumulation on sludge are available.

Social and Cultural Capital Social Capital refers to how people engage in social and community settings. It includes a level

of trust required for a social licence to operate. The struggle for healthy water and ecosystems

is one of social licence, engagement, fairness and existence. Social pain and suffering are often

as real as physical pain and suffering for people who see themselves as part of nature. The

loss of integrity and life force of nature is felt directly in a physical, psychological and social

sense (e.g. Water Protectors, Kevin Moran, 2018). I defer to and put myself whole-heartedly

19

behind Muaupoko and Raukawa and their loss of mana and dis-ease with damaged wairua

(spirit) and hauora (good health). There is a clear connection between the loss of mauri (life

force) and levels of poverty and deprivation, as was established by seminal scholars such as

Mason Durie on Whaiora (māori health development) and Hauora. This concept is now

embedded in the Ministry of Health.

In addition, when requesting a 35-year consent, it is important to also see this in light of past

promises that have been honoured or broken. The hardship of iwi affects caring pakeha as

well.

Engagement

The documentation describes that HDC facilitated a community engagement process: ‘As part

of the consultation process for the renewal of the consent, there have been a series of meetings

with the community. This has included early engagement with iwi. In September 2016 there

was a meeting to start early consultation about the consenting project, and this enabled

concerns to be shared by iwi and technical information presented by HDC. One of the outcomes

of this meeting was that water quality, and in particular water quality of the Waiwiri Stream,

was of paramount importance. It became apparent that the LWWT at the Pot is just one

activity out of many that are having an impact on the Waiwiri Stream. Therefore, to be able

to address the wider concerns raised about the health of the Waiwiri Stream, it was decided

that the reconsenting process be treated separately with the acknowledgement that The Pot

is a contributor to the health of the stream.’

The final sentence reads as if the wider concerns about the Waiwiri stream could ONLY be

addressed if the consent of the Pot was treated separately. Clearly there is no reason why the

wider concerns could not be addressed in parallel. It seems a way to curb direct opposition to

the consent by giving concessions to address the degradation of the Waiwiri stream in general

and provide some cosmetic enhancements regarding the Pot.

Coming full circle, the newly established Catchment group seems to have gone back to include

the Pot in its overall package, however, the status of the various community groups with HDC

is unclear. As this is coming full circle, it is clear that the community is not accepting anything

less than a clearly articulated case for a systemic upgrade and approach to improve the well-

being of the catchment as well as infrastructure such as the Pot. For a 35-year consent, the

strategic effort to achieve the four well-beings is completely appropriate and requires a

systems approach that includes the spatial planning of the catchment. This works with the

Long-Term planning processes (and possibly the reviewed RMA).

Enhancement Package

The specific enhancement package for the Pot is vague and void of solutions such as artificial

or permanent wetlands, which are currently available solutions. Did the manuka/kanuka and

20

wetland planting experiment work? (reported on in 2017 https://www.nzherald.co.nz/wanganui-

chronicle/horowhenua-chronicle/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503788&objectid=11917960) take place?

None of the solutions will address that 80% of the wastewater flow that drains into the Waiwiri

stream. This reads like stalling for time.

The argument seems to be that these water quality issues have been 100 years in the making

and they are dealing with a 28-year old system, which needed improvement and irrigation

improvements were made to mitigate water quality and soil issues before 2008. Has irrigation

management been evaluated? Because some minor improvements were made, it sounds as

if the applicant now expects to be trusted that improvements will continue over the proposed

35-years of the sought consenting period, without demonstrated capacity or concrete

business plans. This is not a reasonable expectation of a community that is suffering pain from

how the natural environment, and therefore their mana, are being treated?

Even though consultation happened, even though a Waiwiri Catchment group is formed, even

though The Pot has made limited basic improvements, there is nothing that points at a

meaningful upgrade – for which solutions are available. I will refer to ‘solutions’ as opposed

to ‘alternatives’ considering that ‘alternatives’ was the term of choice to indicate various

locations. I also use the term ‘solutions’ to draw attention to the fact that there are other

‘solutions’ that could be considered beyond marginal ‘enhancements’ that don’t

fundamentally improve the overall system. The enhancement report reads like a bid for

stalling. There are no hard commitments and there is no budget allocated to the proposals. A

consent for 35 years can easily be interpreted as disrespect to those who want to see fewer

negative impacts from point and non-point source discharges.

‘The Waiwiri Catchment Management Group meetings have included representatives from

DOC, landowners, Muaupoko and Raukawa hapu, HRC, HDC and environmental interest

groups. Some of the parties that have collected technical information (including DOC, HDC

(and advisors) and HRC), have met on several occasions to share technical information to allow

a more efficient understanding of the issues, the current environment and avoid repeating

data collection that already exists.’ Confirm if this Catchment Group still exists.

Does this reflect an attitude of ‘because the public don’t understand, leave it to the

engineers’? If so, this would hint at a patronising attitude and structural obfuscation.

‘In 1957, the Natural History Museum declared the Thames biologically dead. News reports

from that era describe it as a vast, foul-smelling drain.’ Today, it is the home of seals,

porpoises, dolphins and an occasional whale. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151111-

how-the-river-thames-was-brought-back-from-the-dead Accessed on 21 August 2019

21

‘The review of information in and around The Pot, including environmental monitoring and

LWWLT system operation, has highlighted that the Waiwiri Stream health is degraded. This

view has been strongly supported and validated during discussions with iwi and the

community. While the LWWLT system is having an effect, so are most other land uses in the

catchment. Therefore, there is scope for a range of activities/projects to occur to contribute

to enhancing Waiwiri Stream health.

The HDC Enhancement Package has been initiated as a result of the reconsenting of the

wastewater discharge, and as a result the focus of HDC’s mitigation measures is strongly

connected to the operation of the LWWLT system.’ Engagement Document.

This acknowledges a systems problem and the solution seems that HRC are seeking to carry

on with business as usual and endeavouring to play nicely in the community. In their defence,

some native plantings appear to have occurred, but the extent to which that was successful is

credible or only window dressing is unclear. It may not solve the problem, as 80% or the

wastewater drains into the stream anyway.

The programmes are:

1. Irrigation upgrade

2. Harvest and replanting

3. Catchment management

4. LWWLT system mitigation

P4A – Acquiring more land for irrigation

‘The neighbouring property to the north of LWWLT site (Flaxhaven) is in the final stages of

consent finalisation to allow up to 3,000 m3 per day to be applied to approximately 89 ha.

This will more than double the irrigation area, however due to seasonal application

limitations, only a small portion the annual volume can be applied.’ The caveat at the end of

the sentence is unclear. Will this proposed solution help or not? Furthermore, will this

largely go into open drains into the stream? While enhanced and better managed irrigation

sounds good, will it help improve anything, given that little is taken up and evaporated by

vegetation?

‘P4B – Ecosystem trial; planting manuka and kanuka on 10 ha to trial if the natives do more

than pine seems under way.’ Why not plant natives instead of pine? Is this considered amenity

or functional planting? The Alternatives report seems lukewarm on this option. Can the

applicant envision true holistic outcomes in 2054?

P4C – Riparian planting - ‘The are a number of waterways in and around The Pot. It is known

that appropriate planting alongside the waterways can assist with managing water quality

and general ecology.’

22

Riparian planting doesn’t make much of an impact for pollutants travelling in the groundwater

and it largely a cosmetic pacifier. How will the applicant assure that 100% of the wastewater

is going through a biological filter for uptake of nitrogen and phosphor, instead of 80% making

its direct way out to the Waiwiri stream?

P4D – ‘replacing drains with restored wetlands - as part of larger stream restoration’. This

seems to work toward a true enhancement. However, will this be used for irrigation? Or is this

restoring a dated, engineered, open drain? Will this be able to handle the 80% that goes out

via open drains? How much of the irrigated wastewater can restored wetlands handle and

how much need for alternative diversion of wastewater flow is required? Can the HDC provide

a solid flowchart of water and pollutants, including innovative solutions at the source?

Alternative eco-technological solutions are available, and the economics need to be re-

considered in light of systemic environmental challenges. The inability to include costs to

social/cultural and ecological systems has created an un-economic growth situation.

Furthermore, the community cannot be meaningfully involved when this information or

acceptance of the precautionary principle in the absence of information is not available.

‘The Pot is one property of many in the Waiwiri catchment and only one of many

contributors to the effects seen in the Waiwiri Stream. Solutions for the Waiwiri Stream must

be a collective effort contributed to by all stakeholders. However, the HDC must do its bit,

including the refinement of the LWWLT system.

The LWWLT consents are one component of a much larger Enhancement Package. The

consent includes irrigation management and a revamp of the site, but while not dependent

on, can be supported by a mitigation strategy to further address effects from the irrigation

regime at LWWLT site and other landowners in the wider catchment.

The above will contribute to improvements at the LWWLT and enhancement of the health of

the Waiwiri Stream water quality and the wider Waiwiri catchment.’

While laudable, this cannot be the basis for a 35-year consent with weak projections of an

upgrade beyond riparian planting, native plantings and an extended area for irrigation. What

assurances for a long-term systemic upgrade, time frame and commitment of resources can

the applicant give beyond 3 years? If this isn’t clear, the consent period should reflect that.

Alternatives / solutions / enhancement

Alternatives are interpreted as alternative locations in LEI, 2016:C2. Have other solutions, such

as tertiary treatment been considered? Such may produce a water flow of higher quality that

could be viewed as a resource for irrigation of cover crops or fruit trees. To bring this consent

into the 21st century, wastewater should be considered a resource as part of a circular

economy.

23

‘In addition to the historical monitoring, considerable work has gone into considering

alternatives and the impact of the operation within the wider catchment. This has included

canvasing the views of the community and being informed by technical experts; and again,

this information is included in the package of information for the consent application. Also,

the management changes and programmed infrastructure upgrades have coincided with the

opportunity to have a high-level look at the larger operation at The Pot, its effects and the

management of the treated wastewater.’ (LEI, 2016:C2)

‘The existing wastewater storage and land discharge system is considered, and a range of

alternative discharge options are briefly assessed in this report. The use of additional land for

wastewater irrigation is addressed, as are the merits of various options for the use of the

irrigated land. Alternative freshwater and marine discharges are considered and dismissed as

being unlikely to achieve community support or consenting success.’ (LEI, 2016:C2)

This report reads like a superficial analysis and a case for business as usual. Has tertiary

treatment at the plant itself been considered?

True enhancements involve Human Capital; the ability to deal with complex challenges. There

are a range of possible technological solutions on the market that if used in combination with

biological solutions and natural systems, and in conjunction with a requirement for everyone

to move quickly to less intensive land use activities, that could make a meaningful difference

for all concerned.

Human Capital Our human capital includes education, knowledge, and institutions to deal with complex

challenges. This ability also includes law, regulations and policies.

