ROBERT A McCLEAN R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report
VOLUMES ONE AND TWO: MAIN REPORT AND APPENDIX
Wai 228/215 January 1998
Robert A McClean
Any conclusions drawn or opinions expressed are those of the author.
Waitangi Tribunal Research 2 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report
THE AUTHOR
My name is Robert McClean. I was born in Wellington and educated at Viard College, Porirua. After spending five years in the Plumbing industry, I attended Massey University between 1991 and 1996. I graduated with a Bachelor in Resource and Environmental Planning with first class honours and a MPhil in historical Geography with distinction. My thesis explored the cartographic history of the Porirua reserve lands. Between 1995 and 1997, I completed a report for the Porirua City Council concerning the the management. of Maori historical sites in the Porirua district. I began working for the Waitangi Tribunal in May 1997 as a research officer and I have produced a report concerning foreshores and reclamations within Te Whanganui-a Tara (Wellington Harbour, Wai 145). I am married to Kathrin and we have four children; Antonia, Mattea, Josef and Stefan.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my appreciation to all those persons who have helped me research this claim. Especially Dr Johanna Rosier (Massey University), Andy Bruere, Rachel Dadson, Betty Martin (Environment B.O.P), Graeme Jelly, Alison McNabb (Western Bay of Plenty District Council), Bob Drey (MAF), David Phizacklea (DOC), Erica Rolleston (Secretary of Tauranga Moana District Maori Council), Christine Taiawa Kuka, Hauata Palmer (Matakana Island), Rachael Willan, Anita Miles and Morrie Love (Waitangi Tribunal). Special thanks also to Kathrin and my children for their support and encouragement.
Front cover Aerial photo of proposed pipeline route, 1977. Source, K. Craven, BOP Co-op Dairy Association, Information accompanying Company's application to discharge waste off Matakana Island, 25 February 1977, WBOPDC.
Waitangi Tribunal Research 3 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report
List of Abbreviations ...... 7
List of Illustrations ...... 8
Explanation of Terms ...... 9
Report Summary ...... 11
Chapter 1 :Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall and the Tauranga Claims ...... 15
1.1 Claims concerning sewerage discharge and piscary rights ...... 15 1.2 Main Issues ...... 17 1.3 Methodology ...... 20
Chapter 2: Matakana Island Coastal Environment;
Customary Use and Piscary Interests ...... 21
2.1 Maori settlement of Matakana Island ...... 21 2.2 Record of Protest; customary piscary interests within Tauranga Moana ...... 27
Waitangi Tribunal Research 4 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report
Chapter 3: Sewerage Disposal Management Regime ...... 32 3.1 Early Regulation ...... 32 3.2 Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 .. : ...... 35 3.3 Tauranga Harbour Water Classification 1971-1975 ...... 38 3.4 Resource Management Act 1991 ...... 42
Chapter Four: The History of the Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall 1950-1990 ...... 48
4.1 Waste disposal from the Katikati Factory, 1965-1980 ...... 48 4.2 Katikati sewerage plans, 1965-1977 ...... 59 4.3 Katikati joins the Matakana Island outfall scheme ...... 66 4.3.1 Post Hearing reaction ...... 71 4.3.2 Katikati sewerage plans are implemented ...... 80 4.3.2 Outfall monitoring and opposition from the Matakana Island Community 1985-1989 ...... 90
Chapter Five: Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall 1990-1997 ...... 94 5.1 Shellfish monitoring after 1990 ...... 94 5.2 Planning for sewerage, early 1990s ...... 98 5.2.1 Treatment plans at the old dairy factory site ...... 102 5.3 Opposition from the Matakana Island Community ...... 105 5.4 Katikati Sewerage Outfall proposals, 1995-1997 ...... 114
Chapter Six: Conclusions ...... 128
Waitangi Tribunal Research 5 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report ()
Appendix
A. Research Commission ...... 137
B. Water Right Application, Katikati Dairy Factory, 1977 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 138
Co Water Right Application, Tauranga County Council, 1977 000000 145
D. Summary of Bacteriological Testing
and Shellfish Monitoring, 1977-1997 0 •• 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 • 0 • 0 • 0 0 0 o. 151
E. Sewerage Disposal Management Regime, 1967-1997 .00 •• 00 ••• 157
Eo1 Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 ...... 0 •••••••••••••••••• : •••• 157 E.2 Harbours Act 1950 ...... 159 E.3 Town and Country Planning Act 1977 ...... : ... 160 EA Resource Management Act 1991 ...... 161 E.5 Consultation under the Resource Management Act 1991 ...... 170 E.6 Understandings of Maori waste management values ...... 178 E.7 Relevant Policy Documents and Plans ...... 180
Bibliography ...... 199
Waitangi Tribunal Research 6 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report
BOD Biological Oxygen Demand BOP Bay of Plenty BOPRC Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Environment BOP) BP Before Present CMS Conservation Management Strategy DOC Department of Conservation Doc Document DP District Plan Ed Edition gpd gallons per day KWWP Katikati Wastewater Working Party MAF Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries MFE Ministry for the Environment MHWS . Mean High Water Springs MPN Most Probable Number NA National Archives NAC US National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods NAS US National Academy of Science ) NZCPS New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement NZFP New Zealand Forest Products NZLR New Zealand Law Review NZRMA New Zealand Resource Management Appeals NZTPA New Zealand Town Planning Appeals RCP Regional Coastal Plan RMA Resource Management Act 1991 RMLR Resource Management Law Reform RPS Regional Policy Statement ROD Record of Documents SS Suspended Solids SQA Shellfish quality assessment programme of Environment BOP TCC Tauranga County Council TCPA Town and Country Planning Act 1977 US United States of America WBOPDC Western Bay of Plenty District Council Wai Waitangi Tribunal Claim
Waitangi Tribunal Research 7 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report
Figure Page
1.1 14 Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall 2.1 23 Distribution ofPre-European contact archaeological sites 2.2 24 Stratigraphy of dunes exposed in estuarine cliff 3.1 34 Final classification, Tauranga Harbour, 1964 3.2 39 Final classification, Tauranga Harbour, 1972 4.1 53 Proposed route, Combined Sewerage Scheme, 1976 4.2 54 Proposed route, Katikati pipeline, 1976 4.3 59 Katikati Township 4.4 69 Location plan of outfall pipe 4.5 81 Construction of the Matakana Island pipeline, 1978 5.1 100 Proposed long-term wastewater collection and disposal concept plan 5.2 101 Katikati catchment wastewater scheme concept 5.3 110 Sketch plan of proposed Katikati sewerage disposal scheme
Appendix
D.1/D.2 155 Shellfish bacteria, 1991 E.1 172 Approaches to Environmental Dispute Resolution E.2 172 Continuum of Public Involvement
Waitangi Tribunal Research 8 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report
Bacteria and viruses
. Various different types of .hacteriaare .. found in sewage. Some, such as faecalcoliforms, salmonella, and Escherichia coli, are used as an indicator of bacterial pathogens. Increasingly, viruses rather than bacteria are being used as an indicator to determine shellfish suitability for consumption. In particular,the United States. National Advisory Committee recommends monitoring of vibrio. species of virus. Three main vibrio species are considered harmful to human health: vibrio parahaemolyticus, vibriovulnificus,~.andvibrioalginolyticus.Monitoring of both .bacteria and viruses is· requiredjnorderto~determine the level ofshellfish contamination .
. .Biological .oxygen Demand (BOD)
This is an indicator ofresidual organic content in the effluent. This content may involve further biodegradation and therefore place a demand on oxygen in the environment.
Faecal Coliforms (FC)
These are bacteria that are present in the gut and in the faeces of warm blooded animals. For this reason they are often used to indicate the presence ofpollution (bacterial pathogens) derived from humans. Faecal coliforms are less useful as indicators of excreted viruses.
Pathogens
Disease-causing micro-organisms; viruses, fungi, bacteria and eggs of parasites.
pH
A measure of acidity or basicity of a substanc.eranging from 1.0 to 14.0 with 7 being neutral.
Sewage
. Generally refers to: the actual liquid waste ofa community. Sometimes this sewage may include stormwater infiltration.
Sewage sludge
Solid material derived from settled material during treatment process.
Sewerage
Waitangi Tribunal Research 9 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report
Refers to both the sewage and the trunk mains or pipes that carry the sewage. As a network () which is installed to service a town (replacing septic tanks) these trunk mains and pipes are referred to as reticulation.
. Suspended Solids (SS)
Indicator ofsuspended matter in the effluent.
Wastewater
This is the Jiquid sewage waste after it has been processed by treatment. 'Also called sewage effluent.
()
Waitangi Tribunal Research 10 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report
Since 1980, the Western Bay of Plenty District Council (which replaced the Tauranga County Council) have discharged untreated sewerage into the sea off the eastern coast of Matakana Island. The purpose of this report is to provide information to the Waitangi Tribunal on this sewerage discharge as part of the Tauranga District inquiry.
The report will cover the following matters as provided in the Research Commission:!
• specific actions ofthe Crown which have afficted the Wai 228 claimant in regard to the discharge ofsewerage offMatakana Island; • extent ofpollution caused by the sewerage discharge offMatakana Island; • attempts currently being made by the local District Authority or Regional Council to reduce or eliminate sewerage pollution; and • the extent to which iwi were consulted prior to the construction ofthe sewerage scheme.
These matters could be summarised in the following key issues:
I Direction Commissioning Research, 1 September 1997, Waitangi Tribunal, Appendix A.
Waitangi Tribunal Research 11 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report
In an attempt to provide an answer to the questions raised in these three issues, this report has n five main parts:
Chapter One examines the issue of foreshore pollution and sewerage discharge in the statements ,ofclaim (Tauranga,Claims) and takes a brief lookat previous Waitangi Tribunal reports that have dealt with sewerage disposal. The main issues and methodology are clarified within this chapter.
Chapter Two reviews written evidence regarding customary use.and ownership of the Matakana Island coastal .marine area. This chapter .will include a discussion,of·the' physical and archaeological environment.
Chapter Three gives an overview of the sewerage disposal management regime since 1950. This overview includes a discussion on the: Harbours Act 1950, Town and Country Planning Act 1977, Health Act 1953, Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967, and the Resource Management Act 1991. This discussion will have a particular focus on the water classification regimes in C) Tauranga Moana and Maori interests.
Chapters Four and Five outlines the basic historical details ofthe Matakana Island sewerage outfall from the 1950s until the present day.
,Chapter Six sums up the report with concluding.remarks. A;briefoutline:.:ofthese conclusions are outlined as follows:
Main Conclusions
1. Local Maori have'exercised customary fishing interests in the coastal marine environment off Matakana Island. This environment has been an important source of kaimoana.
Waitangi Tribunal Research 12 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report
2. The Tauranga County Council, and its successor, the Western Bay of Plenty District Council, () have used the old Bay of Plenty Dairy Association pipeline to transport untreated sewerage from Katikati to be discharged into the sea on the eastern. side of Matakana Island since 1980. Despite attempts to find a solution, this discharge continues today (December 1997). The sewerage discha,rge was approved by permits and consents issued under the Water and Soil-Conservation Act 1967 and the Resource Management Act 1991.
. 3. The discharge of untreated sewerage off Matakana Island has produced local contamination ofkaimoana and adversely affected the customary and piscary interests of local Matakana Island
IWI.
4. Protest by Matakana Island iwi against,the sewerage outfall:has ;been-.intense since 1988. Before this time, opposition against the sewerage -outfall.came largely 'from the Waihi Beach community.
5 . .It seems that this issue has become.a 'no~win situation' with both sides locked in an . atmosphere of confrontation. The author recommends that the Waitangi Tribunal provides a venue for mediation to ensure a satisfactory resolution to this issue.
Waitangi Tribunal Research 13 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report
o /' , .0 : / )\: (0 o . -?> Karewa Island .. /' ".I-
0 IOkm I I I I I I I I , I 0 6miles
,Skm, NOTES: 3miles' 8 - Maximum distance, 1000 metres radius. of faecal coliform bacteria j contamination: Amended statement of ievidence. Dr Larcombe. Kaikati Water Right Hearing 1977. (~:::::::::::) - Visitation impact of effluent between I. 2. 4 and 8 hours. Source: Beca-Steven. Water Right Study 1991.
Figure 1.1 Katikati Sewerage Pipeline and the Matakana Island Outfall, R McClean, 1998.
Waitangi Tribunal Research 14 RA. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report n
.' . Wai215.is the master Wai number allocated to the consolidated inquiry into Tauranga claims. A number of the claims grouped for inquiry with Wai 215 explicitly refer to issues of piscary rights, fisheries, .. and sewerage disposal in Tauranga Moana.2 A summary -of these claims is as follows:
.1.1 CLAIMS .CONCERNING SEWERAGEDISCHARGEANnl~ISCARY RIGHTS
Wai 47 N gati Pukenga Land Claim
William Dhia (deceased), on behalf of Ngati Pukenga, claims that the Crown has.failed to protect their usage, control and management of the Tauianga Harbour and the "use, control and ?) t management of their shell and other fisheries within the Tauranga Harbour." Also:
The failure of the Crown contrary to Article II of the Treaty to protect the claimant iwi and hapu in the use, control' and management of their coastal fisheries which extend along the shore line from Maketu Bar to Whangamata to a distance of 100 miles off shore at right angles from that
shore line.3 Wai 228 Matakana Island Claim
This claim was lodged by Christine Taiawa Kuka-McGlynn on behalf,. and as a member of, Ngai Te.Rangi.andNgatiRanginuiiwiinJ991,and.concems.loss of lands on MatakanaIsland. In 1994 the claimant filed an additional statement of claim stating the following:
2.Tauranga Moana' is refered to as the coastal environment of Tauranga Harbour, including all islands, foreshore, sea, and surrounding land. This report will only focus on claims against the Matakana Island sewerage discharge. More detailed analysis of wider fisheries, reclamations, and foreshore issues is currently being prepared by the author (McClean, R. Tauranga Moana: Fisheries, Reclamations, and Foreshores Report, Forthcoming).
3 Statement of Claim, Wai 47.
Waitangi Tribunal Research 15 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report
I, Taiawa Kuka, teacher and resident Df Paama CDurt, Matakana Island, Tauranga, fDr myself and the hapus DfMatakana and Rangiwaea Island, being respectively Ngai Tuwhiwhia, Ngati Tauaiti,
Ngai Tamawhariua, Wbanau-a-TauwhaD and Te Ngare and Dfwhich I am a member Df especially Tauaiti and Tuwhiwhia
dO' hereby CLAIM to' have been prejudicially affected in the PAST
and am likely to' be prejudicially affected in the FUTURE by A) the cDntinued unlawful discharge Dfuntreated raw sewerage intO' the Eastern CDastal Waters Dff Matakana Island. B) that for the past 17 years this pDsitiDnhas been allowed andcDntinuestol-be,allowed by the IDcal RegiDnal and CDuncil AuthDrities.
• that any future Grants Df a Permit to' Discharge cDntravenes the minimum standards .. required under the ResDurce Management Act 1991;
• and are incDnsistent with the terms and principles under SectiDn 2 Df the Treaty Df Waitangi Act 1975; and
• that the present discharge Df untreated sewerage via the Katikati Pipe-line to' the
Matakana Island Dutfall Df traditiDnal kai-mDana resDurces, cDntravenes Article 11 Df
. the InternatiDnal CDvenant Dn Health, SDcial and Cultural Rights Df the RDyal
CDmmissiDn fDr Human Rights.
THE TRIBUNAL is asked to' recDmmend that: • nO' further discharge take place forthwith; • that the RegiDnal and CDuncil Authorities cDncerned be advised-not to issue any further
Permits Dr Discharge Rights allDwingthepresentsituatiDnonMatakana Island to' cDntinue;
• that an independent researcher be cDmmissiDned to' repDrt Dn this claim; and
• that I he advised as to' legal representatiDnin this matter.4
This claim is the primary focus of this report and has stimulated investigation by the Waitangi Tribunal into the Matakana Island sewerage outfall.
4 Statement Df Claim, Wai 228, 1.1 b.
Waitangi Tribunal Research 16 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report o Wai 540 Ngai Te Rangi Lands Claim
Ngai Te Rangi lands claim alleges that the Cro'wnhas breached the principles O,fthe Treaty O,f Waitangi when it acquired the bed o'fTauranga Harbo'ur and estuaries, and discharged sewerage
into' the harbour. AlsO,the'~claimantshavebeen denied full exercise of custo'mary andcommO,n·· Jaw rights and title to, land waters, fisheries and O,ther.tao'nga.of Tauranga. Harbo'ur,"and the "Crown has failed to, reco'gnise. the Kaitiakitanga o'verthe Tauranga Harbo'ur and Co'astal Islands."5
Wai 645 Tauranga Moana Maori Trust Board Act Claim
The claimants allege that the gO,vernmenthas failed to, reco'gnise Article II rights under the Treaty O,fWaitangi (which included fisheries) and the Trust Bo'ard seeks "go'vernance O,fthe Tauranga Harbo'ur, co'astai waters, fresh water-ways,maunga ko'rero, nga ngahere and o'ther tao'nga which are O,f cultural, spiritual and histo'rical significance to, Mao'ri."6 ()
1.2 Main Issues
The practiceo'f discharging human wastesintoNew Zealand's coastline and ,waters has been a significant issue in reiatio'n to, the Treaty relationship between Maori :andtheCrO,wn and in claims brought befo're the Waitangi TribUnal. Between 1978 and 1988 a series O,f claims, . described by Pro'fesso'r Oliver as the 'planning claims,'7 .dealtspecify with the adverse affects of sewerage disPo'sal. Therelevant repO,rts from these claimsinclude: Kaituna (Wai4), Motunui
5 Statement of Claims, Wai 540, l.la.
6 Statement of Claim, Wai 645.
7 W. H Oliver, Claims to the Waitangi Tribunal, Wellington, Department of Justice, 1991, p 18.
Waitangi Tribunal Research 17 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report
(Wai 6), Manukau (Wai 8), and Mangonui Sewerage (Wai 17).8 The Tribunal's reports on these claims, in general, found there was an urgent need for legislative change concerning planning law
and sewerage disposal to ensure the protection of Maori interests in the environment.9 For example the Motunui-Waitara Report found:
That there are· insufficient planning requirements to provide an adequate assurance that the river and reefs will not be further polluted as a result of further development and growth in the area and that in any event insufficient recognition is given to the Maori interest in the coastal and inland waters to ensure theprotectionofthat,interestin existing mechanisms for planning and
control and in .legislation, governing the use of the seafood resource. 10
The Kaituna Report also recommended:
That the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 and related legislation be amended to enable . RegionaLWater,Boards and the Planning Tribunal to properly take into account Maori spiritual and cultural values when considering applications for grant of water rights, the renewal thereof
or objections to such applications. I I
And in the'Manakau Report, it found that planning and resource management law should
~'include the consideration of the relationship of the Maori people, their values, culture and traditions to any lands, waters· or resources, and the protection of Maori lands and fishing ",··grounds."12 The' MangonuiReport, .meanwhile,' ,did, not include any specific recommendations and decided that the Treaty ofWaitangi.required,abalanced,approach:
It was a condition of the Treaty that the Maori possession of lands and fisheries would be
8 The Motunui-Waitara Report (1983) dealt with pollution ofTe Atiawa fishing grounds at Waitara from , sewerage outfalls, The Kaituna report (1984) investigated the proposal to discharge waste water into the Kaituna River. The Manukau Report (1985) included issues of environmental decay of Manakau Harbour, and the Mangonui Sewerage Report (1988) examined aspects of the Managonui sewerage project.
9 Manukau Report, 1985, p 86.
10 Motunui-Waitara Report, 1983, pI.
11 Kaituna Report, 1984, p 33. ) 12 Ibid, P 97.
WaUangi Tribunal Research 18 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report
guaranteed. The guarantee requires a high priority for Maori interests when works impact on Maori lands or particular fisheries for their guarantee was a very small price to pay for the rights of sovereignty and settlement that Maori conferred. In other cases, however, it is a careful balancing of interests that is required. It was inherent in the Treaty's terms that Maori customary values would be properly respected, but it was also the objective of the Treaty to secure a British settlement and a place where two people could fully belong. To achieve that end the needs of both
cultures must be provided for and, where necessary,. reconciled. 13
In the context of the Mangonui issue, this approach required balancing Maori opposition with the need for sewerage disposal. 14 Sewerage works were found to "impose unavoidable costs fmancial and cultural, on all members of the community,on thegeneral'populace as well as the local tribe." But the need for the public work meant that "an absolute priority for Maori cannot be upheld," and that Maori interests needed to be weighed or balanced with other relevant factors including "the needs and financial limitations of other affected citizens."15
These Waitangi Tribunal reports, which highlighted the failure of planning laws to incorporate Maori interests, influenced the development of the Resource Management Act 1991 and provisions in that Act to provide for Maori (as will be discussed).
This report is concerned with a sewerage scheme that was developed in the 1980s. The outfall, also, continues to be approved under the Resource Management Act, Insummary the main issues identified in this claim are:
I3 Mangonui Report. 1988, p 60. 14 Unlike the Matakana Sewerage issue, the Mangonui project did not involve a sea outfall but a land based, wetland disposal system at Te Moho Creek. The claim was focused against the proposal to build treatment ponds on ancestral lands.
15 Mangonui Report, 1988, p 60-61.
Waitangi Tribunal Research 19 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report
()
1.3 METHODOLOGY
This report has been written from the perspective of an 'outsider. 'The author is not a resident of
; Tauranga and has only had limited access to 'oral 'local' knowledge. 16 Henceforth, this report is largely.based on written and documented sources of information. It is hoped that this perspective will complement evidence presented by claimants and others during the Tauranga hearings. Information sources include:
Reports held in Wai 215 ROD, Waitangi Tribunal; Department of Health and Treasury files at National Archives; Files and reports held by Western Bay of Plenty District Council; Files and reports held by Bay of Plenty Regional Council; Files held by the Department of Conservation and. the Ministry for 'Environment; Newspapers, especially the Katikati Advertiser, Bay of Plenty Times and Waihi Gazette; and Other secondary sources (Plans, Policy Documents, Books, etc).
It,is hoped thaHhisreport will help facilitate successful resolution of the Tauranga sewerage and .. fisheries claims and contribute towards the creation of a sewerage disposal plan that gives practical effect to the principles of the Treaty ofWaitangi.
16 Valuable discussions were held with Andy Bruere (BOPRC), Graeme Jelly (WBOPDC), Christine ) Taiawa Kuka, and Hauata Palmer.
Waitangi Tribunal Research 20 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report
()
This. chapter explores the nature of Maori customary use. and piscary interests jn the Matakana. .': Island coastal environment. It includesadiscussionOlrhistorical occupation ofMatakana Island .within the context of Tauranga Moana andthe.:archaeologicaLenvironment.
2.1 MAORI SETTLEMENT OF MATAKANA ISLAND
Matakana Island is a distinctive1ow-Iying island positioned within the Tauranga Harbour in the
Bay of Plenty. 17 The island comprises some 6,000 hectares divided into two geographic parts: a stretch of Holocene sand-dunes 24 kilometres long planted with pinus radiata (Matakana Barrier); and a smaller 1,700 hectare area of older Pleistocene sedimentary deposits (Matakana Core). Matakana: Coreisused by.residents foragricultureandhorticulture.With-landuse being . forestry and farming, the island is characterised by low population densities in comparison with the surrounding main land. The two main settlements areOpureora and the Mill site at Hunters Creek; Matakana Barrieris averydynamic.environment:andhas only..formedin the last 6000 years BP .
. MatakanaIslandis part ofTauranga Moanaand Tauranga Harbour: The boundaries of the .harbo:urare difficult todefine.. and are subjective}8 It seems that most definitions. place:Matakana
I The seaward limits of Tauranga Harbour were defined in 1868 under the Marine Act 1867 as ' a circle of one and a halfnautic mile in radius from the centre of Mount Maunganui,' NZG, 1868, P 549.