Local Government Act

The LGA was recently changed to revert back to the 2002 version, highlighting the four

capitals: https://www.al.nz/the-four-well-beings-change-to-the-local-government-act-2002/

‘Local Authorities to play a broad role in promoting the social, economic, environmental, and

cultural well-being of their communities, taking a sustainable development approach.’ This

comes instead of a focus on core functions from a cost-first perspective. ‘The financial

management obligations are also amended to require the overall impact of any funding

demands on the community to take into account the future social, economic, environmental

and culture well-being of the community.’ Anderson Lloyd, May 2019

The structure and content of this report is in line with the LGA and should continue to drive

all aspects of the consent. To evidence the ability to use the four well-beings, the consent

should not exceed 5 years.

24

Regional Government

Resource Management Act

The RMA provided innovative legislation in 1990, around the time the Pot was first developed.

It may have slowed down the rate of some degradation and facilitated trade-offs between

economic and environmental impacts. However, it is clear that the overall long-term outcomes

are not desirable. After 30 years, the RMA too is under pressure to reform and is currently

under review.

Horizons Regional Council One Plan

Section 32 (s32) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) is integral to ensure

transparent, robust decision-making on RMA plans and policy statements (proposals). Section

32 should be considered for any project of significance. The links with various planning and

assessment instruments should point at continuous improvement.

The Pot consent application is significant. The applicant does not demonstrate how this part

of the RMA has been used as part of local and regional government’s approach to continuous

improvement.

Horizons’ One Plan under Part 2, regional plan, 14.5 Rules on Human effluent and domestic

wastewater says: There must be no increase in the concentration of pathogenic organisms in

any surface water body as a result of the discharge.

This does depend on how/where this is measured. Are there no pathogenic organisms in the

surface waters of the Pond, the Waiwiri stream or coastal waters? This requirement is not

concerned with pathogenic loading, but only with evidence of causal attribution to

concentration and should be addresses.

Central Government

MfE reports 60% of rivers in NZ are not fit for swimming.

Government progress update August 2019:

‘In July, the Government approved a suite of regulatory reforms to help ensure safe drinking

water, and deliver improved environmental outcomes from New Zealand’s wastewater and

stormwater systems (a link to the joint announcement from the Ministers of Local Government

and Health is available at: https://www.beehive.govt.nz/portfolio/labour-led-government-

2017-2020/local-government).

A new regulatory framework for drinking water will include:

• an extension of the regulatory coverage to all drinking water suppliers, except individual

household self-suppliers;

25

• a multi-barrier approach to drinking water safety, including mandatory disinfection of

water supplies, with exemptions only in appropriate circumstances;

• stronger obligations on water suppliers and local authorities to manage risks to sources

of drinking water; and

• strengthened compliance, monitoring and enforcement of drinking water regulation.

• While regional councils will remain the primary regulators for the environment, there will

be stronger central oversight of wastewater and stormwater regulation, including:

o requirements for wastewater and stormwater operators to report annually on

a set of national environmental performance measures;

o national good practice guidelines for the design and management of

wastewater and stormwater networks; and

o monitoring of emerging contaminants in wastewater and stormwater, and

coordinating national responses where necessary.

A new dedicated water regulator will be established to oversee the regulatory regime. The

regulator will have a range of responsibilities and functions, including sector leadership;

standards setting; compliance, monitoring and enforcement; capability building; information,

advice and education; and performance reporting. The scope, roles and institutional form of

the regulator (including whether to include regulation of all three waters within a single

regulator, or separate entities) will be the subject of further Cabinet consideration in

September this year.

The majority of these reforms will be implemented through a Water Services Bill. The

Government is aiming to introduce this Bill by the end of the year, with possible enactment by

mid-2020. The legislation will include transitional arrangements to allow water suppliers to

adjust to the regulations, with support from the new regulator, if necessary.

Full details about these decisions are available in the Cabinet paper and associated Regulatory

Impact Assessment ‘Strengthening the regulation of drinking water, wastewater and

stormwater’.

Further information about the next steps for three waters reform is available in the Cabinet

paper ‘A plan for three waters reform’.’

National Policy for Freshwater Management (NPFM)

The resource management agenda is shifting toward restoration, regeneration and a circular

economy. This policy ‘directs regional councils, in consultation with their communities, to set

objectives for the state of freshwater bodies in their regions and to set limits on resource use

to meet these objectives’.

‘The Freshwater NPS must be fully implemented no later than 31 December 2025 (or 31

December 2030 in certain circumstances).’

26

If regional councils cannot implement the NPFM by the end of 2015 they must have prepared

a programme of time-limited stages to meet the 2025 date, known as a progressive

implementation programme, and make this publicly available. They must report annually on

their progress towards their progressive implementation programme.’ MfE

https://www.mfe.govt.nz/fresh-water/national-policy-statement/about-nps Accessed on 21 August

2019

Te Mana o te Wai is a concept clearly signalled in the NPFM for fresh water that encompasses

aspects of the integrated and holistic health and well- being of a water body. This goes beyond

the ability to measure pathogens in the receiving environment. The concept Te Mana o te Wai

is expressed in te reo Māori, but applies to freshwater management for and on behalf of the

whole community.

Anticipating a changing legislative environment, and notwithstanding that the resource

management agenda is clearly shifting to restoration and regeneration of ecosystems beyond

measurement of fragmented impact, locking in a consent for 35-years is irresponsible. Such a

timeline may well set the consent holder and community stakeholders up to miss out on

constructive systemic collaborations for future improvements.

Treaty of Waitangi

While the Treaty of Waitangi is taken into account in regulatory frameworks but not the Local

Government Act, it is still appropriate to include it here as mātauranga Māori is critical in

overcoming water quality challenges at local, regional and national level. Whilst I am not

Māori, I have some understanding of Māori concepts – such as kaitiakitanga (~ stewardship),

whanaungatanga (~relationship) and manaakitanga (~hospitality) - and experience of their

use in improving resource management. I urge this consent process to pay attention to the

Treaty and respect its application in (future) resource management decision making.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People is also relevant. Wai262 –

the Flora and Fauna Claim is also relevant and as the only claim across the whole of

government. The claim has been heard and responded to by Government. Te Puni Kokiri is

beginning a process to develop Government’s practical response and HRC and HDC would be

well advised to keep this in mind in the context of this consent application.

In summary, it is generally accepted that the water quality in NZ is often not acceptable, and

certainly not the case for the Waiwiri stream. The direction of travel and aspirations to turn

around a reality of 60% of rivers unfit from swimming according to the Ministry for the

Environment, are translated to regional and local level government. Legislative changes have

been made to the Local Government Act to approach all of these challenges in a more holistic

manner and from a wellbeing perspective. This is the time to act. Any consent application for

35 years should convincingly be at the very top of its game to receive wholehearted

27

acceptance and social licence. This is not evident from the consent application for the Pot and

therefore a 5 year consent is proposed.

Built Capital Built Capital refers to human made structures and infrastructure. It’s the result of a flow of

material and energy. Often it has an economic value in monetary terms (financial capital). This

section also discusses the management of The Pot.

This section does not discuss the pipe that brings water from the treatment plant to the Pot.

This is a 7.4km piece of infrastructure that is close to 30 years old. While the pipe is less than

10 years old and not included in this consent application, it is important to include the

performance of the pipe in the monitoring and reporting of the Pot. How much water (and

pollutants) leak from the pipe? In addition, the pipe is the easiest point of access to monitor

what exactly leaves the WWTF and goes into the Pot.

Over the 28 years of its existence, about $18 Million has been invested in the Pot; a breakdown

of this investment has to my knowledge not been provided. (See Section D).

The pipe Even though, the pipe supplies the wastewater to the Pot and its Pond, these implications are

directly relevant for the Pot and the proposed monitoring regime; what goes in must come

Personal communication Christine Moriarty per email on 26 August 2019

‘To the best of my knowledge leachate was initially contained in a pond at the Landfill when the first liners were introduced in about 2000. During the 2000s (we are unsure exactly when) a pipe was added to take leachate from the lined Landfill cells to the Treatment station. After treatment the leachate was then piped to the Pot. This is the current practice. We cannot get any information on the levels of leachate contained in the waste water that goes to the Pot. Public would like to know the quality of waste water/leachate that leaves the Landfill in comparison to the quality of the waste water/leachate as it arrives at the Pot to assess how effective the treatment is.

In addition, what happens to leachate sludge that is removed at the treatment station – where is this disposed of?

Note - There are two previous tips – one from the 1950s and one from the 1970s at the same Landfill site – both are unlined – both closer to Hokio stream and both with acknowledged likely leachate flowing to the Hokio stream through a man made drain (this drain is on Tatana land between the Landfill sites and Hokio stream. Tatana land is an existing wetland being progressively raised to create pasture for stock raising.) We understand this drain to be un-consented but allowed to persist.’

28

out. This is especially true for persistent pollutants such as heavy metals and arsenic. While

the objective of the Pot is indeed to use natural systems to convert, assimilate and dilute

waste, it is not sufficient to measure the natural (and management) accomplishments at the

end of the pipe only. It is critical that the balance is understood not only for the newly

introduced nitrogen balance but also for other pollutants. Hence, a pollutant release and

transfer register for the catchment is recommended, with adequate and comparative

measuring points.

The Pond There is no indication that the sludge or the bottom layer of the Pond is monitored. The

presence of heavy metals in this sludge should be traced and monitored from an input

(leakage from the landfill and WWT before it is piped to the Pot, in situ (Pond) and output (bio

accumulation in shellfish).

Population Growth

The population of Horowhenua is a growing (https://www.horowhenua.govt.nz/News-

Notices/News/Population-growth-exceeds-expectations accessed 16 Aug 2019) ‘Statistics

New Zealand subnational population estimates: In the year to June, [2019] Horowhenua’s

population grew by 1.8% - that’s an additional 600 people moving to the District and is 0.4%

above that predicted by Sense Partners. The District is now home to 32,500 people; it is the

fastest growing district in the Manawatū-Whanganui Region and is in the top third of fastest

growing Local Territorial Authorities in New Zealand.’

Even if the consented amount to date is much higher than actually used: 20,000m3 vs under

5,000m3, this does not mean that the environmental impact would allow such volume.

The application does not acknowledge the growth of local population and therefore

wastewater volume and capacity required. While a growing population is an argument for

future proofing WWT facilities, it is argued here that a shorter consent period is justified to

ensure the fitness for purpose and the capabilities from a forward looking, integrated

perspective. Monitoring and reporting will have to evidence the capacity to do so from a

systems perspective. Similarly, the finances to accommodate this growth should be made very

clear in the 10-year plans. There is a risk of a ‘growth trap’; a growing area – like Horowhenua

– needs to attract additional growth to finance utilities. This is a similar trap as described for

river management of the Manawatu river catchment (van den Belt et al., 2013)

Appendix G: ‘Considerable investment has been made in the current infrastructure to get the wastewater

to The Pot and then discharge it. While there may be alternative sites, the current site is the

most practicable; therefore, HDC is cognizant that attention and a commitment is required to

ensure the operation at the current location is sustainable.’

29

What is meant by ‘current location is sustainable’?

It is unclear if sustainability refers to environmental, social or economic sustainability. This

should be specified. The community may well interpret this statement as ‘environmentally

sustainable’ where the HDC means ‘economically sustainable’.