18 The author has argued elsewhere that the term 'harbour' is highly subjective and connected with European traditions of survey and colonialism. Generally harbours were defmed as such for the purposes and needs of colonial maritime objectives. The reproduction of the seascape (labelled as a harbour) by maritime survey tended to ignore Maori use and occupation of the sea area. See McClean, R. Te Whanganui-a-Tara Foreshores Reclamations Report, 1997, Wai 145.
Waitangi Tribunal Research 21 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report
19 () Island as the eastern boundary of Tauranga Harbour. Meanwhile the old Tauranga Harbour water classification scheme included the eastern coastline ofMatakana Island within the harbour area.20 For the purposes of this report, the author positions the whole of Matakana Island within Tauranga Moana and argues that discussion of Maori interests off Matakana Island must be situated.inthewider.context ofownership and piscary interests .within Tauranga Moana.
Without including Matakana Island, and as defined below the mean high water mark, Tauranga Harbour is a large estuarine inlet of some 218 square km.Most of the harbour is shallow or . intertidaLThe southern part ofthe.harbour;has.beendev:elopedoforporrfacilities and supports the City of Tauranga with a population ofov,er 67;000;. Katikati isa;smalhownlocated near the .western shore of the harbour and had a population of 2,334 in 1991. Tauranga. Moana has experienced very. high population growth rates since the. 1950s with Katikati having a current projected population growth rate to the year 2016 of34%.21
Recorded archaeological evidence suggests that Tauranga Moana was one of the most densely o settled areas of New Zealand prior to European arrival. Over 4,000 archaeological sites are recorded in the area (see figure 2.1). These sites .include: pa, urupa, kainga (undefended
settlements)~ kumara pits,gardens,and middens (refuse pits) .. Of these sites, over 50% are shell middens, reflecting the· significance of kaimoanaas a food source.22 The Department of Conservation. comments:
Traditionally, Tauranga Harbour was as significant asthe.neighhouring land.toi;ti1(; Maori. It was a means of access and communication as well as an important source of food. The strong historic and continuing relationship of the Maori community with wetlands and the sea requires the
19 McIntosh, J (ed) Tauranga Harbour Regional Plan; Water Sediment Quality of Tauranga Harbour, Environment BOP, 1994, Wai 215, A25. 20 Pollution Advisory Council, Tauranga Harbour, Water Classification, June 1964, 161140/1, BOPRC. 21Between 1981 and 1991, the population of Katikati experienced a 32% increase, from 1,683 to 2,234. 22 Revised Conservation Management Strategy for Bay ofPlenty, Department of Conservation, 1994, p 42.
Waitangi Tribunal Research 22 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report
maintenance of the highest possible water quality and kaimoana resourceS.23 ()
BAY OF PLENTY
() -
Figure 2.1 Distribution of Pre-European Contact Archaeologi~al Sites in the Bay of Plenty Conservancy, Source, Revised Conservation Management Strategy for Bay ofPlenty, Department of Conservation, 1994.
23 Ibid.
Waitangi Tribunal Research 23 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report
Matakana Island first experienced human settlement around 600 years BP. At this time the () Matakana Barrier was around 85% of its present length. Human arrival brought modification and
much of the original forest was cleared for garde~ng and other uses. Dr Sutton of Auckland University stated, in an interim report, that Matakana Barrier contained "literally thousands of .pre-European and historic archaeologica1sites."These sites were mostly "large'ofien stratified shell-heaps containingsofi off-shore shellfish species in large quantities."24 However, archaeological sites along MatakanaBarrier are largely found underneath migrating (parabolic) dunes. These buried remains have been protected from recent forestry operations. A recent geological. andarchaeologica1 survey ofMlltakana"Island'found'Ifuattttileiparabolic dunes are
,important for archaeology. because some ·ofthose.that;became,active, after~Maori settlement and before forestry began have buried and protected archaeological sites from damage by forestry
operations. "25 An example of these buried sites is shown in figure 2.2.
7m poorly formed top soil
buried topsoil
==-=~;:;~:;-:.' -_.------.~~beaCh sand .wi!h heavY mineral seams· ~-=
'.
~~~----__ ------80m------~.
Figure 2.2 Stratigraphy of Dunes Exposed in an Estuarine Cliff adjacent to Hunters Creek. Garden soil on relict foreshore sand is overlain by three layers of dune sand ·associated with parabolic. dune advances. The parabolic dune sand layers are separated by buried soils. A shell midden is also present under the parabolic dunes. Source, M.Shephard, and others,1997, p 42.
24 Dr D.G. Sutton, Technical Report on the Archaeological Landscape of Matakana Island, Auckland University. 25 M.Shepherd, B.McFadgen, H.Bretts, D.Sutton, Formation, landforms and palaeoenvironment of Matakana Island and implications/or archaeology, Wellington, Department of Conservation, 1997, p 64.
Waitangi Tribunal Research 24 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report
() Most of these archaeological sites underneath or exposed on the Matakana Barrier are shell middens. Despite being mostly hidden underneath the sand-dunes, these middens suggest that the Matakana Island foreshore has been an important source of kaimoana for generations.
,""J.'- Four main ,hapuare representedon.Matakana,. Rangiwaea, and Motuhoa4sland: Ngatitauaitu, Ngaitauwhao, Ngaituwhiwhia and Ngaitamawhariua. From evidence presented to: various Katikati wastewater working parties and consent hearings,.the Matakana Island foreshore is a . significant source of seafood, and customary .piscaryrights. had been continually exercised until the arrival ofthe sewerage outfall. F or example, ·Hauata;Palmer stated:in'a1994 submission to ahearings committee dealing' withconsents'regarding'the'Matakaria,Island'discharge:
From the time of our ancestors there has been a reliance on the sea as an important food source.
Indeed the reputation of coastal iwi~has always been determined by the quality of food offered tovisitorson.specialoccasions. In our case visitors from inland would expect, and receive, the fmest mataitai. Similarly we would be given the best of food from their environmental larder...
The Tauranga Harbour and the open coast contain the finest mataitai in the form of kokota, kahitua, tuangi, karehu (or titiko), pupu, ureroa, tupa and other species all prized as delicacies to the Maori. Some fish species still remain of what was once a well balanced environment. These include tamure, kanae, parore, pioke, patiki and kahawaj,26
. The claimants will provide further evidence.of'customary.interests in Tauranga Moana during the Tauranga Claim hearings.
Maori dependence onseafood from Tauranga Moana, especially from the foreshore ofMatakana Island, intensified with European arrival and settlement. This settlement was heralded by the
land wars of the 1860s, fighting at Gate Pa and Te Ranga, andconfiscation.27 While further research on the foreshore boundary of the confiscation is required, it seems Matakana Island may
26 Submission on behalf of tangata whenua to Special Joint Hearings Committee, 10 June 1994.
27 See, Evelyn Stokes, Te Raupatu 0 Tauranga Moana, 1990.
Waitangi Tribunal Research 25 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report
not have been included in the confiscation order under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863.28 Matakana Island was significant in ensuring Ngaiterangi had continued access to the entire Tauranga Moana coastal marine area and continued customary usage of the harbour and seas. In the late 1860s some 7919 acres ofthe island were purchased by Whitaker, Russell and Daldy from local MaorU<.l These purchases meant that the barrier part of the island was alienated and Tauranga Maori were left with the core area. After confiscation of the surrounding mainland, Matakana Island "received an influx of people who moved from the Otumoetai area."30
.Sinceconfiscation.and European settlement around Taurangaharbour, Matakana and Rangiwaea Islands have served as a haven and refugee'for,someTaurangaMaori.AsBtokes says, they have been regarded as 'Maori Islands 'which had little contact with the pakeha world until the 1950s.31
It is ironic that so close to one of the most rapidly-growing urban areas in New Zealand there should be a rural area that feels so isolated. The physical distance may not be great but the
psychological and social distance between communities in such situations is considerable.32
This social distance between Matakana Island and the mainland has also been reinforced by planning policy of the old Tauranga County Council, which aimed to "preserve the rural Maori identity of the islands and prevent indiscriminate development for vacation homes or other tourist facilitates."33
The division between Matakana (as a Maori space) and the mainland{asalarge!y Pakeha space) is Tauranga Harbour. This is the heart of the Matakana Island outfall issue and objections to
28 McClean. R, Tauranga Moana, Te Awanui, Wai 215, Forthcoming.
29 For a fuller discussion on these sales, see Suzanne Woodley, Matakana Island, p 14. 30 Evelyn Stokes, Matakana and Rangiwaea, University of Waikato, Occasional Paper No.1 0, p 40. 'I ~ Evelyn Stokes, Matakana and Rangiwaea, p 40-42.
32 Evelyn Stokes, A History ofTauranga County, p 423. 33 Evelyn Stokes, Tauranga Moana; The Impact of Urban Growth, 1980, Wai 215, A15, p 45.
Waitangi Tribunal Research 26 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report plans by Chris Wingate to build a huge lifestyle township on the island.34 The tangata whenua want to remain in control of their own destiny and the management of the island.
2.2 RECORD OF PROTEST; CUSTOMARY PISCARY INTERESTS WITHIN
TAURANGA MOANA35
While most of the land within Tauranga Moanawas confiscated or alienated in some other way, Tauranga Maori believed that the seas remained under the customary use and ownership of the various tribes. This was well-stated. by the Ngati Te Rangichief, HoriNgatai,in a speech to the Minister of Lands, John Ballace, during 1883 .. Ngataistatedthat the land below the high water mark had never been alienated and was under the customary use of the various tribes:
Now, with regard to the land below the high water mark immediately in front of where I live, I consider that is part and parcel of my own land ... part of my own garden. From time immemorial I have had this land and had authority over all the food in the sea. Te Maere was a fishing ground of mine. Onake, that is a place from which I have from time immemorial obtained pip is. Te Rona is another pipi bed. Te Karaka is another place. I have now speakingofthe fishing grounds inside the Tauranga Harbour. My mana over these places has never been taken away. I have always held authority over these places and preserved them; and no tribe is allowed to come here and fish without my consent being given. But now, in consequence of the word of the Europeans that all land below the high water mark belongs to the Queen, people have trampled upon our ancient Maori customs and are constantly comingto fish whenever they like to fish. 1 askthat our Maori custom should not be set aside in this manner,and that our authority over these. fishing grounds should be upheld. The whole of this inland sea has been divided by our ancestors and each portion belongs to a proper owner, and the whole of the rights within the Tauranga Harbour have been apportioned among our own different people; and so with the fishing grounds outside the heads: those are only small spots. I am speaking of the fishing grounds where hapuku and tarakihi
34 Rotorua entrepreneur, Chris Wingate, has been trying to gain ownership of Matakana Island forestry lands. Mr Wingate plans to build a huge lifestyle township on the island comprising of 16,000 building sites and a golf course; National Business Review, 9 April 1997.
35 This section will provide a very brief historical overview. Further information is forthcoming in a Tauranga Moana Fisheries, Reclamations, and Foreshores Report to be commissioned by the Tribunal and authored by Robert McClean.
Waitangi Tribunal Research 27 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report C) are caught. Those grounds have been handed down to us by our ancestors .... 36
With increasing European settlement around Tautanga Harbour after 1880, effluent disposal began to create problems. In 1902 the Chief Medical Officer reported that there "has been a good . deal of.neglectasregardsthe sanitary arrangements" in Tauranga.37 It is unclear when these
~sanitaryarrangements' began to affect Maori fishing interests. During the 1920s the sewerage problem focused on the main septic tank at Railway Wharf. This tank received all sewerage from central Tauranga and discharged directly into Tauranga Harbour. The Bay of Plenty Times
recorded many complaints about the smeHo:fthe.'harbour~caused~h¥.~this··discharge;38As a result
of these complaints, the Tauranga BoroughCo.unciLprepared aplan::to:fully~reticulate the central city area and pump the effluent into the Waikareao Estuary; This idea was opposed by a petition of 150 Tauranga Maori to Sir Maui Pomare (Minister of Health). The petition stated a number of concerns including:
• current septic tank at the Railway Wharf does not function properly, it is unacceptable and pollutes the harbour; • plans by the Tauranga Borough Council will transfer pollution to the Waikareao Estuary; • Maori will be deprived ofpi pi beds which they have exercised from time immemorial; and • .pipi beds will be lost and disease and fever will be rampant. 39
After an investigation by the Medical 0fficerofHealth,these;.eoncemswere rejected. The Officer stated that the vast majority of the signatories to the petition were unaffected by the proposal as they did not live near the outfall site and that "objections will always be raised by
36 AJHR, 1885, G-1, P 60-61. 37 Report of District Health Officer, Department of Public Health, AJHR, H-31, P 37. 38 'Complaints about Smell of Harbour' 16 December 1927, Bay of Plenty Times. ) 39 Tauranga Sewerage and Disposal, HI 32/30137, NA.
Waitangi Tribunal Research 28 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report o someone. "40 Despite the plans, the septic tank continued in operation until the mid-1960s.
After 1960 Maori action to protect fishing rights foeused on the water classification regime and the Welcome Bay (Rangataua Estuary) sewerage proposals. The water classification regime will , .be discussedinthe.nextchapter; XheWe1come Bay sewerage issuewas a long running dispute involving the proposal to discharge treated effluent from Mount Maunganui' s seweragetreatment ponds at Te.Maunga. Maori around Tauranga were immediately opposed to the plan. A petition organised by the TaurangaMaoriExecutive Council which was signed,byJ48 persons, stated:
We object most strongly to the intention of the Borough Councilfora:numbeinfreasons. Firstly, the estuary from the Maungatapu causeway south is largely dry for a great part of the day,[which] together with the extensive mudflats, will restrict the dispersal of any effluent discharged into it.;The poUutionof tbetraditional source;of shellfISh .obtainable from .this sector ofthe harbour, and of numerous swimming spots used extensively by members of the public for a large part of the year...In view of the important part the common titiko played in our way .oflife, in the past and t.o the present day, we feel strongly for the preservation .of .our pe.oples rights by heritage t.o
this seafo.od available to us from this area.41
The petition concluded by stating that an ocean outfall would be acceptable:
1 c.onsider the whole questi.on of sewage .outfall should be considered further, that a .ocean .outfall be constructed t.o meet the needs of this: quickly expanding industrial-residential complex, thus
retaining for Welcome Bay the pleasure. and beauty in its name.42
Opposition by Maori to the Welcome Bay sewerage outfall was also recorded in the Bay of Plenty Times. For example,"the Chairman of the Tauranga District Maori Council was quoted as saying:
40 Medical Officer ofHealthlDirector General Health, 21 December 1928, Ibid; see expanded commentary .on this issue in Byrnes, G. A Preliminary Report on the Use, Control, and Management ofthe Tauranga Harbour, Wai 215, A36, P 50. 41 Petition .of Tauranga Maori, 1969-70? AAFB, W4452, B.oX 639, NA. ) 42 Ibid.
Waitangi Tribunal Research 29 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report
() No engineers are prepared to guarantee that shellfish in this section of the harbour will not be affected and made inedible if the effluent is discharged ... regardless of the quality of the effluent. We do not say that shellfish will be ruined overnight but we are most perturbed that damage
might occur over a long period.43
. Despite Maori opposition, the Regional Water Board granted the Mount Maunganui Borough Council permission to discharge treated,waste from oxidation ponds into Tauranga Harbour at . Welcome Bay., This right was granted on a temporary basis, on the understanding that a sea . ; outfall would be installed. Some Tauranga Maori appeared before WhilefueMollNtMaunganui Borough Council decided to 'build an ocean outfall,-theWelcome . Bay sewerage-issue was re-ignited in 1976 with a proposal by the Housing Corporation to discharge sewage effluent from a package treatment plant from 15 state houses. The Housing Corporation gained a water right from the Regional Water Board and again Maori objected. This time, Maori brought the issue before the Waitangi Tribunal as a claim (Wai 3). The Tauranga Executive of Maori Committees also attempted to get Rangataua and Welcome Bay declared as an Historic Reserve. As a result of these objections, the Housing Corporation changed its plans and negotiated with the City Council to join the Mt Maunganui sewerage reticulation scheme. On 10 August 1977 the claimant' s counsehwrote~tothe Tribunal asking to withdraw the claim.45 The water quality of Tauranga harbour has deteriorated since the 1920s. This decreasing water quality trend has only recently shown signs of improvement. 46 Generally, itis acknowledged that •• the larger shellfish such as tuatua and pipiare to be found on the ocean beach side of Matakana 43 'Maori body may Object' 7 July 1973, Bay of Plenty Times. 44 Revington/Russell, 31 July 1975, 16/140/1, BOPRC. 45 Proposed Sewerage Scheme at Rangitaua, Tauranga, Wai 3, Waitangi Tribunal. 46 Environment BOP, Water and Sediment Quality ofTauranga Harbour, 1994, Wai 214, A25. Waitangi Tribunal Research 30 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report .., C) Island, while, smaller shellfish and marine life are found in the shallow waters of the harbour.47 It is the author's opinion that the kaimoana on the eastern shore of Matakana Island became even more important for Maori as the water quality of the harbour declined. Before the arrival of the sewerage pipeline, the Matakana Island kaimoana was in pristine condition. 47 Hansen, N.G, 'Matakana Island' Journal of the Tauranga Historical Society, August 1979, No. 63, P 38. Neil Hansen also notes that Toheroa were reintroduced to Ocean Beach by Ross Faulkner and Ken Fraser in l 1961 after Ross Faulkner recognised toheroa middens 400 metres inland. Waitangi Tribunal Research 31 R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Ouifall Report This chapter gives a brief overview of the legal sewerage disposal management regime between 1950 and 1997. It is within this context, that the Matakana Island sewerage outfall was approved and continues to operate. The author will, in particular, focus on the Tauranga Harbour water classification scheme and the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991. 3.1 EARLY REGULATION Before 1953, waste discharge into water was controlled by the various Harbours Acts (after 1878) and the Health Act 1920. Under section 236 of the Harbours Act 1923, the Harbour Board had powers to fine persons who deposited substances into the sea which tended to the injury of navigation. This legislation was described in 1933 as ineffective to control waste discharge as the Harbour Board had to prove that navigational injury had been caused.48 The Health Act 1920, meanwhile, enabled the Board of Health to require any local authority to install drainage works so as to maintain the waters of a harbour in a 'state of reasonable purity.' Some responsibility for water pollution shifted to the Marine Department in 1953 with the passing of the Water Pollution Act. This Act setup the Pollution Advisory Gouncil which was serviced by the Marine Department. The Pollution AdvisoryCouncil was charged with making recommendations on methods to control water pollution. The functions of the Pollution Advisory Council expanded under the authority of the Water Pollution Regulations 1963. These regulations gave the Pollution Advisory Council the power to classify waters and require all users of those waters to comply with permits issued by the Counci1.49 48 Harbours Amendment Bill, 1933, HI 126, NA. 49 Michael Roche, Land and Water, Water and Soil Conservation and Central Government in New Zealand, 1941-1988, Wellington, Internal Affairs, 1990, p 120. 32 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report .. The water classification management scheme aimed to control water use by zoning. As under o the Town and Country Planning Act 1953, where land could be divided into land-use zones in district schemes, the water classification scheme .also aimed to divide the sea and rivers into water-use zones using a water classification plan. In saline water, five main zones were proposed: SA,SB, SC, SD, SE. It was envisaged that the SA zone would.containthehighest water quality standard. and provide for shellfish beds. SE, meanwhile, was the 10west water quality standard containing ocean waters remote from general public use. Michael Roche provides a good summary of the water. classification scheme as it was incorporated into the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967. - .- Treatment Requirements for Water Predominant Use Envisaged Effluent Dlscharaes Into Waler Fresh Water A Controlled water supply catchment No d"lSCharges penniHed B General water supply services Complete biological treatment plus dilution control C Primal)' contact recreation High standard complete biological treatment (bathing, ski·ing) plus bacterial removal 0 General recreation, agriculture and Complet, biological treatment or partial general industrial water supplies treatment and dilution control X Supplementary Class applied to B & 0 Treatment requirement may include higher above where such waters considered standard than those above plus nutrient " to be sensitive to enrichment removal ~lIneWater i Shellfish beds Generally treatment standard too high to allow I lSA : economical direct discharge; high' standard : treatment SB . Primarycontacl recreation (bathing, . •,High standard compIetebioiogical.lreatmenl surfing) . .? :pIus~bacleriatremovalor dilulionconlrol ' .' '. SC Harbours, enckised bays, estuaries'" .:ConI~lebiQlogicallreatment.anchlilulion ... 'control SO Open coastal general.recreatiQO,and Biological trealmentoriparlial,treatment.and < fishing dilution control SE Ocean areas remote from general Disintegration only of wastewater soIi~s PUblic use X· Supplementary Class applied 10 SA to As for fresh waler above - SC'above where such waters considered sensitive to enrichment ... -.. ... Water Classification 1971. Source, Michael Roche, Land and Water, p 127 ) 33 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report Tauranga Harbour was one ofthe earliest water bodies to be classified by the Pollution Advisory Council under the 1963 Water Pollution Regulations. The final classification was produced in June 1964 (figure 3.1). Generally the whole harboU! was classified as SC (harbour waters) with 21 small areas classified as SA. The eastern foreshore of Matakana Island was marked as SD (basic quality waters). _,-- I .....-~ ~.~·-·--lClassSA---- watczrs (S~?_::71 _./ SD! Class SBwaters (Bathing w(j1C.r~ I. I ' ; Class SCwaters (Harbour waters) ...... :. i Closs SD waters {Basic ~uolity watt I I .- POLLUTION AOVIS0R\ . COUNCIL -'>:. \.::::'::-~:':':-~:':: :~. T~URAr-Ju~ HAR60UR .. ..,.. -.:.>: :>-"::-':'.' . F"lN'\L ...... CL~~SIFlC.\TI0N J • ,. ~Jt.tN£ ~~;9'6D '~~':"~:~ . ~ i:' , ..; , Figure 3.1 Final Classification, Tauranga Harbour, Pollution Advisory Council, June 1964. 34 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report 3.2 WATER AND SOIL CONSERVATION ACT 1967 A summary of this Act is included in the appendix, section E. This Act was New Zealand's first comprehensive law relating to management of water. The Act aimed to provide for the multiple uses of water by promoting: A national policy in respect of natural water, and to~make better provisionJortheconservation, allocation, use, and quality of natural water,. and for promoting soil conservation ,and preventing damage by flood and erosion, and for promoting and controlling multiple uses of natural water and the drainage of land, and for ensuringthat adequate account is taken of the needs of primary and secondary industry, [community water supplies, all forms of water-based recreation, fisheries, and wildlife habitats, and ofthe preservation and protection of the wild, scenic, and other natural characteristics of rivers, streams, and lakes]. 50 While it was clearly understood that permission to take water was to be administered by the new Regional Water Boards, rights concerning discharge were less clear. It seemed that the Regional Water Board had a general authorisation under section 21 to control discharges "subject to a permit from the Pollution Advisory Council."51 The reporting and inspecting agency of this Pollution Advisory Council (which was renamed the Water Pollution Control Council) was the Health Department, and the Water and Soil GonservationAct itselfwas'administered by the Ministry of Works. In essence, the regime for the control of discharges under the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 involved: Water Pollution Control Council, which classified waters and granted permits for discharges 50 Long Title, Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967. 51 Bay of Plenty Catchment Commission Memo; Control of Pollution, March 1970. AAFB W4452, No. 65756 Box 639, NA Wellington. 