Alternatives Alternative options have to be explored, as part of the consent application. The mindset for

this assessment is very conservative. Listed pros and cons of the current site are:

‘The current operation has the major advantages that:

• It is already in place and operating, and while there is scope for improvement of some

aspects of its operation, it does not require the major capital investment of ratepayers’ money

that would go with the establishment of any other discharge option.’

This is what an economist refers to as sunk costs. Basing an assessment of alternatives

primarily on sunk cost is not a true examination of alternatives. It is evidence of inability to

take a strategic and long-term perspective, as one would hope to see clearly outlines when

applying for a 35-year consent.

Its functional performance is reliable and satisfactory. It meets the expectation of Levin

residents and ratepayers that wastewater will be conveyed away from their premises

promptly, as required, and without inconvenient interruptions.

This observation is also defensive, biased toward the status quo and refers to a dated Life Cycle

Analysis. Natural capital could be used more effectively, the value of considering waste water

as a resource and taking it further inland where it could be run through a more complex

network of wetlands and other biological and technological mechanisms to utilise and

enhance natural systems, regenerate and restore, and produce economic, social and

environmental benefit.

For a 35-year consent application, forward looking measurable goals and outcomes are

required.

Its environmental performance compares very favourably with that of municipal wastewater

discharges throughout New Zealand. Levin is one of very few towns of this size discharging

entirely to land, thereby meeting a Māori cultural expectation that human wastes will not be

discharged directly to water bodies. Its isolated discharge location also avoids adverse effects

on air quality of residential areas, direct ecological effects on the Waiwiri Stream and

downstream groundwater abstraction by residents and farmers.

30

This statement reads as very self-congratulatory and is misleading. While 100% is irrigated to

land, 80% ends up in the Waiwiri stream via surface drains. Furthermore, the Cultural Health

Index does not support the claim that the Pot conforms satisfactorily with cultural

expectations.

The ‘discharge to land’ appears misleading, because 80% of the irrigated water appears to end

up in the stream. How much is actually used by vegetation?

In general, it is clear from the Alternatives Report that ‘alternatives’ are referred to as

alternative locations, not as advanced ways to change or upgrade the systems and methods.

‘The issues that need to be addressed for the current operation, and in particular address

Horizons One Plan policies, include:

• Increased nitrogen concentrations in the Waiwiri Stream downstream of The

Pot; and

• Pond leakage contribution to nitrogen concentrations.’

Given the Enhancement package, concerns raised by the Catchment Group and other

community groups, it seems prudent that financial and timetable commitments should be

required and clearly stated as a prerequisite for this consent. The longer the consent, the more

clarity and evidence of integrated management capacity should be made available.

The issues that would benefit the current operation and support meeting Horizons One Plan

policies but are not essential include:

• Measures to enhance the water quality of the Waiwiri Stream; and

• Determine and enhance the water quality at the coast.

These measures should be clearly described with financial and timetable of commitments

before a consent is given. This also pertains to the implementation of the NSFM.

Viability of Option to use additional land ‘The use of additional land in this manner would be driven by a need to supplement or replace

some or all of the present system; there would need to be a clear reason to utilise extra land.

The terrain and depth to groundwater would need to be capable of achieving improved

removal of nutrients, better protection of groundwater quality, and improved or at least no

worse environmental effects such as potential odour nuisance and contamination of Waiwiri

Stream. The potential reduction of soluble nutrient concentrations in shallow groundwater

and Waiwiri Stream might provide some good reasons for expanding the irrigated land area.’

These are good reasons to look at alternatives that include but are not limited to alternative

land-based solutions.

31

Synthesis of Findings before 23 August 2019 • For 20 years the Pot has collected wastewater after it is piped 7.4 km from land fill and

wastewater from the secondary treatment facility. While 100% irrigation is laudable

compared to similar facilities in NZ, this is misleading, since 80% of the water goes to

via the soil to open surface drains and runs into the Waiwiri stream. Most of the sandy

soil drains well, but about 15% of the area does not drain well. A nutrient plume in the

groundwater is significant and expected to reach the coast in 10 years (plus or minus

5 years). However, given that the background nutrient level in the Waiwiri stream is

high, the contribution of The Pot appears to be considered ‘relatively insignificant’ by

the applicant. Alternatively, the applicant acknowledges that The Pot contributes

significantly, but argues that the increase has no measurable ecological consequence.

I believe the fragmented science is not sufficient to derive an overall conclusion of

‘relative insignificance’ is false in two ways. First, relative compared to what measure?

Relative compared to background pollution? Relative to a pristine past or relative

compared to the desired state of the Waiwiri stream, coast and groundwater? There

is no ‘mass balance’ story that explains what the incoming wastewater stream consists

of and where it is going. The measurements should support such an inclusive mass

balance story that is easy to understand for the community. It should be clear how this

story changes over time. The illusion is given that this is a land-based solution where

the ecosystem assimilates the ‘waste’. The monitoring is to argue that people are not

directly getting sick from the Pot’s activities. The rationale is to adhere to standards

that assume ‘no problem’. However, the accumulating nitrogen plume in the

groundwater is one example of the problem that amasses over time.

• The science for the consent is based on snapshots and limits that are not always set to

respect the integrity of ecosystems (Mauri) and as habitat for a variety of species. The

National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management will soon require more direct

limit setting and actions to get there.

• Macroinvertebrate assessments of the Waiwiri stream are monitored, but the design

is flawed by incomparable habitats between sites.

• The shellfish beds have been decimated by impacts more likely pointing in the

direction of non-point sources or other causes. The Pot should continue to be

considered as an added stressor, even in the absence of directly attributable impacts,

especially nitrogen, since it is the limiting nutrient in coastal waters that can lead to

algae blooms.

• Possible de-sludging of the Pond is not included in this consent application.

32

These points seem to be critical omissions.

The acquisition of additional land to irrigate a larger area to spread out the volume is

encouraging; however, I have found no evidence of it being included in this consent

application. The plans for extended or improved irrigation in the original application are

vague. There is no evidence of addressing measures at the source, thinking toward a circular

economy or a systemic, nested approach. The starting points for the consent processes are

traditional sunk and marginal costs from the status quo. The exploration of alternatives is too

narrow and unimaginative to obtain the trust and a social license to consent this operation for

35 years.

Forward looking alternatives beyond an expanded irrigation area, could be lining the pond. A

nutrient wall was suggested. Can green engineering options be considered instead of hard

engineering options? Artificial wetlands? Can you cultivate the algae for fuel production?

Tertiary treatment?

The status quo and dismissive attitude is clear from this passage in the consent application:

‘In conclusion, much time could be spent debating and considering which of a wide range of

options for use of the wastewater-irrigated land might be interesting or worth further

consideration. However, the present established pattern of competently managed pine

plantation has been shown to meet all reasonable expectations, and should be considered the

most reliable of all the options available. However, amenity plantings could be appropriate,

but there may be reduced potential for wastewater to be applied and be assimilated.’

To establish whether reasonable expectations are indeed met, an independent review of

operational performance – including that of contractors - should be undertaken and

presented.

More forward-looking attitude is taken with the enhancement package. It is on this point that

we think a 3-5 years consent is reasonable. This allows time for a catchment review and

development of a significantly revised catchment management plan with all stakeholders

contributing to the ideas and the costs of the changes required. Currently, the enhancement

package is vague, without financial and timetable commitments. The financial commitments

and the timeframe for solutions are vague with several hinging on the catchment approach

succeeding. This does not instil confidence to support a long-term consent. Five yearly reviews

(as opposed to consent) do not give those concerned the leverage for improvement.

Monitoring needs to significantly improve. In particular, the Pot’s groundwater levels

(including possible tidal interference). This monitoring should include a comparison of

leachate levels in the wastewater, the Landfill and at the Pot.

33

Furthermore, DO in the Waiwiri stream should be continuously monitored (24/7), especially

during the summer.

In addition to monitoring, the requirements for reporting have to move beyond reporting of

snapshots, but rather create evidence of sense making from a ‘whole of system’ perspective.

I have not seen a performance report from the Applicant; requested per email to HRC on 20

August 2019. The communication should be clear for community members. Assumptions

should be transparent. For example, 3 snapshots of groundwater monitoring are not sufficient

to understand how the Pond interacts with its surrounding ground, surface and coastal waters.

Even if standard levels of contaminants are not exceeded, there is no clear understanding of

how the plume of nutrients and other contaminants travel. Comprehensive modelling and

visualization and a demonstrated capability (and funding for it) will be expected for a consent

to be acceptable beyond 3 years.

Has the consent application taken climate change and sea level rise into account?

Has the WWT infrastructure taken projections of population growth and possible land

conversions into a full business case to complete the various proposed tasks?

References used before 23 August 2019 Allen, C., Sinner, J., Banks, J., & Doehring, K. (2012). Waiwiri Stream: Sources of poor water

quality and impacts on the coastal environment (Cawthron Report No. 2240). Nelson:

Cawthron Report prepared for Horizons Regional Council.

Appendix G: Catchment Group – HDC Water Enhancement Package

Levin Wastewater Conditions – 13 June 2018 GENERAL CONDITIONS

Levin Wastewater Land Application Re-consenting: Assessment of Alternative Options (LEI,

2016:C2)

A brief introduction to the history of Lake Horowhenua and the Lake Domain Board (WECA)

Presentation to HDRRA from WECA – Historically trust was broken……

Levin Wastewater Discharge Updated Monitoring Summary (LEI, 2019:A1e)

LEVIN WASTEWATER Assessment of Effects on Marine Ecological Values Prepared for

Horowhenua District Council. (Boffa Miskel) July 2019

LEI2016:B9 Manaaki Whenua (2018) ‘Soils of “The Pot” and “Tucker Block”’

LEI, 2016:C3 Mitigation Options

34

LEI, 2018:D1E1 The Pot Discharge Description and Assessment of the Effects to Lan

Table 3.1: Background

Reporting for The Pot

Ref.

Report Title Content Author

2017:A1b Updated Monitoring

Summary

Wastewater quality

Irrigation volumes

Pond levels

LEI

2012:A2 Operations &

Management Summary

System description

Pot site description

Roles, responsibilities &

resources

Pot pond, Irrigation, Trees,

Sludge

LEI

2017:B7a The Pot Site

Characterisation

Location

Site characteristics

Irrigation assessment

LEI

2016:B9 Soil Type Mapping Physical characteristics

Slope & elevations

Erosion

Hydrology & hydrogeology

Landcare

2016:B3b The Pot Groundwater

Monitoring

3 stage Monitoring set up &

evaluation

GW levels

GW contours

GW chemistry

LEI

2016:B6b Waiwiri Stream/The

“Pot” – Water Quality

and flow Monitoring to

date

3 stage Monitoring set up &

evaluation

Stream flows

SW chemistry

Macrophyte cover

Macroinvertebrate & fish

communities

Coastal water quality

Metal analyses

Aquanet

2016:B10 Ecological Assessment Existing environment

Assigning significance and

value

Boffa Miskell

Relevant reports, popular articles:

file:///C:/Users/vande/OneDrive/Downloads/Climate-Change-and-Variability-in-Horizons-

Region-2016.pdf

35

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2019/07/19/689614/laws-calls-bullsht-on-queenstown-

overflows?fbclid=IwAR2ju2sftS4aZf-XDeRvX2PY4AEEPiinFVKorgeI6C1EbgKAkuPJ2qAWIxk

Moran, K. (2018) Water Protectors', The Copy Press. ISBN 978-0-473-45512-5

van den Belt, M., T. Bowen, K. Slee and V. Forgie. (2013, May 13). Flood Protection:

highlighting an investment trap between built and natural capital. Special Issue of Journal of

American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) on Collaborative Modelling, Wiley.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jawr.12063/pdf

D. Part B – adjusted from issues paper submitted to HRC on 5

September, based on Summary of Andrew Bashford,

published on the HRD website dated 23 August 2019.

For clarity the pertinent text of Mr Bashford that I respond to is included in italics.

1. Item 38. “The submissions raise a wide range of concerns. I have summarised these

concerns in Table 1 below and responded to some of the ‘standalone’ concerns in this

section. “

The overwhelming opposition of 15/18 submissions is noted: ‘15 submissions are

opposed to the applications, two are supportive provided certain conditions are met,

and the remaining one is neutral.’ I concur with the topics and areas of concerns raised.

These concerns span all four well-beings.

2. I have not found any reference in the background or Mr Bashford’s summary regarding

climate change and sea level rise. I hereby raise that omission or climate change and

sea level rise as a concerning gap, especially given the close proximity of the Pot to

the coast and stream. The sensitivity to climate change (in its various forms) and in

particular sea level rise should be researched and considered to avoid undue long-

term risks and costs.

3. The groundwater under the Pot is likely already heavily influenced by the tides in light

of how nutrients and other pollutants travel. Following climatic changes and sea level

rise, this should also be researched, monitored and reported on as an interconnected

system. The data that will be produced based on the proposed groundwater

monitoring (snapshots 3 times per year) is not sufficient to adequately delineate this

information or its effects.

36

4. Item 43. “From discussions with Mr Lowe, I understand that HDC is looking at options

to assist with the provision of information sharing related to the Pot with the public. It

would be helpful if the Applicant can outline what it intends to do in this regard in its

evidence before the hearing. If not, I suggest that a webpage containing such

information would be an efficient and cost-effective way to share such information.”

Data and information sharing and appropriate communication is critical. To obtain a

social licence to operate, the applicant should evidence the capacity to provide

relevant and meaningful information for continuous improvement of the WWTF,

including the Pot. This goes beyond the ‘making available of raw data’. What is the

prospect of the applicant developing the capacity to monitor and report in a fashion

that evidences a forward looking, integrated well-being approach? If this is a regional

challenge, what is the prospect that adequate support is provided from a regional

level?

5. Item 44-45. I agree with Mr Bashford and two submitters that the application does not

adequately acknowledge population growth. Beyond Mr Bashford’s request to confirm

a growth rate (currently at 1.8%), the dynamic nature of population growth should be

acknowledged. There is a risk of a ‘growth trap’; a growing area – like Horowhenua –

needs to attract additional growth to finance utilities like WWT. This is a similar

growth/investment trap is described for river management of the Manawatu river

catchment (van den Belt et al., 2013). Similar ‘traps’ may exist in converting fertile land

to housing. It is all interconnected in spatial planning.

6. The finances – as well as other factors of well-being - to develop infrastructure and

accommodate this growth should be made very clear in the local and regional long

terms (spatial) plans. Do the local and regional long-term plans make adequate

provisions? Do these plans have a reach that adequately matches a 35-year consent

duration? If the community would like to see less intensive and more diverse land use,

that could include wastewater irrigation, what would that look like?

7. Item 47. The independent consenting of intensive farming - now partly dependent on

the supply of waste water for irrigation - is an example of how a fragmented approach

to consenting can lead to ecological systems failure. While each consent stays within

it’s pollutant release limits, the overall loading of the environment and ecosystems

creeps toward an overload of its biological assimilation capacity. Widespread irrgation

of waste water for bio-assimilation is generally considered desirable. However, if this

enables intensification on soil that leaks nutrients to groundwater, streams and coastal

zone, then the laudable intention leads to unintended negative consequences. The

HRC One Plan, long-term planning and Section 32 of the RMA should monitor for such

unintended consequences. The One Plan still focusses on reducing negative impacts

37

and is also an opportunity to foster a positive transition toward the regeneration of

ecosystems and a more circular economy. For significant project – like the Pot today –

to become an examplar – like the Pot was considered 27 years ago – today, a systems

approach aligning the various planning and consenting processes is needed. Therefore,

I argue for a shorter consent to foster such an alignment.

8. Item 48-50. These items in Mr Basford’s summary seek clarification regarding what is

in and out of scope of this consent application. The reflection on the mitigation

package confirms a lack of clarity and the narrow nature of the mitigation options that

underpin this consent. Therefore, a 35 year consent is unreasonable.

9. Item 51. HDC is the appropriate authority to manage the proposed discharges.

However, does HDC have the capacity and capability to manage these discharges – as

part of the overall WWTF and integrated catchment management – to be entrusted

with a 35-year consent? Does HDC have the capacity to take a strategic view and

consider viable alternatives? Does HRC create a supportive, consistent and clear

capacity geared toward continuous improvement, as per current RMA Section 32 and

the imminent need for limit setting as per national directives?

10. Item 60-62. “60. Two submitters have raised a concern that land adjacent to the Pot

site is being contaminated with wastewater. Specifically, Submitters 7 and 8 are

concerned about the Hokio A Trust lands to the west of the site and are requesting that

the 13 inSite Archaeology Ltd, An Assessment of Effects for a Proposed Expansion of

the Wastewater Treatment Plant at Matakarapa, South of Foxton, August 2015 Section

42A Technical Hearing Report Application No. APP-1996003740.01 Prepared by

Andrew Bashford – Consultant Planner on behalf of Horizons Regional Council 23

August 2019 20 contamination of that land must cease. I am not aware of any

assessment in the application that addresses this issue. That said, the groundwater

report by GHD and Mr Baker’s review confirm that 20% of shallow groundwater is not

intercepted by the drains and proceeds to flow towards the coast, beneath the land

subject to the submitters concerns.

61. Given the expected timing of the nutrient plume to reach the coast (about 40 years

from the time the irrigation started on the site) I would expect that the plume has

already migrated into that land. If the Pot discharges were to cease today it could

potentially take decades for the natural groundwater flow to flush any existing

contaminants from the site.

62. It is noted that there are no groundwater bores to the west of the Pot site and the

groundwater flow does not limit the use of the land for farming or forestry purposes

(its apparent current use). However, this does miss the point of the submissions in that

38

the land is Māori owned land, administered by the Hokio A Trust. As tangata whenua

of their land, the trustees find it culturally offensive for the wastewater to be within

the bounds of their land. The Applicant has recently installed a new piezometer near

the western boundary of the Pot. It is expected that monitoring of this will enable it to

provide further information to the neighbouring landowners as to the nature of any

contaminants within the groundwater that may flow towards their property. Again, I

understand that the Applicant is using the delayed hearing time to discuss pertinent

matters with submitters and hopefully can respond to this concern in evidence, or at

the hearing, with a way forward on this issue.”

The burden of proof is problematic. The consent applicant should instead evidence

how it takes full responsibiliy for creating the nutrient plume associated with the Pot

over time and space. This is not a matter of delaying the hearing times, rather, it is

evidence of failure of the applicant and HRC to take a systems perspective, consider

the interconnected nature of surface, ground and coastal waters and consider long

timeframes. Yet, without providing evidence of this capacity and capability, the

applicant could equally be accused of attempting to railroad through a long term

consent.

11. I suggest that HDC reflects on the history of WWT in the catchment. I would seek an

acknowledgement that practices that were acceptable practice 25 years ago, are

clearly not accptable today and that is why a WWT facility was developed. In the 1980s

when this would have been first consented, ANY diversion of sewage to land was seen

as ground breaking. With more knowledge, the limitations have come to light, as well

as new alternatives and systemic criteria for alternatives.

12. I ask that HDC also evidences an understanding of the four well-beings and an ability

to create a forward looking, integrated and comprehensive approach as per the

recently amended Local Government Act.

13. It would be helpful for the process if Mr Bashford and/or the applicant explain why it

assumes that the burden of proof for the nutrient plume does not lie with HDC? If the

burden of proof lies with HRC, responsibility should be clearly identified as part of this

consent. If unresolved, a maximum consent period of 5 years would be appropriate,

during which time it should be resolved through the appropriate planning and

resourcing processes.

14. Item 65. “Submitters 7 and 8 have raised that HDC have installed a new pipeline from

the Levin WWTP at Makomako Road to the Pot, on the assumption that a consent

would be granted for the continued discharge of wastewater at the Pot. Whilst the

replacement of the pipeline may appear to be presumptuous to some submitters there

39

are a number of possible reasons as to the timing for the replacement. However, and

importantly, the Applicant has confirmed that the pipeline is not part of the current

applications15. As such, it has no bearing on the decision that the hearing panel has

to make.”

Can the Applicant, HDC or HRC please explain why exclusion of related infrastructure

‘the pipe’ that was granted under the assumption of a consent for the Pot? Is this not

a double standard?

15. Item 66-67. “66. The Hokio Trusts have submitted that the Applicants existing $18m

investment in infrastructure is irrelevant. The value of the existing investment is

required to be provided by the applicant under schedule 4 of the RMA 1991 when

making an application that is affected by s124. This application is affected by s124.

Section 104(2A) of the RMA requires the consent authority (Horizons) to have regard

to the value of investment of the existing consent holder when considering an

application affected by s124. In this context the value of the Applicant’s investment is

applicable.

67. That said, the application states16 that the value of the existing investment is about

$18M. There is no assessment as to how that value has been derived or whether it is

the replacement value, current capital value or insured value. I note that the HDC

rating database shows the improvements value over the four land parcels concerned

as adding up to $69,500. The total land value is $1,338,000 and the land value of the

portion of land owned by the applicant is $520,000. Using these figures, the existing

investment of the Applicant (including the land value of the land it owns) is $589,500.

I understand that rating values do not necessarily represent actual values, but this is a

significant difference. The existing infrastructure on site consists of an unlined pond, a

pump station, two interceptor drains (Drain 3 and part of Drain 4) and irrigation pipes

and risers spread over 40.5 hectares. Most of this has been on site and in use for the

last 30 years. To enable the Hearing Panel to take the value of investment into account

it would be helpful if the applicant could provide a breakdown of the value of the

existing investment related to the activities applied for. “

I agree that a value assessment is critical. Similarly, a Net Present Value of long-term

alternatives and whole of system solutions to WWT should be presented. The sunk

costs and the value cause the ‘alternatives report’ to set the boundaries of its

investigation very narrowly. It states that ‘The current operation has the major

advantages that: • It is already in place and operating, and while there is scope for

improvement of some aspects of its operation, it does not require the major capital

investment of ratepayers’ money that would go with the establishment of any other

discharge option.’