35 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report ... in classified areas. Regional Water Board, which received all applications for discharges and made a recommendation to the· Water Pollution Council regarding classified waters. In the case of .. unclassifiedwaters, the .Medical Officer ofHealth would be consulted but the Regional Water Board issued the permit. Health. Department, which made inspections of pollution concerns and gave advice to the Regional Water Boards andWater Pollution Control Gouncil. Ministry of Works, which administered the Water and Soil Conservation Act and gave advice on applications to the Local Authority Loans Board in regard to sewerage reticulation works. Further changes came in 1971 with amendments to the Water and Soil Conservation Act. These amendments gave the Regional Water Boards more responsibility in regard to regulation of waste ,-) \.,j discharges. The Water Pollution Control Council was abolished and replaced by the Water . Resources Council. This Council later became part of the National Water and Soil Authority. Permits for discharges into classified waters could now be granted by the Regional Water Board after receiving the prior consent of the Water Resources Council. The Water Pollution Regulations of 1963. were also repealed. and anyexisting.permits issued under those regulations became rights under the Water and Soil Conservation Act. In summary, the process for obtaining permission to discharge. into coastal waters involved: L An application was made to the Regional Water Board. for a right to discharge waste. Regulations required this application to include a full description of works, quality of waste to be discharged, locality and site plan. 2. The application was advertised in the press and 28 days was allowed for objections to be lodged. If there was no circulating newspaper in the area concerned, notice was to be printed on 36 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report placards and placed in one or more public places. 3. The Regional Water Board could refer the application to its Standing Tribunal or a Special Tribunal. Both the applicant and any objectors were heard at a hearing and the Tribunal made a recommendation and report to the Regional Water Board which issued a decision. In classified waters, a recommendation was forwarded to the Water Resources Council unless prior consent was obtained from the Water Resources Counci1.. 4. The decision was publicly notified and conditions could be- imposed-to require that the receiving waters continued to meet their original classification standards. 5. The applicant or any objector had 28 days to lodge an appeal to the Planning Tribunal. During the early 1980s there was some attempt to recognise Maori interests with an amendment of the Water and Soil Conservation Act. This amendment provided for the appointment of a person to the National Water and Soil Authority to represent Maori interests. As indicated in chapter one, the Water and Soil Conservation Act was regarded as failing to provide for Maori interests concerning water management. The Waitangi Tribunal described it as "monocultural legislation" in the Manukau Report, with Maori interests treate~ as an aspect of the "general public interest."52 The water classification scheme, asa system of managing water, was also thought to be unworkable and "fraught with difficulties." However, "the SA classification of waters could be used to provide a measure of recognition for the de facto existence of Maori fishing grounds. "53 -? )- Manukau Report, p 86 and 97. 53 Motunui-Waitara Report, p 33. 37 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report 3.3 TAURANGA HARBOUR WATER CLASSIFICATION 1971-1975 In 1971, the Water Pollution Control Council attempted to reclassify Tauranga Harbour. After the final classification was released in 1972, most of the harbour was changed from an SC class to an SA. 54 This meant that SA waters in the Tauranga Harbour had to be protected from: (a) toxic substances, altered acidity, any rise in temperature caused by a discharge; (b) fouling of fishing grounds; (c) coliform bacteria which exceeded 50 per 100 millilitres; (d) discolouration and offensive smells; and (e) discharges containing suspended solids, grease, and oil.55 This SA class also included the waters along the western shoreline of Matakana Island to a distance of 200 yards from the low water mark. This classification was implemented on the advice of the Department of Health and their recognition of shellfish beds along the eastern Matakana Island foreshore. 56 The implication of this new classification was that discharges into the SA waters around Katikati would not be permitted. 54 Final Classification Tauranga, Water Pollution Control Council, March 1972. 19/41122, BOPRC. 55 Preliminary Classification, Tauranga County Council, June 1971, Pllll, WBOPDC. 56 Medical Officer of Health to Director-General, 22 March 1971, AAFB W4452 Box 637, NA Wellington 38 Waitangi Tribunal Research ~--- BAY OF PLENTY .1 '-,- - \ \ I } I { I I \ 1 J - I / I.TE PUI{E ( /. WATER POLLUTION "cONTROL COUNCIL j . \ . \ \~I 'FIN~L CLASSI.FI~fTION - .\_.\ /. TAURANGA ~ / ~\A R CH. 197~ eOUND.RV. OF CL4~SIFlEO ARe. -'\.. CLASS B@'CLASS SAt ""~""": Figure 3.2 Final Classification, March 1972, Water Pollution Control Council In 1973, before appeals could be heard and changes made, the Water Pollution Control Council was abolished and replaced with the Water Resources Control Council. This Council decided to prepare a new classification and released a preliminary classification in July 1973. This classification reduced the Katikati waters from SA to SC. Mr D.R Hume (the Chairman of the Katikati County Council and past director of the Bay of Plenty Co-operative Dairy Association) 39 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report thought this classification "would make it possible to discharge effluent treated to a relatively high level of purity into the harbour" and "appeared to be more rational and more reasonable."57 This lower classification was opposed by many Tatlranga Maori groups and organisations. The Tauranga District Maori Executive Committee wrote to the Water Resources Council in 1973 stating: This Executive Committee hereby objects to the preliminary classification especially in regard to the lowering of the standard for the central area of Welcome Bay and the Katikati area. The main ground for objecting is the possible harmful effect on shellfish and other marine life which form part of the staple diet of Maori people.cAlthoughthisletterwillreachyouafterthe last day for objecting I trust you will receive it to ensure that the Maori peoplewhom.this Executive Committee represent will have the opportunity to protect their heritage.58 The Chairman of the District Maori Committee, Mr W Ohia, was quoted in the Bay of Plenty Times: Of immediate concern was the lowering ofa large part of Welcome Bay and the upper Tauranga Harbour from class SA in the withdrawn classification to class SC in the new one. We (the committee) have set ourselves up as a watchdog to preserve the harbour for the future, he said. Our generation took over this asset to the district in good condition and we want to make sure that it is still good when we hand it on to the next generation. 59 The reduced classification was also rejected by Jack Wharekawa of the Katikati Maori Tribal -1 Committee who stated in the Katikati Advertiser that: The Maori people are anxious that the waters> ofthe harbour should become cleaner than they are at present, especially close to our marae,where many Maoris live; We are very concemed that the Te Rereatukahia River be made cleaner, so that our children may once again swim in the pools which used to be clear and deep, but now are filthy with mud and slime. We want to continue to be able to collect shellfish and other foods from the harbour.60 57 'Better water quality standards sought,' Bay of Plenty Times, 7 July 1973. 5Fsec. Tauranga District Maori Executive Committee/Sec. Water Resources Council, 7 September 1973, 16114011 BOPRe. 6°'Top -grade water area in harbour reduced,' Katikati Advertiser, July 1973. 40 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report Later in 1976 the Tauranga Executive of Maori Committees wrote to the Regional Water Board stating: The members of my Executive are very concerned with recent proposals to lower the classification standards of the waters of the TaurangaHarbour. The harbour has always represented a traditional food supply source for the Maori people, and any attempt to lower the water classification standards of the Harbour, will lead to a wider use of the harbour waters as an outlet for more sewage,.and the eventual desecration of the shell-fish beds, and breeding grounds of the many varieties of fish that inhabit the harbour. This executive have always opposed the use of the Harbour as an outlet for sewage, and any subsequent attempt to 10werthestahdards of its waters can only lead to more harbour pollution. 61 The Tauranga Combined Maori Womens Welfare League also passed an unanimous resolution at a meeting held at Te Puna in August 1976. The resolution, which was sent to the Bay of Plenty Catchment Commission, stated that "the Tauranga Combined Maori Womens Welfare Leagues object most strongly the reclassification of the Tauranga Harbour."62 The new classification, however, only lasted until 15 August 1975 when the Water Resources Cow1cil resolved to cancel the Tauranga Harbour classification and no further classification of the harbour waters under the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 took place.63 This meant the waters of Tauranga Harbour were not officially classified at all between 1975 ani-1991.64 61 Sec. Tauranga Executive of Maori Committees/Sec. Bay of Plenty Resources and Catchment Commission, 2 September 1976,16114011, BOPRC. 62sec. Tauranga Combined Maori Womens Welfare Leagues/Sec. Bay of Plenty Catchment Commission, 30 August 1976, 16/14011, BOPRC. 63 Urgent Telegram, Water Resources Council, Wellington, to Bay of Plenty Catchment Commission, Whakatane, 15 August 1975, 16/140/1, BOPRe. The author is not aware of any Marine Planning Scheme for Tauranga Harbour prepared under the 1978 Town and Country Planning Regulations. 64 The Bay of Plenty Regional Water Board did attempt to reclassify the harbour in 1976 using a Water Quality Plan. This plan set the water standard as SC for the entire harbour. This action was disputed by the Harbour Board who argued the Regional Water Board had no authority to set a classification regime. Generally, there was no 'official' classification of the harbour until the arrival of the Resource Management Act 1991. 41 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report Sewerage disposal in the coastal environment was also indirectly controlled by the Marine Department and the Tauranga Harbour Board. Both authorities administered the Harbours Act 1950. Parts of this Act applied to pipelines and structures to be erected in, over, or on any tidal area or harbour. Section 178 of the Act required plan approval and section 162 required a licence to be obtained from the Minister of Transport to occupy the area. The application for a proposed pipeline had to be accompanied by plans, local authority comments, environmental information and the consent of the landowner immediately behind the site. Large structures and projects required environmental impact reports. The Minister of Transport gave final approval. All applications under the Harbour Act were. assessed inreiati0ntoeffectonnavigation. 3.4 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 Sewerage and waste discharge in the coastal marine environment are now controlled by the Resource Management Act 1991. This Act has essentially established a new water classification scheme. A summary of the provisions of the Resource Management Act are included in the appendix, thus only a brief discussion is required at this stage of the report. The basis of the Act's control over discharge is contained in section 12 where no person may deposit "any substance in a manner that has or is likely to have an adverse effect on the foreshore or seabed." Permits, allowing a discharge (which may contravene section 12) shall not be granted if, after reasonable mixing, the discharge does not meet a water quality standard contained in section"!i07(1). This standard is based on the effects a discharge is likely to give rise to: • production of conspicuous oil or grease films, scums, foams, floatable or suspended solids; • conspicuous change in colour or visual clarity; • emission of objectionable odour; • rendering of fresh water unsuitable for consumption by farm animals; and • any significant adverse effects on aquatic life. This essentially means that the whole of the coastal waters of New Zealand are classified to a 42 Waitangi Tribunal Research _R_.A_._M__cC_l_e_an ______Afi_a_m_ka __ na_L~s_~_n~d~Se~w~e_ra~g~e~O~u~¢~a~ll~R~ep~o~r~ high water standard. Permits which do not meet the above standards may only be granted for three reasons: in exceptional circumstances, for a temporary time limit, or associated with necessary maintenance work. Another significant issue is that the Resource Management Act has· brought management of the coastal marine area under the control of both the Crown (in the person of the Minister of Conservation) and the Regional Councils. Significant activities or restricted coastal activities, are also controlled by the Minister of Conservation, who is the consent authority. This means, concerning the Matakana Island sewerage outfall; that authority 'over the discharge has been transferred from a delegated authority (the Regional WaterBoard}to a Minister of the Crown. Unlike previous water management legislation, Maori interests have been incorporated into the Resource Management Act and are further included in the National Coastal Policy Statement, Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement and Bay of Plenty Regional Coastal Plan (see appendix). These provisions mean that sewerage discharges in the coastal marine environment must meet two main sets of standards. Firstly, the discharge must meet the scientific standard set out in section 107 (above); outside the mixing zone the effluent should have no adverse effects. Secondly, the discharge must meet Maori standards of waste disposal. This standard is largely contained within Part II of the Act: • purpose of the Act is to promote sustainable development. The definition of