40

Basing an assessment of alternatives primarily on sunk cost that may be overinflated,

is not a true examination of alternatives. It does not instil good faith. Instead, it can be

considered evidence of a clear inability to take a strategic and long-term perspective,

as one would expect when applying for a 35-year consent.

16. When the value assessment is reconsidered, it would be prudent to consider if a flow-

on impact on an inadequately narrow interpretation of alternatives is considered

appropriate/sufficient?

17. Similarly, the Alternatives Report states; ‘Its functional performance is reliable and

satisfactory. It meets the expectation of Levin residents and ratepayers that

wastewater will be conveyed away from their premises promptly, as required, and

without inconvenient interruptions.’ The expectations of many residents and

ratepayers is much broader than the starting point of the Alternatives Report. Since its

publication, the LGA has been changed and the four well-beings must now be

considered to adhere to it. Can the HDC explain how the recent change in LGA might

change the requested consent period?

18. For any consent and particularly a 35-year consent application, forward looking

measurable goals and projections of outcomes should be required.

19. Similarly, HRC needs to anticipate the imminent implementation of the National Policy

Statement for Freshwater Management and re-design the WWT/Pot system

accordingly.

20. Item 69-75. Mr. Bashford’s report reflects the Soil assessment by Dr. Dijkstra

adequately. From a systems perspective, the lack of suitable time series data is

problematic in considering trends and changes over time. Such blind spots are an

argument for precaution and avoidance of locking in a particular approach.

21. Having worked with spatially dynamic modelling and had some exposure to ‘precision

farming’ I can support the recommendation of adequate attention of management to

the diversity of the land and its vegetation. However, it also stresses the need to

document habitat, as these habitats are often subject to multiple stressors.

22. I trust that the issue of excess N over-loading and Phosphorous leaking will weigh

heavily in considering this consent.

23. Item 76-81. I would like to raise a concern in how the ecology is treated in a

fragmented way. From a systems perspective and because my PhD included a graduate

course in landscape ecology, I feel that I am in a position to comment on the need to

assess and monitor ecological changes over time, in a comprehensive and detailed

41

manner. This will also assist the recommendation by Dr. Dijkstra that the management

practices in relation to the soil are tailored.

24. Items 82 – 93. I appreciate the longer-term modelling effort that includes both the

nutrient plume as well as population growth. The findings clearly point at a trajectory

of groundwater pollution caused by the activities at the Pot. This systemic problem will

only get worse.

25. It is noted that ‘He also states that the concentrations of nutrients in surface water are

significantly lower than that measured in ground water, noting dilution and possible

denitrification process occurring in the stream/drain bed material and seepage face.’

Because I took graduate courses in ecology as well as soil/water chemistry I feel that I

am in a position to comment that life in the streams is using the nutrients. It is likely

to be more important to measure the oxygen in the stream than the nutrients, because

dissolved oxygen is key for survival of fish. DO, BOD should be measured on a

continuous 24/7 basis as it fluctuates during the day/night cycle, especially in the

summer. However, all this will tell us that we have a problem, to which the activities at

the Pot will continue to add.

26. I too agree with Mr Baker’s recommendations of enhanced monitoring, nutrient

balancing for the Pot and to creating an alert for additional pollutants that may affect

health of people and ecosystems. However, this needs to be done for the whole of

WWT system and enabling monitoring of the four well-beings. Long-term consents

should not be given when there is a risk that they lock in sub-optimal technology.

27. The compounding nutrient plume is expected to hit the coast by 2031. Integrated

monitoring, modelling and reporting should track the issues with groundwater.

However, monitoring will not solve the issues or curb the trends. Similarly, the

proposed mitigation by engineering may at best slow down this problem, but I caution

that it will be more than offset by projected population growth – in other words other

far more innovative solutions are needed.

28. Items 94-108 regarding surface water. Mr Patterson’s report outlines several major

issues, which I will not repeat here. He reiterates the N Loading concerns that Dr

Dijkstra also voiced. Mr Patterson does so from the perspective of surface water

quality and impact on the Waiwiri stream. Per Mr Bashford’s observation: ‘Also, Mr

Patterson has pointed out that just because fish are present in the Waiwiri Stream and

the drains does not necessarily mean that there are no effects on fish. There is a lack

of information in this regard.’ Precaution is required; this points at a shorter consent

period.

42

29. Item 105. “Based on Mr Patterson’s opinion, I understand that the macroinvertebrate

results should be considered in a precautionary manner. While they form, in part, the

basis for the Applicant’s assessment that the effects from the discharges are less than

minor, the above casts significant doubt over this premise”. I too read the concerns

raised as being more than minor. Precaution is required; this points at a shorter

consent period.

30. Items 109 – 118 Coastal. I appreciate Dr Giles’s assessment that nutrient loading from

groundwater is difficult to measure, because it is a high energy coast. This is in contrast

to the Aquanet report, which seems to relate the high energy coast to the absence of

shellfish. Clearly, both Māori and local community members remember an abundance

of shellfish on this coast. Dr Giles concludes that there is insufficient information near

the Waiwiri estuary and nearby beaches to make an assessment regarding emerging

contaminants. Again, these contaminants should be measured at their sources. They

don’t disappear but have systemic impacts sooner or later. In an interconnected world,

collaboration at a whole of WWTF should be considered.

31. 119-125 Air –Mr Clark picked up on the Dissolved Oxygen going below zero on 14

occasions in the Pond, with the potential to cause odour. However, DO unfortunately

did not seem to be featured in the surface water assessment (see previous concern).

32. Item 126 – 129. To properly respect Te Tiriti of Waitangi obligations, the cultural

assessment and the voice of tangata whenua should have been along-side the western

science perspectives, not as an afterthought. Listening to tangata whenua and local

community can help develop a better systemic overview of changes over time, where

western science largely relies on snapshots and can be fragmented. Herein also lies a

future solution. Examples of constructive community engagement exist around the

country. The applicant should be required to evidence the capacity and capability to

create a long-term solution, based on values, and identify pathways to fundamental

solutions.

33. 130-138. Mr Bashford’s overall conclusion: ‘Overall, I do not share the applicants view

that effects are less than minor or that there will be improvements from historic

conditions 18. Whilst I cannot assess the magnitude of the effects, unless the applicant

can provide further information in respect of the above issues, or quantify the

improvements the proposed mitigations are likely to generate in the ultimate receiving

environments (Waiwiri Stream and coastal environment), if any, I am inclined to use

the precautionary approach to state that potential effects are more than minor and to

suggest that actual effects are likely to be more than minor.’ I agree strongly with this

assessment.

43

34. Item 139. In agreement with Mr Bashford: ‘Section 104(1) (b) requires the consent

authority to have regard to any relevant provisions of national environmental

standards, national policy statements, The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

(NZCPS), Regional Policy Statements and a plan or Regional Plan. The Applicant has

provided a statutory assessment document (prepared by Beca) that assesses the

application against these documents. I agree that the Beca assessment has assessed

the relevant planning documents but do note that it has done so under the premise

that effects of the proposed discharges are less than minor. As such many? of my

conclusions differ from that expressed in the Beca assessment.’ Furthermore, the

update (May 2019) of the Local Government Act has not been taken into account. This

update brings back the need for consideration of the four well-beings.

35. Item 153. I welcome the regard that is given to National Values and Attributes. To

suggest anything else – along the line of Beca – would indeed seem disingenuous.

36. Item 159. Stated: ‘Objective A4 seeks to enable communities to provide for their

economic wellbeing, including productive economic opportunities, in sustainably

managing freshwater quality, within limits. Wastewater treatment plants and

discharge areas are necessary for the functioning of modern towns and assist in the

provision of economic wellbeing.’ Again, the narrow focus on economic opportunities

and failing to consider economic impacts is a critical flaw. While it is true that waste

needs to be handled safely for a community, this statement seems to imply a

continuation of the current technology and limited mitigation options. Given the

exponential change in technological advancements made during the lifetime of the

Pot, a clear pathway for fundamentally different options to address human waste flows

– that are available – should be explored from a systems perspective. Some of these

options are currently available, albeit not necessarily economic from a short-term

perspective, and in currently standard institutional arrangements as mentioned above.

However, the current application makes no credible effort to look beyond current

technology, including an ability to manage for more desirable outcomes with

constructive involvement of the community. This includes the technology to manage

a longer transition through harder soil as it travels toward the coast. It could also

include the production of algae feeding on wastewater, after which the algae can be

used as fertilizer or fuel.

37. The ability for local hapu to collect healthy and abundant shellfish, freshwater and

coastal fish should be a primary concern. If not, it is a sign that economic opportunity

is actually an ‘un-economic opportunity’, where the cost of economic activity is higher

than the benefits a community derives from it.

44

38. Item 176 In response to Mr Bashford: ‘Policy 5-6 requires that discharges must be

managed in a manner which maintains the existing groundwater quality, or where

groundwater quality is degraded/over allocated as a result of human activity, it is

enhanced. It is clear from the Beca report and the GHD report that groundwater quality

will continue to be influenced by the discharges at the Pot. Mr Baker has also noted

that there is unlikely to be any improvement in groundwater quality, even as a result

of the proposed mitigations. So, while there are unlikely to be any improvements, the

policy requires that groundwater quality be maintained, which appears likely to be the

case.’ I don’t see how the conclusion can be drawn that groundwater quality is likely

to be maintained, when Dr Baker clearly spells out a likely worsening, perhaps after a

minor and temporary improvement. Again, this is not a long-term systemic solution.

39. Item 180 and 182. While policy requirements for indigenous biological diversity are

met, it should be noted that the consent application relies on a fragmented approach

to ecology and natural science. Changes over time and space are disregarded at our

own peril. Hence, I would highlight the conclusion of the Cultural Health Assessment,

that the activities associated with (WWTF and) the Pot should be seriously considered

for being moved, a more fundamental solution is explored, and the precautionary

principle is applied.

40. Item 198. I am not sure this is inconsistent or not clear: ‘The Applicant has proposed

mitigations to help prevent contaminants causing adverse effects on the life supporting

capacity of the Waiwiri Stream. However, it has failed to adequately show that adverse

effects will be avoided. With further mitigations proposed it is likely that adverse

effects will be reduced. In terms of secondary contact with freshwater, I consider that

the proposed discharge does avoid effects on the health of people.’ Does this refer to

currently minor or unknown health impacts form various (increasing) pollutants or

does this also exclude the impact the discharges have on life sustaining systems related

to the Waiwiri stream? If not directly, people’s health is indirectly impacted, and a

precautionary principle should be applied.

41. Item 200-202. The conclusion seems to uphold that the application is deficient.

42. Items 203 – 207 Duration. While it is good to see a recommended reduction for the

consent duration from 35 to 15 years, I would like to argue that this is still too long and

5-year consent is required. It seems more appropriate to align the date with the Lake

Papaitonga review date of 1 July 2024. Consistency between planning and consents

provide the space to arrive at a more desirable solution for the Pot’s discharges.

In summary:

45

43. Not only are effects unknown, unpredictable and potentially serious, the main

uncertainly is around how big and how fast these negative effects will occur. The

proposed mitigation is unlikely to curb the negative impacts. Given population and

economic growth drivers, these impacts are likely to increase. When the negative

impacts of the nutrient plume reach the coast – which it will regardless as this is

already in motion – the additional impacts of reconsenting the impacts on a degraded

system will be a race to the bottom. This requires a shift in mindset and thinking.

44. Meanwhile impacts on the stream – where 80% of the water drains into via the drains

– are not sufficiently mitigated. While this is a problem at the bottom of the catchment,

it could be considered a resource toward the head of the catchment.

45. However, caution should be taken that wastewater irrigation as a resource does not

foster further land use intensification, with associated negative impacts.

46. In line with Māori Cultural Health Assessment, in line with available and emerging

technologies and allowing better support from planning tools, the duration for this

consent should not exceed 5 years.

47. Furthermore, before a long-term consent is issued, an adaptation plan for climate

change must be considered for this critical infrastructure which is located close to the

coast. Since this is in the domain of a district plan, which I understand is renewed for

this area in 2024, the consent duration should be limited to 5 years.

48. An important consent condition for a 5-year consent should be a forward-looking scan

for systemic alternatives and solutions. This would start to develop the capacity and

capability to assess future options in line with the LGA. Steps in that direction should

be made visible and included in its annual reporting and Long-Term Plans. Reporting

should go beyond compliance with traditional narrow resource consent requirements.

This consent committee has an opportunity to request a forward, systemic strategy

that the community can really get behind and that will ensure the agencies meet their

legislative obligations. This is the basis for continuous improvement. This may future

proof Horowhenua.

46

E. Part C – Review of Joint Witness Statements provided on 24

Septermber 2019

Following are comments and reflections on the various reports in light of the recently received

Joint Witness Statements, given limited time and resources. This section of the expert witness

statement benefitted from a review by John Phillips, who is a water scientist and worked at

Horizons 1995-2003. He has since worked for the Ministry for the Environment as policy

analyst. He is currently an independent consultant. His thoughts focus on the initial water

science – also reviewed in Section A. The comments below pertain to the Joint Witness

Statements received on 24 September 2019.

Comments on Michael Patterson’s S42A report by John Phillips • Map 3 (p9): Aquanet site Stream 3 is not a true downstream site, as it misses Drain 3

input (which has the highest nutrient levels, e.g. SIN over 11mg/L). Stream 4 site is

better suited to being the downstream site for the Pot site.

• Table 1 (p10): SIN (mostly nitrate) increases from .62 to 2.65 mg/L. Phosphate

increases from 41 to 58ppb. Planktonic chl-a increases from 4.6 (Stream 3) to 10.38

mg/m3 (Stream 4), i.e. it approaches OP target of 4 with distance downstream of Lake

Papaitonga, but jumps up over 10 again. I’m not convinced the Pot is not contributing

to planktonic chl-a levels, because these are lowland, low-gradient drains. As such,

they would have greater residence time than conventional streams. The results also

show very high nutrient levels in the drains between Stream 3 and Stream 4.

• No evidence of N attenuation within the Pot system; 80% of discharge ends up in

Waiwiri Stream via drains, and 20% via groundwater towards coast (#32/p14).\

• The proposed decrease in N loading from 1820 to 1442kg N/ha/yr still produces losses

an order of magnitude higher than consented dairy/poultry farms elsewhere in

catchment: 150kg N/ha/yr, and 17-23kg N/ha/yr leaching losses) (#33/p15)

• Stream 4 does not meet OP 95% species protection target for Nitrate-N, and no clear,

adequate mitigation is outlined (#37/p16)

• Macroinvertebrates (#56-60/pp20-24): very good summary of why no conclusion can

directly be drawn regarding impact of the discharge on invertebrate communities in

Waiwiri Stream: essentially, the monitoring design & choice of sites is poorly designed

to address the question.

• Fish: high numbers in reaches (incl 4 ‘at risk/declining’ species) with high nutrient

levels, but very good statement cautioning about accepting these nutrient levels

47

(#65/p25), recommending a precautionary approach to consideration of toxicant

levels.

• Agree with the officer’s statement (#79/p) that “it is highly likely that instream values

are being detrimentally impacted”.

I notice that many of these 42A conclusions here have been totally lost/dropped from

the JWS. This gives a false sense of agreement. There is no clear rationale explaining the

change in position between the 42A report conclusions and the JWS.

Comments on Joint Witness Statement: Freshwater and

Coastal/Estuarine Water Quality and Ecology by John Phillips • The JWS (contrary to the s42A report) now appears to support a conclusion that there

is no impact of the Pot discharge on Waiwiri Stream ecology. This differs significantly

from a number of statements in the HRC officer’s s42A report (Michael Patterson),

including the statement (#79, p27) that “it is highly likely that instream values are being

detrimentally impacted”, and supported a precautionary approach where information

was incomplete.

• Statement no.2 says Stream 4 site is non-wadeable & hence wasn’t monitored for

invertebrates. But it doesn’t say why it is non-wadeable, nor whether this applies to

the whole reach of Waiwiri Stream below the confluence of drain 4. This is not a large

stream, and macroinvertebrate monitoring is typically undertaken during summer low

flows. Macroinvertebrates are widely considered the most integrative ecological

indicator of stream health, so this creates a major gap in the evidence base of this

consent application. Why wasn’t this better addressed in the applicant’s monitoring

programme?

• The issue of epiphytic algae (on the macrophyte growth) isn’t mentioned at all.

Epiphytic growths can add significantly to the biomass load that promotes impacts like

depleted oxygen.

• There is no mention of potential DO impacts, or even its measurement, in the JWS –

despite this being suggested in the s42A report (#82.2, p28). Continuous monitoring

is needed (at least during high biomass periods in summer) to confirm that minimum

DO levels do not drop below critical levels. The fact that nutrient levels decline

between Stream 4 and 5 sites suggests there is uptake by instream macrophytes –

which also counters the claim that nutrients are not contributing to macrophyte

growth.

48

Comments on Joint Witness Statement on Soil The JWS for Soil first suggests changes to irrigation (#1), as to ensure that vegetation is not

drowned (#2). However, it is acknowledged that N&P are too high for uptake and leaks anyway,

which makes it a runoff and ground water issue, not a soil issue (#3).

#4 and #5 (not numbered) brings the soil issue back to avoiding runoff and using soil as a filter

for pathogens only. N&P is considered a groundwater issue.

Concerns:

a. This illustrates the problem with a fragmented view.

b. The Pot was originally novel and intended as a land-based application. It gives the

illusion of waste uptake. It’s now reduced to waste disposal as a sand filter for

pathogens (e-Coli) primarily.

c. It does not acknowledge that N&P are resources. This is 20th century thinking and not

the 21st century thinking that is required for a long-term consent.

#6 and #7. Consistency in sampling is appreciated, however, it should also allow for more

state-of-the-art monitoring, e.g. satellite imaging and interpretation capabilities and skills.

#8. Is carbon sequestration capacity of the soil monitored/ needed?

#9. Why would you not measure hydraulic conductivity or item 10. Soil moisture, which affect

hydraulic conductivity? Item 11 seems to ask for review of sampling to allow for reduced

sampling later in the consent period. Instead, the review should also allow for the option to

sample more often and increase its spatial diversity. Again, complementary technology for a

more holistic approach should be considered.

#12. Site capacity acknowledges that the sandy soil is largely a filter for pathogens and refer

the P&N issue to groundwater. The other soil components measured (#8) refer to the ‘health

of the filter’.

#13 and #14 are an interesting turn of attitude: while it started as a land-based application

and requirement for healthy soil supporting vegetation, these items seem to suggest that –

given it’s ‘just a sand filter’ ponding and anaerobic soil conditions actually increase

denitrification and therefore should be allowed.

Questions: did they turn the purpose of the Pot as a land-based application upside down with

this conclusion?

Through the soil lens, E. coli removal seems to be the primary significant treatment benefit

from the current wastewater disposal system.

49

F. Part D – Focused response to statement of evidence of David

Clapperton and associated responses from Applicant.

Introduction and Scope of Evidence In the interest of time and allocated resources only, I will focus my attention on the statement

provided by Mr Clapperton. As the CEO of the Applicant organization, his approach is closest

aligned with my system multi-disciplinary expertise and governance experience. Our

educational background has some similarity in that Mr Clapperton has a Bachelor in

Commerce and Administration and I have a Masters in Business Economics. We seem to share

a professional trajectory in governance. Where Mr. Clapperton refers to expert reports, I will

rely on my PhD in a relevant natural science and my experience of eliciting information from

many disciplinary natural scientists. Where I am not in a position to come to a firm conclusion,

I will phrase a question to signal to the committee an unsubstantiated conclusion or

inconsistency that leads to a basis to reasonably doubt the wisdom of granting a consent

beyond 5 years.

Project Background Item 11.

“HDC has successfully and sustainably discharged treated wastewater to The Pot for over 27

years.” The definition of success and sustainability are unclear and relative. Indeed, the

concept of land-based application of wastewater was an improvement over discharge in the

lake, 27 years ago. However, the limitations of The Pot also have to be acknowledged. It’s

negative impact on the ecology is not sustainable.

‘Monitoring has shown, as outlined in the technical evidence of Ms Cass, Mr Lowe, Dr Ausseil

and Mr Douglass, that the operation of The Pot is not having more than minor adverse

environmental effects.’

I don’t agree that this conclusion can be drawn, based on the technical evidence of the

Applicants’ disciplinary witnesses. The Joint Witness Statements indicate that there are

several areas where the witnesses on both sides agree that there is scope for improvement or

– as in the case of freshwater – the concerns of Mr Patterson as raised in the summary of Mr

Bashford – are acknowledged. In particular, I reiterate the uncertainty and lack of knowledge

regarding direct causation of observed changes and ecological concerns that are

acknowledged and agreed to by the witnesses. This is stated for Macroinvertebrates: ‘’

Because the sites are not directly comparable, the data does not demonstrate that there are

no effects on macroinvertebrate communities; however, this uncertainty cannot be addresses

currently’. Section C highlights several areas where the initial concerns raised by experts have

disappeared without being resolved.

50

For overall ecological effects it is stated that: “ Data available indicates low toxicity risk from

ammonia and nitrate (noting that for nitrate toxicity, there is some remaining uncertainty

regarding potential effects on native fish species present in the Waiwiri Stream (e.g. banded

kokopu and Cran’s bully) but not specifically covered in existing toxicity studies but achieving

NPSFM Band B would address this concern).” All this says is that – with current data availability

– the experts think there is low risk, but the experts acknowledge that they don’t have a full

understanding and uncertainty remains, in particular regarding nitrate toxicity. Toxicity is a big

word that goes far beyond ‘mildly unhealthy’. Given that it is established elsewhere that a

nitrate plume is working its way to the surface and given that the discharge is projected to

grow, there is one plausible certainty in that – unless the discharge is reduced at the source,

no amount of superficial mitigation (such as shading of the stream) is likely to improve the

nitrogen input to the receiving ecosystem by The Pot.