sustainable management includes management of resources to provide for cultural well-being (section 5); • the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga is a matter of national importance (section 6e); • regard must be paid to kaitiakitanga (section 7a); • all persons (in this case the Crown, Regional Council and District Council) shall take into 43 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (section 8); and • the definition of 'environment' includes cultural conditions (section 2). Under section 104,. the consent authority, subject to Part II, must have regard to a number of plans and policy documents. The author has provided a summary of these plans in the appendix in relation to discharge and Maori interests. Both the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and the Regional Policy Statement seem to indicate that to 'take into account the Treaty ofWaitangi' is not enough and a higher regard for MaorHnterestsis required: • all authorities exercising powers in the coastal marine area "shall recognise andfacilitate the special relationship between the Crown and the tangata whenua as established by the Treaty of Waitangi" in relation to the land of the Crown (National Coastal Policy Statement, policy 4.2.1); and • principles of the Treaty of Waitangi "must be recognised, taken into account and the functions and powers under the Act are exercised in a manner consistent with the principles of the Treaty" (Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement, objective 5.3.1) [emphasis added] These two provisions go beyond the weaker 'take into.. account'dausecontained in section 8 of the Resource Management Actby.suggestingthattheprinciples of the TreatY'shall be.explicitly recognised in coastal management. The Proposed Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement also comments on the role of the Waitangi Tribunal within the resource management regime: The exercise by Maori groups of tino rangatiratanga over their resources can be inconsistent with the management regime established under the Act. The process for resolving disputes about the ownership and management of resources includes the Waitangi Tribunal hearing and making 44 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report recommendations on claims, direct negotiation between claimants and the government, and actions in the Courts. The 'Proposed Bay of Plenty Regional Coastal Plan 1995' sets out a water quality standard for the entire coastal marine area (10.2.4). This standard is based section on 107 of the RMA. Accompanying this standard are policies and objectives affirming Maori values relating to the disposal of human waste. These provisions are worth quoting in full: 65 Note: There were 533 submissions received on the earlier Proposed Regional Coastal Plan. Many of these submissions came from Maori who requested, among other things, that the whole of the plan be reviewed, consultation should start a fresh on marae, and there should be proper recognition of the Maori world view, Submissions also requested provision for the involvement of Maori, and removal of inconsistencies with the Treaty of Waitangi; Environment BOP, Summary ofDecisions Requested on the Proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan, June 1996. 66 Proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan, 1995, p 61. 45 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report Generally, the District and Regional Councils have used consultation processes to give effect to their obligations to Maori interests as required by the Resource Management Act. For this reason, the author has included a commentary on consultation and Maori waste management values in the appendix. Clearly consultation is just one of a number of processes that can be used under the Act to provide for Maori interests regarding sewerage disposal. The important point is that performance is measured on 'actions of protection.'These actions are the tangible result of planning processes. Incorporating Maori interests into. the waste disposal management regime· means t~e regulatory authority must show that 'actions of protection' have been inc1udedwithscientific standards of water quality control. Both standards, scientific and Maori, are to be used to determine if a discharge is acceptable. The burden of proof is placed upon the applicant. Although the effluent discharge may pass the scientific testof section 107, the applicant is also required to show that the discharge provides for the active protection of the values and interests of the tangata whenua by recognising and providing for the relationship of Maori with the waters, and has particular regard to kaitaikitanga exercised by the tangata whenua (who are the kaitiaki of the coastal environment). This is the cultural test of the Act. In summary, the Resource Management Act 1991 established a new regime for the control of 46 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report waste discharges in the coastal environment. The regime is administered by the Crown and the Regional Councils. Major discharges and those not treated by a wetland system are controlled by the Minister of Conservation, while, minor discharges are controlled by the Regional Council. All the coastal marine area is classified to a high standard in both scientific terms and according to Maori waste management values. Acceptable discharges have a minor adverse effect according· to this standard. The applicant must show, that in the selection of a discharge option among alternatives, Maori. standards ofwaste disposal have been recognised and provided for and the scientific water quality standard will not be compromised. 47 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report This chapter gives a basic outline ofthe history of the Matakana Island sewerage outfall. Themes of the chapter include: an account of waste disposal problems at the Katikati Dairy Factory, sewerage disposal problems and plans at Katikati, the construction of the Matakana Island pipeline, and the purchase of that pipeline by the Tauranga County Council. Technical details and summaries of hearing evidence are included in the appendix to this report. 4.1 WASTE DISPOSAL FROM THE KATIKATI DAIRY FACTORY, 1965-1980 Katikati is a small town located near the western shore of Tauranga Harbour. The town, like other areas of Tauranga, has a high growth rate. The population of the town in 1991 was 2,334. Generally, Katikati acts as a rural service centre to a surrounding horticultural and agricultural district. With the growth of industry, farming and residential settlement around the harbour after 1880, the waters of Tauranga Harbour became the disposal area for a range of wastes and by-products. The first Katikati dairy factory was opened in 1902 on the northern bank of tfit Waitekohe stream. This factory was closed in 1949 and a new larger factory was opened just south of Katikati township. On 20 August 1964 the Katikati Co~operative Dairy Company applied to the Pollution Advisory Council and the Medical Officer of Health to register its outfall and discharge wastes into the classified SC waters of the Tauranga Harbour. The discharge approximated to 200,000 gallons of water daily and some 6,000 gallons of casein whey. This whey was screened and filtered. 67 The response of the Pollution Advisory Council was to give the dairy company a temporary permit to discharge. The Council stated: 67 Application for registration of an outfall and permit to discharge wastes into classified waters, 12 August 1964, 19/4/369, BOPRe. 48 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report The present system of disposal is unsatisfactory and does not conform to the classification. The Company is advised to approach the Dairy Wastes Committee of the Pollution Advisory Council with a view to finding a satisfactory solution. Progress on the matter is to be forwarded to the Council by June 30 1965.68 Despite this statement, the Pollution Advisory Council gave the Katikati Dairy factory a full permit a year later on 1 July 1965 with the condition that the discharge was: Substantially free from suspended solids, grease and oil. In the classified waters, the waste discharge shall not cause any conspicuous discolourationnorgive rise to offensivesmells.69 It was on the basis of this permission that the Dairy Company disposed its waste into the Tauranga Harbour until May 1979. During the late 1960s and early 1970s production at the Dairy Factory was increasing and many people living near the factory began to make complaints about smells and pollution of the harbour waters. The Bay of Plenty Times, for example, reported the situation in dramatic terms: MUD SMELL KEEPS DOORS AND WINDOWS CLOSED Get inside. Shut the doors, shut the windows. Hurry, it's getting worse ... The streets are deserted. Occasionally a door is opened a chink. Sometimes all through the long hot humid night do~s and windows must remain closed. Sometimes families can emerge within a few hours ... Mrs Penwarden also spoke of extra large extra virulent mosquitoes, which had abounded this year. She suggested a steady diet of milk products was responsible for their large size, and said their 68Temporary Permit to discharge, 4 February 1965, 19/4/309, BOPRe. 69permit to Discharge, I July 1965, 19/4/309, BOPRC; After notification of the new waters classification in 1972, the Katikati Dairy Company applied to the Pollution Control Council for permission to continue discharging waste into classified waters and lodged an appeal to the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board against the higher water standard (from SD to SA). In its appeal, the Company claimed that "no sufficient regard has been given to the problems, economics and cost of treating, disposing of, andlor dealing with dairy factory wastes and discharges" and wanted the SA waters returned to SD class. This appeal was dropped when the final reclassification was abandoned in 1973; Notice of Appeal to the Town and Country Planning Board, 25 May 1972, 16/41122, BOPRe. 49 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report ------~~~~~~ ,'0 bites left weeping sores. 70 In April 1974 the discharge from the factory involyed some 1250 cubic metres per day at peak. volume. It contained cooling water, washings, casein wash water and excess whey. This waste discharge was set to increase as Te Puke casein production was transferred to the Katikati factory after the two factories had been amalgamated under the Bay of Plenty Co-operative Dairy Association Ltd. The Tauranga Acclimatization Society arguedtothe Regional Water Board that: Since the Katikati dairy factory will be eniargingthescopeofitsoperationsanddueto casein production, increasing its discharge into the harbour, it is felt that its existing permit should be reviewed by revoking the present discharge right and requiring the Dairy Company to apply for a new right. 7! During this time, the Dairy Association contracted Bioresearchers (an Auckland-based biological consulting timl) to carry out regular biological surveys during 1974 and 1975 at the outfall area in the Tauranga Harbour. These reports showed that "considerable adverse ecological changes have occurred as a result of the discharge of waste from the dairy factory." These changes were inthe nature of discolouration, surface scum, disappearance of microfauna, sediment deposition, and algae growth. Bioresearchers described the Dairy Company's discharge as contributing towards "serious pollution" ofthe harbour.72 Based on these reports, E.D (Dale) Revington, Chief Engineer ofthe Bay of Plenty Catchment Commission (also the Regional Water ~ard), stated in an intemalmemorandum that the "Company is not complying with the terms of their permit" and "it would appear to be desirable for the Company to be asked to apply fora fresh right."73 In response to this memorandum, an inspection was carried out by W.A. Taylor, Water 70 'Mud smell keeps doors and windows closed,' 20 March 1976, Bay of Plenty Times. 71 A. H. Dickinson, Tauranga Acclimatization Society, to Secretary, Bay of Plenty Catchment Commission, Whakatane, 23 January 1975, 19/41309, BOPRC. 743ioresearches, A Preliminary Assessment ofSome Aspects ofthe Ecology ofTauranga Harbour, April 1974. 73 D. Revington to H. A. Taylor, Internal Memo, 8 August 1975, Tauranga County Council, 19/4/309, BOPRC. 50 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report Resources Engineer of the Regional Water Board, in September 1975. Taylor estimated the total wastes as: Wash water 120 000 gallons per day Other washings/surplus water 100 000 gallons per day Casein whey 90000 gallons per day These wastes were discharged.into an open drain (also used by Katikati township package plant, which did not hold any discharge right) which ran into Tauranga harbour. Taylor concluded that: The effluent situation at the Katikati dairy factory has been unsatisfactory for a number of years. A decision on waste treatment has been postponed by the Company as the possibility of closing down the Katikati factory has been discussed on several occasions. However, it is considered the present highly polluted discharge should not be allowed to continue indefinitely.74 As a temporary solution, Taylor thought the waste could be piped into the main tidal channel of the harbour. After this investigation and report, the Dairy Association was told by the Regional Water Board on 22 October 1975 that the existing permit would be revoked unless the Association "give an assurance that firm proposals will be implement to correct the present situation."1 In response to this challenge, the Dairy Association formed a Gommittee which would study the feasibility of various methods of effluent disposal in November 1975. This committee recognised that the Company "may not at all times be meeting the terms of their permit to discharge" and hired the services of Murray-North and Partners Ltd to provide recommendations on the most "practical and economic pipe outfall point to ensure that all discharged effluent is removed out the 74 Bay of Plenty Co-op Dairy Association, Katikati factory effluent disposal, Bay of Plenty Regional Water Board, September 1975, 19/41309, BOPRe. 75 J.D. Carling, Secretary Bay of Plenty Regional Water Board, to General Manager, Bay of Plenty Co-op Dairy Association, 22 October 1975, 19/4/309, BOPRe. 51 Waitangi Tribunal Research _R_.A_._M__cC_I_e_an ______~M~a~m~ka~na~L~d~a~nd~s.