As part of this current resource consent application, it is intended that this situation continues,

along with some modifications and mitigations that will improve sustainability….. ”. I disagree

that the starting situation is proven beyond doubt to be ‘less than minor impact’. Continuation

of this situation – especially in a growth scenario - defies the precautionary principle in

multiple areas. The modifications and mitigations suggested are superficial and/or

inadequately planned for. Anything less than a reduction at the source (i.e. what comes out

of the pipe into The Pot) is only going to further deteriorate the water quality of the adjacent

water bodies.

Mr Clapperton fails to define ‘sustainability’. Does he refer to environmental sustainability?

Sustaining the operation of The Pot?

Item 12.

‘HDC is committed to working with the community to build positive and enduring relationships.

Consultation and engagement with the community plays an integral role toward achieving this

type of relationship and is a core part of any consent application process, particularly for

projects of this nature that are of significant interest to the community.”

After 27 years of experience, the commitment to build positive relationships should be

weighted against evidence of the level of trust that has been established. Independent social

research could be commissioned to assess the quality of the working relationship HDC has

with the community.

Item 13.

‘Throughout the Project HDC has engaged extensively with the community in relation to all

aspects of the consent application. HDC developed a consultation programme as part of the

Project which ensured consultation with the community was inclusive and meaningful, and

51

started well before committing to the solution that would form this application. The details of

the consultation programme are set out in the evidence of Mr Lowe.’

Consultation and engagement are not the same as established co-governance and co-

management structures. The documentation shows that the participants were meaningfully

briefed on the submission process. This is a basic right and level of engagement and cannot

be considered extensive.

It was interesting to find an article about IPENZ bestowing The Pot with environmental

credentials based on diverting wastewater discharge to the lake toward The Pot. The article

quotes that the total investment at $3.5M. This is a significant difference from the $18M

quotes by Mr Clapperton. The CAPEX and OPEX of the Pot remain unclear.

Item 14.

“Input from the community throughout the Project has resulted in the development of a more

robust and sustainable solution. It has also allowed continuous refinement of the existing

system and the development of consent conditions that provide for improved management of

The Pot, as well as a focus on the wider aspects of managing Levin’s wastewater. This is to be

achieved with the establishment of improved long-term working relationships with the

community and particularly iwi.”

While, clearly, there have been trials on manuka/kanuka and wetlands, it is not clear how the

co-management and co-governance relationships are organised and resourced. It is also

unclear from the documentation – see section A reflection on the Application – if the

relationship with the community is constructive and productive at catchment AND Pot level.

To achieve this, the planning cycles need to be synchronised and formal institutions for co-

governance (at catchment level) and co-management (at Pot level) should be established. To

achieve this, a consent period of 5 years seems prudent.

Item 15 to 20. As this pertains directly to iwi, it is not my place to comment on this section.

Item 21 to 22. Community engagement reflects an aspirational consensus on ensuring ‘the

Waiwiri Stream is healthy and provides for future generations’. The process does not seem to

have generated practical steps on what the role of The Pot is in relation to the Catchment Care

Group. If a 5-year consent is granted, this would be providing a clear signal and set a timeframe

for co-development of a plan for consideration in local and regional long-term planning

processes.

Items 23-29. Response to submissions relevant to engagement. Due process was followed in

providing updates, as evidenced on the website: 71 documents were released. Specifically,

Item 27 “I accept the requests in submissions (from Mr Moore, WECA, HEKA) that seek a

52

transparent process at The Pot. While historically information may not have been readily

publicly available, resource consent information, including monitoring, has been publicly

available. Going forward there is the intention to make this information more available, with

the establishment of a publicly accessible web based portal (as discussed in the evidence of Ms

Cass) and the collation of summary reports that can be shared, in particular with the

Environmental Review Panel and the Wastewater Management Group which are suggested

conditions of the consent. This is detailed further in the evidence of Mr Lowe.” And Item 28. “It

is my opinion that interested parties have had ample opportunity to, and many have, engage

with HDC to provide their views on the Project. Further, HDC has taken significant steps to

make sure information is easy to understand and accessible to all.”

The process is clear, yet, data and expert witness statements are not necessarily easy for the

lay public to engage with. Being in a leadership role, Mr Clapperton has an opportunity to co-

create the institutions that bridge the gap toward Long Term Planning.

As per Item 29: “In addition to specific engagement around the Project, the allocation of funds

and planning for reconsenting has been detailed in HDC’s Long Term Plan 2018 – 2038 (the

"LTP"). The LTP is a comprehensive document containing HDC's policies, intended activities,

levels of service, prioritised capital projects, financial details and rating impacts for the next

ten years. All local authorities must, at all times, have an LTP. Before adopting a LTP, a local

authority must undertake a rigorous process, including the use a special consultative

procedure (including community engagement) and an audit by the Auditor-General. HDC

adopted the current LTP on 27 June 2018. The budgets set within the LTP reflect affordable

expenditure for the community for a particular asset or activity (discussed below). There were

no submissions to this plan process that changed the course of the Project, including any

relating to ceasing discharges at The Pot and using other areas.”

The approach to community engagement remains fragmented, under-resourced and capacity

needs to be built to deliver on the join aspirations of HRC and the community. A 5-year consent

will provide an impetus for this alignment.

Population growth

Item 30. “An LTP is normally prepared for 10-year period, but in HDC’s recent LTP process they

chose to look further ahead over a period of 20 years. The reason HDC decided on this term

was because our population is growing faster than it has for nearly a quarter century. HDC's

forecasting assumes that the population will grow at just over 1% per year for the next 10

years. However, over the past few years, the population growth rate has exceeded the forecast.

HDC consider that this growth is being prompted by international immigration, and regional

migration resulting from the development of the Wellington Northern Corridor Expressway”.

53

Growth of the area is exceeding the forecast. Not only is a longer time frame appropriate –

given the need for CAPEX and different solutions – but the planning structure should reflect

this adequately. I was not able to locate the answer in Mr Lowe’s assessment as referred to in

Item 31 and 33. I refer back to Section A, where I refer to an ‘investment trap’; population

growth and growing revenue from rates requires a re-direction toward fundamental solutions

faster. It is therefore concerning that the capacity building for community engagement – co-

governance - has not been developed to engage effectively on long term planning. Again, the

solution is to bring major infrastructure consent, like The Pot, in line with longer term planning

processes, such as the Lake Papaitonga review date of 1 July 2024.

As part of a 5 year consent, the consent requirements should include a timeframe for

consideration of 1) true alternatives in year 1; 2) community agreed integration of preferred

options into the long term plan in year 2-3; and 3) acquisition of the assets to execute the long

term plan in year 4-5.

Item 34 “While we can forecast population growth based on trends, there is also a possibility

that population growth may become stagnant or decline. The Project and proposed resource

consent conditions provide flexibility to address all possible scenarios through a pragmatic and

adaptive approach.”

The scenarios for true alternatives and a response to population growth have not been

developed. Therefore, it is premature to invoke pragmatism. Adaptive capacity should be

directed to bridge the gap in ecological, social and human capital. Indeed, a likely economic

downturn may be the consequence of ignoring these challenges – including a rise in the price

of oil due to ignoring the Energy Return on Energy Investment – but that’s beyond the scope

of this submission.

Item 35-36 are unclear.

Item 37. “The Project is a sustainable and affordable way to discharge Levin's wastewater.

HDC has, to date, invested more than $18 million into the infrastructure and operation to

discharge treated wastewater at The Pot. The Ahu Whenua Trust has submitted that this

investment is irrelevant, however I am of the opinion that this is a significant investment by

HDC and reflects HDC's commitment to the use of The Pot. If alternative sites were to be used

a similar investment would be required and there would be redundancy of the investment in

the existing infrastructure. In my opinion, it would not be a responsible use of community

money to reinvest in replacement options when the costs would be similar or greater, and the

same or more issues may be encountered. This is especially so in light of the technical

assessments indicating there are no more than minor effects associated with over 27 years of

treated wastewater discharges at The Pot.”

54

The $18M investment is not explained. This is in light of the IPENZ article in Mr Lowe’s

statement that investment in The Pot wan $3.5M. A full disclosure of the investment in both

The Pot and the WWTF are required. Per Section A and B of this report, sunk cost are but a

partial consideration in future proofing infrastructure. Transparency about the financial

scenarios as per item 34 are more important in sound fiscal considerations. This work is not

evidenced yet and therefore does not install confidence for a consent beyond 5 years.

Item 38 Benefits:

a) “100% of Levin's wastewater will continue to be discharged to land rather than directly

to water (this is a key community outcome);”

This is misleading, as the ecosystem is not assimilating the discharged waste. The Joint

Witness Statement regarding Soil appears to concur that there is little bio-accumulation but

the benefit of The Pot is primarily in serving as a sand filter, filtering pathogens. Nitrogen and

Phosphorus travel rather uninhibited through the sandy soil; a small amount is taken up by

the vegetation – primarily pine trees. While the application is to land, the drains seem to catch

80% of the shallow irrigations and lead it to the Waiwiri stream. The remainder – from Pond

– appears to seep to the groundwater. A true ‘discharge to land’ would find a way to turn

waste into a resource. Levin was a pioneer 27 years ago; it can be a pioneer again in finding a

21st century solution.

b) “While the volumes reaching The Pot will increase slightly, they are capped and the

nutrient increase will be slight, if at all, due to mitigation technologies that are

proposed (and the effects of such increases will be no more than minor and consistent

with the current level of effects); and”

Given the persistent uncertainties – agreed to by experts on both sides in Joint Witness

Statements -, population growth, lack of a clear and adequately resourced mitigation plan,

the current impact and increases thereof are not ‘less than minor’. This increase cannot be

considered ‘no more than minor’. In fact, to bring this Project into 21st century thinking –

even/especially in a low socio-economic area – should be ecosystem enhancing. While it may

have been ecosystem enhancing – stabilising sand dunes with pine trees - 27 years ago,

according to the Joint Witness Statement on Soil, The Pot is largely a sand filter. The

groundwater experts are clear that a significant nitrogen plume will reach the coast in the next

10 years, plus or minus 5 years. This would argue that a 5-year consent with stipulations for

actions toward solutions at the source, could reach a solution around the time that the

nitrogen plume is expected to reach the coast. The fact that the travel time of the nitrogen

plume was slower than predicted is no reason to delay a thorough exploration of alternatives

and integration of solutions in the long-term plan, including any coastal ecosystem

adaptations and regeneration that could mitigate the nitrogen plume there.

55

c) “Adaptive management solutions are proposed to mitigate effects if they should

materialise. In particular, a 5-yearly optimisation process is proposed in the

conditions.”

Adaptive management solutions in line with RMA Section 32 are not convincing. The proposed

‘adaptive management solutions are largely cosmetic and not of a structural nature. Indeed,

the consent should therefore not exceed 5 years. This will give the Applicant, HRD, HRC and

their community adequate time to install the appropriate co-governance and co-management

regimes.

d) – g) It is not my place to comment.