~·~~~ra~~~e~OU~ifa~I~IR~e~p~o~r~. ~ Bowentown Heads at each tide."76 Murray-North and Partners produced a feasibility report on () the disposal of effluent from the Katikati factory to sea outfalls in August 1976. This report recommended a 6 inch pipeline to a point off Kauri·.Point as it was thought the swift currents at this area would transport any effluent discharged out to sea. Instead of a Kauri Point pipeline, the Directors of the Dairy Association chose to plan for an ocean outfall off Matakana Island and directed Murray-North to present detailed reports on this proposal. Murray-North produced its feasibility report during November 1976. The Murray North report was also prepared on instructions from ,the 'Dairy "Assaeiatiou in terms of considering the concept of "combining the factory 'effluent .withidomestic :sewage from the Katikati township and whether this might be further extended to include Omokoroa Township.,,77 In this report, the consultants explored various alternative arrangements and combined sewage schemes with both raw and treated Katikati sewerage. Environmental effects of the proposal were only generally discussed, and concerning Matakana Island it was stated that "steps have been taken to restrict public use of the Matakana Island foreshore because of the hazard of fire () in the pine forests and consequential erosion."78 In the conclusion it recommended that "the Company proceed with a direct single stage ocean outfall across the harbour designed for 550, 000 gallons per day of factory effluent."79 It was also stated that this recommendation: 7t>r<.:..D. Craven, Production Manager, Bay ofPlenty Co-.op',DaiFyAssociation"to Seeretary~ay of Plenty Regional Water Board, November 1975, 19/4/309; BOPRC;:Meanwhi:leicQ;uetopubliccpressureon,the Katikati dairy factory issue, Mr Revington recommended that the Regiol}al WatetBoaIXl.re.voke;1n.e:·origiital terms or conditions of the permit and add new conditions for the. purpose lOfjmprovingT~uranga,harb6Ut,water quality. While Revingtonaffirmed that the Dairy Association was making a move to find a solution to its waste, he thought"it would seem desirable for the Regional Water Board to at. least be seen to be making some attempts to provide an improved discharge for this coming sum meL" At this time Mr Revington thought that the Katikati dairy factory "placed the same. biochemical oxygen loading on the harbour as. did a city 'of about 500 000. people;" Pollution - Katikati Factory, September 1976, 19/4/122, BOPRe; 'Settlements pose no problems' 26 October 1976, Bay of Plenty Times. 7Murray-North Partners Limited, Feasibility Report on Disposal ofE.IJluentfrom Katikati Factory to Sea Outfalls, November 1976, page 3. 7Murray-North, November 1976, page 23. It seems, the argument concerning public restriction because of fire hazard amounted to an attitude of 'people can't use the foreshore anyway so it won't matter.' 79 Ibid. 52 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report Does not preclude the possibility of a combined treated sewage effluent scheme at some later date, as the pipeline for a 550,000 gpd. scheme would have sufficient capacity to take another 200 000 gpd. Nevertheless it is felt that it should be left to the County to initiate any further considerations of such a scheme. Figure 4.1 illustrates Route C which included the possibility of oxidation ponds and a joint sewerage scheme with Katikatitownship .. The proposed route for the recommended pipeline is illustrated in figure 4.2. t'fA1,4K~I.i:-j ·;IsL,{Ai ROUTE'S' Figure 4.1. Route C. Showing a proposed route of a possible combined sewerage scheme. Source, Murray-North, 1976. 53 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report MATAKANA . ISLAND TAURANGA IIA"lBOUR .... ------"------./ PIPELINE ROUTE -",'/ PROOABLY WITHIN ,/ THIS ZONE. ------,/ .. '.. Figure 4.2. Proposed Route of Katikati Pipeline. Source, Murray-North Partners, 1976. Clearly the Murray-North report shows that a combined dairy factory and Katikati township sewerage scheme was a serious consideration in the early planning of the M Mr Short said that the most efficient scheme which could be designed provided a capacity surplus to the expected maximum requirement of the Katikati factory. He agreed that one potential user could be the Katikati Community Council for any future domestic sewerage scheme ... We intend to go ahead independently but have not shut the door on talks with the company at some future date if suitable terms can be agreed upon.so 80 'Waste will be piped to the sea,' 1 March 1977, Bay of Plenty Times. 54 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report After the investigations by Murray-North had been completed, the Dairy Association decided to apply for a right to discharge factory wastes to an E;)cean outfall off Matakana Island. A formal application was made under section 21(3) of the Water and Soil Conservation Act on the 22 February 1977. This application was for the right to discharge wash water, whey and equipment cleaning solutions to the quantity of2,500 cubic metres or 550,000 gallons a day.81 Information attached to the application stated that the Dairy Association had considered a number of. alternatives. These included: • Closure of Katikati factory • Processing the recoverable solids in the waste material • Changing the type of product manufactured at Katikati • Spraying or irrigating the waste material • Utilising some other practical waste treatment system All these alternatives were discarded as "being unacceptable for the Katikati factory" by the Dairy Association.82 In an effort to inform interested parties and other groups, the Dairy Association held two meetings. On the morning of28 February 1977, ameeting was held with property ~ers in the Katikati area who might be affected by the proposed pipeline construction and in the afternoon of that same day, a meeting was held for all authoritiesand·organisations related to Tauranga Harbour. 83 The Dairy Association also held a meeting for all dairy farmers on the night of 28 81 Application for right in respect of natural water, Bay of Plenty Regional Water Board, 22 February 1977, 19/4/309, BOPRC. The place of discharge would be at a point on the line between 543767 and 545768 grids quare N35 on NZMSI Sheet N 58. 82 Water Right Application Infonnation, 25 February 1977, Tauranga County Council, 19/4/309/ BOPRe. 83 A.T Short, General Manager Bay of Plenty Co-op Dairy Association, to Secretary Bay of Plenty Regional Water Board, 22 February 1977, 19/4/309, BOPRe. Apart from the Regional Water Board and County Council, the author has not been able to discover what persons or groups were invited to or attended these meetings. 55 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report February 1977. Meanwhile, Mr LA Noble, chairman ofthe Katikati branch of Federated Farmers, was quoted by the Bay of Plenty Times as saying: It was important all dairy fanners attend this meeting [mentioned above] .. .Ifthe rapid change in land use in Katikati was to continue it would be the shareholders in the Te Puke and Tauranga districts that would carry the burden of the cost of installing the disposal system .. Jt was agreed fann costs were too high and Katikati land too valuable for fanners to continue milking cows .. .In recent months owners of several large dairy properties had reconsidered their previous determination to continue dairy farming in the face of attractive offers, and were now sub dividing. 84 Despite these warnings of changing land use (to horticulture) the Dairy Association continued to press ahead with the Matakana pipeline application; This application was notified in the Bay of Plenty Times on 4 March 1977 and copies were sent to: • The County Clerk, Tauranga County Council • Bay of Plenty Harbour Board • Fisheries Management Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries • The Secretary, Tauranga Acclimatisation Society • Marine Division, Secretary of Transport, Ministry of Transport • Medical Officer of Health, Health Department,Rotorua • The Secretary, Katikati Community Council 84 'Farmers face bill,' 26 February 1977, Bay of Plenty Times. 56 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report ~ Public Notification of Matakana Island Marine Outfall. Source, Bay of Plenty Times, 4 March 1977. The response to the news of the pipeline in the media was generally positive.The Katikati Advertiser reported the views of a number of local citizens in March 1977. Mr D .R. Hume, for example, said: "It should have been done years ago. It takes strong people to make a decision like this and I am very much in favour of their decision."Hume also viewed the pipeline as valuable to the growth of local Katikati industry; "In the event of the dairy factory ioing out of production, whatever industry we have here will.be able to make use of that effluent pipeline." Mrs Nancy Merriman (Katikati rural riding representative on the Tauranga County Council) also stated: Everyone she had spoken to in Katikati was delighted that the factory effluent was going to be piped to the ocean. Whatever industry eventually replaced the dairy production - whether it was processing fruit or vegetables - would be able to use the effluent disposal system. Other members of the public also welcomed the proposal but could not understand why the investment was being made when the dairy factory was facing closure. Mr Alex Wood 57 WaitulIKi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report (proprietor of Katikati motel) said that "it seemed strange to him that the dairy company should be willing to spend such a large sum of money at a time when local production was declining."85 From the author's viewpoint, it does seem unusuaLthat the dairy company would spend nearly a million dollars on a pipeline which they would not need in the near future. With the closure of submissions on 4 April 1977, no objections to the pipeline plan were received (including no objection from any Maori organisation).The Tauranga County Council, Bay of Plenty Harbour Board and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries sent submissions which were heard at a standing tribunal of the Regional Water Board on 17 June 1977. These submissions generally supported the pipeline proposa1. 86 In support of the application, the Dairy Association contracted Bioresearchers Ltd to carry out an environmental impact report. 87 Contents of this report provided the basis for Dr M.F. Larcombe's statement of evidence to the Tribunal of the Bay of Plenty Regional Water Board. This evidence (summary in appendix) concluded by stating that the "proposed disposal presents no major threats to the water quality or ecology of the outfall area or adjacent shore."88However, Larcombe mentioned that local Matakana Island residents did collect and eat shellfish from around the outfall area and that these shell food were of "excellent eating quality."89 On the basis ofthe evidence of Dr M.F. Larcombe, W.A.Taylor (the Water Resoui'ies Engineer of the Regional Water Board) recommended that a right be granted with attached conditions and 8S 'Move on outfall pleases residents,' March 1977, Katikati Advertiser. 8ljhe City of Tauranga did informally oppose the outfall proposal. In a letter to the Bay of Plenty Dairy Association, dated 5 May 1977, the City Manager stated that the Council had considered the proposal and that it was "disappointing that your Company could not see its way clear to utilising an alternative proposal to discharge such a large amount of factory waste into the ocean off Matakana Island." General Manager to BOP Co-op Dairy Association,5 May 1977, TDC, 43/42D. 87 Bioresearchers, Disposal of Ej]luent from Katikati Factory to Coastal Waters, April 1977. 88 Statement of Evidence by M. F. Larcombe, Hearing of application by Bay of Plenty Co-op Dairy Association for a right to discharge waste from Katikati Factory. July 1977, 19/4/309, BOPRC. 89 Ibid. 58 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report ..,- that the "proposals put forward will undoubtedly result in a great improvement in the water quality of the arm of the Tauranga harbour where the existing discharge takes place."9o The water right application was granted at a meeting of th~ Regional Water Board on 7 July 1977 and notice of the successful application appeared in the Bay of Plenty Times on 12 July 1977. There were no appeals against the decision. The water right granted to the Dairy Association was granted subject to a number of conditions (see appendix). These conditions provided for a daily effluent discharge of no more than 2500 cubic metres. lithe water quality measured at a distance of200 metres from the outlet fell below SB standard, the Regional Water Board could review permit conditions. 4.2 KATlKATI SEWERAGE PLANS 1965-1977 Fig 4.3. Katikati Township, Source, Minimap, 1997 Edition. 90 W. A. Taylor, Water Resources Engineer, Bay of Plenty Regional Water Board, Information and recommendations concerning Water Right Application No. 309,15 June 1977, 19/4/309, BOPRe. 59 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report During the 1960s, Katikati experienced steady population growth and as a result a new subdivision was planned and built called the Gilfillan Block. Unlike the rest of the township which was served by individual septic tanks, the County Council decided this subdivision would have a reticulated sewerage unit. These plans changed, however, on the recommendation of the Local Authority Loans Board when it was decided by a special meeting of the County Council on 6 April 1965 that the whole of Katikati should be.reticulated in the future and a report on this subject should be commissioned.91 The consultants selected to carry out this investigation were Steven and Fitzmaurice of Auckland. The County Council advised Steven and Fitzmaurice that the population of Katikati (including Waterford area) was 812 and would rise to 1,252 in the future. It was also suggested that the Dairy Factory be included in the report in three alternative ways: (i) sewerage treatment including the total factory effluent; (ii) sewerage treatment without the factory; and (iii) sewerage treatment including only the whey content. 