Affordability (h) The Project will incur costs to the community, but while there is a step up in costs associated

with monitoring, management and transparency related to the Project, the proposed

conditions provide for a framework that means changes are to be undertaken as and when

they are required; and

This is unclear and doesn’t explain affordability. Does Mr Clapperton propose that the OPEX

costs of mitigation will only be made if/when required? There is no clarity on whether the

long-term plan – the next 5 years, nevertheless 20 or 35 years – has secured these costs.

(i) Changes and forward solutions will be presented and discussed as part of the conditioned

Wastewater Management Group, and allow a process whereby community participation can

inform the extent of modifications required while also giving consideration to the benefits such

modifications will achieve”

This reflects the tentative commitments that are flagged as a ‘vague plan for enhancement,

mitigation, management, monitoring and reporting’. This cannot be left to ‘adaptive capacity’

as it isn’t convincing what the goals and the commitments really are.

Item 39. “The combined evidence of Mr Gaydon, Dr Northcott, Dr McLeod, Ms Beecroft, Mr

Lowe, Mr Douglass, Mr Evans, Dr Ausseil, Dr de Luca, Mr Edwards addresses the effects of the

Project and these benefits in more detail. The proposed consent conditions (attached to the

evidence of Mr Lowe) reflect how the positive benefits of the Project can be achieved.”

Noted, but not convincing, especially in light of the statements of Dr. Dijkstra, Dr. Patterson

and Mr Bashford’s concerns.

Item 41 “I support Ms Selby’s request to have "the best discharge site in New Zealand" and

Ngātokowaru Marae Committee submission to be "the best in the world". The Project is

created within the constraints of the population, the rates available, and the existing location

and infrastructure already in place but is still a leading system in New Zealand. Within these

parameters the proposed consent conditions ensure HDC is accountable but also has to be

56

forward thinking and adaptive to keep up with, and implement as necessary, new solutions

and technology as they arise.”

In light of this support, a 5-year consent to co-create a suitable solution seems appropriate.

Term of Consent Item 42.

‘Term of consent is important. As a small community HDC cannot continually go through or

repeat consenting processes for the same activities. We need a longer term to spread the costs

over, and to give us the certainty and confidence to invest in programmes that ultimately

benefit the community.’

Written from an ecological perspective, this paragraph could read ‘we need a longer term to

extend the external costs, and to create more ecological and social uncertainty and disinvest

the natural capital that ultimately benefits the community’. A suitable WWTF as part of a long-

term integrated catchment plan, could benefit the community and save long term costs.

However, an unwillingness to sincerely look for alternative approaches in line with the

regulatory direction is not helpful. A focus on the costs - without having fully explained those

costs - the long-term benefits will remain elusive.

Item 43. ‘The development of the consent conditions attached to Mr Lowe’s evidence provide

a framework to allow us to continually review our operation, in participation with the

community and Regional Council, and adapt as necessary. We do not think we need to wait

for a consent renewal programme to implement changes, and therefore the consent condition

strategy allows HDC to optimise (on a 5-yearly basis) how to manage wastewater within the

term of the consent. This programme has considerable cost to HDC and it is only proposed if a

35-year term is obtained.’

Do I understand it correctly that the proposed consent conditions – leading to marginal

improvements in a status quo situation at best and likely to be offset by growth of the local

population and lead to increased pressure on the ecosystems – will only be implemented if a

35-year consent is obtained? This would indeed argue for a short, 5-year consent to ensure

that an integrated catchment approach and alignment with other planning time frames is

started immediately and achieved within a 5 year consent.

Item 44.

‘A key aspect of the condition framework is transparency. Ultimately what HDC does is funded

by rate payers. Collectively we can do amazing things with technology to manage our

wastewater, but it is the community that has to pay for the solution. Having community

members, and in particularly iwi, sitting around a table and involved in discussions about

preferred options is, in my view, how HDC should manage transparency. The conditions provide

for this with the formation of the Environmental Review Panel (with a significant iwi focus) and

the Wastewater Management Group (with a wider community focus).’

57

Transparency is an interesting choice of wording. It is the task of HDC to provide scenarios,

pathways to outcomes in line with legislative direction, be transparent about the changes and

use the planning toolbox in an aligned manner.

If ‘collectively we can do amazing things with technology to manage our wastewater’, then it

might be good for the community to see what a top-end and ‘in between’ WWTF would look

like and what it would cost. This work has not been done.

Cost focussed scenario: Since this is a small (and growing) community with a substantial

ecological footprint, degraded lake and stream – we can’t afford to make more than marginal

upgrades in the next 35 years; the 20-year long-term plan provides and possibly relies on the

status quo. We’ll continue fragmented monitoring and accept that there are unknowns, but

we won’t accept the precautionary principle. However, we continue to engage an under-

resourced Environmental Review Panel and Wastewater Management Group.

Transparent scenario: Through the Pot, historically we made an improvement over

wastewater discharge to Lake Horowhenua. We acknowledge that the lakes and the streams,

including Waiwiri stream are still in an unacceptable condition and deteriorating, often due to

ignorance and greed. Our scant data for the Pot show that we are outgrowing or have already

outgrown the appealing aspects that made us work with this location. Many uncertainties and

blind spots remain regarding the environmental sustainability of the Pot. This affects all who

reside in the catchment and iwi specifically; I feel your pain. Let us work together and align

our vision for an integrated catchment plan based on shared principles. This will involve

alignment of our planning toolbox, making tradeoffs and hard (financial and political) choices.

Let’s make Levin’s WWTF a source of pride for our community, the heart of an integrated

catchment plan and an example for others. HRC is confident that we can listen and resolve

this challenge within 5 years. A regenerative WWTF will be a core of our circular economy.

Conclusion

Item 45. Overall, the Project provides for long-term affordable and sustainable treated

wastewater discharges at The Pot which provides for the social, economic, and cultural well-

being of the Levin community, while improving and maintaining the effects of the Project on

the surrounding environment, including the Waiwiri Stream.’

This expert remains unconvinced.

G. Key points

1. Not only are effects from the Pot on the receiving environment partly unknown or

known in fragments, unpredictable and potentially serious, the main uncertainty is

around how big and how fast these negative effects will occur. The proposed mitigation

is tentative and unlikely to curb the negative impacts. Given population and economic

58

growth drivers, these impacts are likely to increase. When the nutrient plume reaches

the coast – which it will regardless as this is already in motion – the additional impacts

of reconsenting the impacts on a degraded system will be a race to the bottom. This

requires a shift in mindset and thinking.

2. It is unclear how much wastewater and concentrations of identified pollution is

transported to the Pot for land-based irrigation. A mass balance of volume and loading

of pollutants that are transported to the Pot needs to be transparent from the input

to the pathways into the receiving environment as part of the monitoring and

reporting requirements.

3. Most of the irrigated wastewater seems to flow through the artificial drains to the

Waiwiri stream. This should be clearly explained in a mass balance. Real time data

should be available where relevant, with a clear and direct link to the overall

performance of the Pot.

4. The science, assumptions and uncertainties should be clearly communicated to the

community. A dashboard of performance should be created based an input-output

‘mass balance’ model, cumulative effects and interpretation of real time data.

5. The proposed monitoring and measurements should clarify what the fate of the waste

to the environment is over time under the various growth scenarios. The expectations,

uncertainties and unknowns should be clearly identified for soil, groundwater, the

pond (and its sludge), the Waiwiri stream, the intertidal zone and the coast in an

interconnected way.

6. Clarity on this movement of nitrogen, phosphorous and any other pollutants of the

groundwater should be the outcome of the proposed monitoring conditions.

Appropriate science communication may help build trust with iwi and the community.

Independent social science is available to verify of such trust is indeed developing.

7. The language of ‘land-based irrigation of wastewater’ is misleading, as the Pot and

associated infrastructure is a wastewater disposal site that uses the sandy soil

primarily as a filter for pathogens; this was agreed in the Joint Witness Statement for

Soil (24 September). The vegetation seems to absorb the irrigated water to a small

extend only.

8. The pond leaks wastewater to the ground water, where a plume of nitrogen is

accumulating and moving toward the coast. A connection between this nitrogen

plume and the Waiwiri stream is likely already established. The plume of nitrogen in

the groundwater is expected to establish a direct connection between the Pot and the

59

coast within 10 years, give or take 5 years. This argues for a consent period of 5 years

and stop impact when this nitrogen plume reaches the coast.

9. Establishing an increase in pollutant loading of the Pot in light of a heavily polluted

background loading is basis to call the contribution of the Pot to the degradation of

the receiving environment ‘less than minor’. This is inappropriate.

10. The science is fragmented and scant. Continuous (24/7) monitoring of DO in the

Waiwiri stream, especially in the summer should be included in the monitoring

consent requirements.

11. Shellfish monitoring, there is also no actual evidence that there is an absence of

adverse causal effects, when most of the shellfish is simply not there anymore. This is

certainly not evidence of ‘less than minor impact’.

12. The evidence reports that Periphyton as an indication of Nitrogen and Phosphorous

pollution is absent because there is no substrate. However, it is not explained whether

the substrate is covered by sedimentation.

13. The evidence using a macroinvertebrate community index seems to conclude that

there is ‘less than minor negative impact’ when it is clear that the methodology not

correctly applied. This is inappropriate.

14. Climate change and sea level rise should be taken into account for LWWTF as a whole

and the Pot in particular, given its proximity to the coast.

15. Following Items 203 – 207 discussed in Section B regarding the duration of the consent,

a 5-year consent would align with the review of Lake Papaitonga 1 July 2024.

Consistency between planning and consents provide the space to arrive at a more

desirable solution for the Pot’s discharges.

16. Similarly, a consent period of 5 years would allow consideration of the implementation

of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.

17. Wastewater should be considered a resource in a circular economy. However, caution

should be taken that wastewater irrigation as a resource does not foster further land

use intensification, with associated negative impacts. A whole of system, integrated

catchment plan should inform long term planning processes.

18. In line with Māori Cultural Health Assessment, in line with available and emerging

technologies and allowing better support from planning tools, the duration for this

consent should not exceed 5 years.

60

19. An important consent condition for a consent beyond 5 years, should be a forward-

looking scan for systemic alternatives and solutions. This would start to develop the

capacity and capability to assess future options in line with the LGA. This is the basis

for continuous improvement as required under section 32 of the current RMA.

In conclusion, a consent for a maximum period of 5 years is recommended. This time frame

allows for the identification of social, human and built capital to transition the WWTF to an

approach or location where wastewater can be adequately assimilated by vegetation and/or

be used as a resource in a circular economy.

Disclaimer

The services undertaken by TML in connection with preparing this report were limited to those

specifically detailed in the report and are subject to the scope limitations set out in the report.

The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on information

reviewed at the date of preparation of the report. TML disclaims liability arising from any of

the assumptions being incorrect. TML has prepared this report on the basis of information

found on the Horizons Regional Council website https://www.horizons.govt.nz/managing-

natural-resources/consents/horowhenua-district-council-the-pot TML has not independently

verified or checked beyond the agreed scope of work. TML does not accept liability in

connection with such unverified information, including errors and omissions in the report

which were caused by errors or omissions in that information.