92 The final report by Steven and Fitzmaurice, presented to the Council in 1966, recommended a reticulation plan for Katikati structured into three main stages. Stage 1 would provide reticulation and treatment of the new (Council-owned) subdivision with treatment using a package plant which would have a life expectancy of ten years. Stage 2 encompassed the retic~ation of the main built up area of the town and construction of permanent treatment works which would discharge treated effluent into the Uretara Stream, and stage 3 involved reticulation of fringe areas adjoining the stage 2 region. Stage 2 included the connection of the Dairy Company waste. 93 As the waters of Tauranga Harbour had been classified to SC standard, Steven and Fitzmaurice stated that "any effluent discharged to harbour waters will have to be of a high 91 Memo of Special Meeting of the Tauranga County Council, 6 April 1965, PllIl, WBOPDC. 9infomlation Relevant to Sewerage and Sewerage Treatment Investigations, Tauranga County Council, September 1965, PIlIl, WBOPDC. 93 Katikati Sewerage, Tauranga Council, November 1968, PIlIl, WBOPDC. 60 Waitangi Tribunal Research _R_.A_._A1,_c_C_I_ea_n______~M.~a~m~m~na~L~d~a~nd~S~e~we~ra~~~e~O~u~~a=ll~R=e~p~on~ standard of purity. ,,94 After considering the report, the County Council decided it could not afford the implementation of all three stages and only stage 1 was proceeded with. This stage (which also included the ., reticulation of Katikati College and Katikati hospital) was financed bya Local Authority Loan of~36 0.0.0.. The subdivision works, sewage mains, and package treatment plant were completed in late 1968. In 1970. a special meeting of the Tauranga;County.G01:1llcil constitlltectthe't()Wfl of Katikati as an Urban Drainage Area under section 24Lofthe Counties. Act 1956:!/~P1ruming began soon afterwards for the implementation of Stages 2 and 3 which, in 1972, had an estimated cost of $367,00.0.. Completion of the plan would ensure service of the whole of Katikati township by reticulated sewerage and treatment at two-stage oxidation ponds at the end of Park Road near the Uretara River.96 Later this plan was thought to be too expensive and modified sewerage plans were approved by the County Council. This modified scheme was designed to serve a population of up to 2,0.0.0. persons and included the use of oxidation ponds on the harbour shore near Marshalls Road. In November 1972, the County Council applied to the Bay of Plenty Harbour Board for permission to use two acres of an arm of Tauranga harbour for the location of oxidation ponds. Discharge from these ponds into the Tauranga harbour was estimated at 50., 0.0.0. gallonsa.day (or20.0.;0.0.0. gallons .in.wetweather) and. thedischar-gejtselfwould~e conducted along a 6,0.0.0. foot pipeline to a harbour channeheast of:Lutaetake.:lsland'wh'ere: the outfall was planned to take place; on thefirstfour/five hours of the ebb tide. The water quality of this .discharge was to comply with.SA classification. Permission to build the oxidation ponds and outfall was granted by the Harbour Board on March 1973.97 The conditions of this permission 94 Steven and Fitzmaurice, Sewerage ofKatimti County Town, July 1966, p 4. 95 Agenda, special meeting of Tauranga County Council, 20 July 1970, PllIl, WBOPDC. 96 'Sewerage plan study' August 1972, Katikati Advertiser. i ) 97The local senior fisheries inspector, Mr T Bonnevie, publicly opposed this plan to discharge treated effluent into the harbour; BOP Times, 7 February 1973. 61 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report included: a. That the outfall pipeline is carried out to a,point immediately west of Egg Island. b. That the effluent is discharged only into the outgoing tide. c. That effluent purity complies at all times with Harbour waters classification. d. That nutrients are stripped from the effluent. e. That regular tests of harbour waters in the vicinity of the outfall are undertaken to ensure compliance with the classification of harbour waters.98 This proposal was. placed before the Local Authority Loans Board for.subsidyapptoval, and the Tauranga County Council applied to the Bay ofPlenty Regional Water Board in November 1972 for a right to discharge water into the Tauranga harbour from the oxidation ponds. On receiving the application, the Regional Water Board delayed proceedings in the hope that the County Council and the Katikati dairy factory could formulate a combined waste disposal scheme. However the County engineer, Mr Hansen, replied to the Regional Water Board that: Discussions have been held with Company Officials at various times during the design and preparation of the County Scheme. Early in these, it became clear that the factory effluent is of such a quality and quantity with respect to the proposed County discharge, that it would not be readily compatible with domestic sewage for treatment purposes. Mr Hansen also thought that it may "be possible to combine the effluents from bJh sources in the one outfall, but to some extentthis is dependent on the outcome of appeals on the Final Classification of Tauranga (harbour)."99 Thewaterright application (No. 95 and 96}was to be 98 F.M. Williams, Bay of Plenty Harbour Board, to Secretary, Regional Water Board, Whakatane, 6 March 1973, 19/4/309, BOPRC. 99 H.G. Hansen, Tauranga County Council, to Secretary, Bay of Plenty Regional Catchment Commission, Whakatane, 20 December 1972, P/lIl, WBOPDC. There was some opposition to this sewerage plan. Some residents of Katikati thought the oxidation ponds were too close to the Gilifillan subdivision and would lower property values as the oxidation ponds were going to be "offensive and evil-smelling." Mr A.R. Diggelmann was quoted in the Katikati Advertiser as saying the effluent should be sprayed on to the land; 'Sewerage plans worry' February 1973, Katikati Advertiser. 62 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report ------~~~~~~ heard by the Regional Water Board on 14 June 1973. The applications covered a right to discharge treated effluent into the Tauranga Harbour and a right to discharge untreated effluent in an emergency situation. There were sixteen objections lodged against the proposal. These objectors included Mr Jack Wharekawa and 66 signatories from the Katikati Maori community, who opposed the plan to discharge treated effluent into the Tauranga Harbour on the grounds that shellfish in the harbour would be contaminated. The Drainage Engineer of the Tauranga County Council, Mr EJ Sherring, also had reservations about the project. In his report to the County Council,MrSherringstatedthat "the discharge of effluent from the oxidation ponds may not meet Class SA," and the Regional Water Board "may consider that this cannot be granted due to the SA classification."loo However, as the waters of the Harbour were in the process of reclassification, the hearing was postponed until 11-14 June 1973. Although the water classification was downgraded in the Katikati area and eventually the classification status of the harbour was abolished, the Regional Water Board began to push for the elimination of all discharges into the Tauranga Harbour. In 1974 the chief engineer of the Regional Water Board stated that a water quality survey had been conducted and had shown that "there is more of a to and fro movement in many estuaries rather than a complete flushing" and he felt "places such as Omokoroa and Katikati may have to consider runningse~ageoutfalls right across the Matakana Island side of the harbour to get an adequate disposal of effluent. "[emphasisaddedyOJ As a result of this opposition against the Tauranga Harbour outfall and oxidation ponds, the Tauranga County Council had to re-think the Katikati sewerage scheme and the water right hearing to be held in June 1973 was cancelled. 100 Katikati Sewerage, engineering design details and estimate, Tauranga County Council, March 1973, Pilil, WBOPDC. 101 'Pollution could be high' 8 March 1974, Bay of Plenty Times. 63 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report A revamped sewerage plan for Katikati was presented to a public meeting on 23 October 1974. This plan involved the use of oxidation ponds on the southern side of Kauri Point at the end of Park Road. The effluent would be pumped to Matakana Island using a 6 inch pipeline across Tauranga Harbour and discharged using irrigation tappings among the pine plantation. 102 The discharge area on Matakana Island would not contain any archaeological sites and would be surrounded by warning signs. After discussion of this idea with the owners of Matakana forest, New Zealand Forest Products, approval in principle was given for the project to go ahead and a formal application to New Zealand ForestProducts was made on 26 February 1975 for the discharge of treated effluent onto MatakanaIsland. An application was also lodged with the Local Authority Loans Board for a subsidy. The final Matakana Island land-disposal plan was announced at another public meeting on 28 October 1975 by both New Zealand Forest Products and the Tauranga County Counci1. 103 The basic components to the plan involved: a. Treatment at Kauri Point by two-stage oxidation ponds. b. Transportation of treated effluent to Matakana Island using a pipeline across the Tauranga Harbour. c. Disposal area contained pine seedlings planted in July 1974. d. Effluent was to be discharged by way of seepage across the groull~. e. The whole project was experimental. The cost of the scheme was around $600,000.This is approximately $100,000 more than the I02 I03'Effluent for Matakana, Sewage disposal method untried so far,' 29 October 1975, Bay of Plenty Times. 64 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Ouifall Report previous scheme which would have discharged effluent into the Tauranga Harbour. While the residents ofKatikati were happy that the· County Council were going to discharge the effluent onto Matakana Island, many felt the scheme was too costly. 104 With approval granted by the Local Authority Loans Board in March 1976, the Council signed the Deed of Grant of Easementfor .right ofaccess to the Matakanalsland disposal area.lOs The County Council also conducted a poll on whether $402,000 should be raised by the Tauranga County Council as requested by the.residents. Before the poll, the Katikati Advertiser was used by parties, both for and against, to get support for their views. MrSherringof the Tauranga County Council argued that "any long delay would mean that a sewerage scheme would ultimately cost more. If ratepayers were to tum this scheme down, and a cheaper alternative found, it might in fact prove more expensive because of rising costs."106Mr Hume (Chairman of the Katikati Community Council) also argued that residents should accept the Matakana Island disposal scheme by saying: I would like to see a cheaper scheme and who wouldn't? . .It is human nature to want to pay the minimum or less. To comply with the wishes of the environmentalists, and in order not to pollute our harbour, the scheme was extended. I think that probably the majority have sympathy for environmental considerations and care for the future of our harbour. If this scheme is turned down now, any future scheme just might cost a lot more. 107 Those residents who were against the scheme argued that Katikati,hadno need for a sewerage scheme, it was too expensive and inequitable. 104As the land-based scheme was novel at the time, the Tauranga County Council responded to inquiries from the Forest Research Institute, Wanganui City Council, Ministry of Works and Development and the Rodney County Council. 105 Deed of Grant of Easement, New Zealand Forest Products Limited, 25 March 1976, PIlIl, WBOPDC. 106 'Residents force poll,' April 1976, Katikati Advertiser. 107 'Sewerage decision now up to residents,' May 1976, Katikati Advertiser. 65 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report ------~~~~==~~~~~~.~ The outcome of the poll meant defeat for the Matakana Island land-based disposal scheme and the Council was left to find another cheaper plan for the disposal of Katikati sewage. 4.3 KATIKATI JOINS THE MATAKANA ISLAND OUTFALL SCHEME Immediately. after the. Dairy Association had received their permit to discharge waste off the Matakana Island coast, the General Manager of the Dairy Association made a formal invitation to the Tauranga County Council (whose land-based.seweragescheme hadheen rejected by the citizens' poll) to participate in the ocean c outfaH scheme·.. This'formahinvitation for joint utilisation of the pipeline was.made on 13 July 1977;108 TheCouncil repliedthatit was interested in using the pipeline. At a meeting of the Council's Water and Sewerage Committee, on 16 August 1977, the.Council decided to apply for a water right to.discharge off Matakana Island using the Dairy Association pipeline, and to continue negotiations with the Dairy Association concerning pipeline usage. It was considered both the water right and negotiations were very urgent as it was thought that the Dairy Association might have installed a pipe which would not have the capacity to carry sewerage from Katikati and the dairy factory. The application by the Tauranga County Council was made to the Regional Water Board on 9 September 1977 and advertised in the Bay of Plenty Times on 14 and 24 of September 1977. Copies of the application advertisement were sent to: • The applicant • The Medical Officer of Health • Conservator of Wildlife • Tauranga Acclimatisation Society • Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries • Guardians of the Rotorua Lakes • Bay of Plenty Harbour Board • Ministry of Transport 108 A.T. Short, General Manager Bay of Plenty Co-op Dairy Association, to Director of Planning and Development, Tauranga County Council, 13 July 1977, PIlII WBOPDC. 66 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report • Katikati Community Council () • Bay of Plenty Co-operative Dairy Association The closing date for objections was 14 October 1977.109 The application, registered as number 361, was for the discharge of 1000 cubic metres (or 220,000 gallons) a day of domestic comminuted (chopped-up) effluent from Katikati township using the pipeline owned by the Bay of Plenty Dairy Association. • ObJectors should .tate BAY OF PLENTY ' whellier . tliey "Ish . to be , CATCHMENT"" heard In person or repre- COMMISSION liND .ented by Countel when the : QIi.GIONALWATER I' app\lcanon Is considered by :. ' ..,! ·BOARD, Ilhe CommisSion. The appll' PUUr.IC. ~o'ncEi. be.rebYcalion l!1ay bo Inspected at . flven; punuant to SecUOIa t~e?rrlee of tbe ~J1Il1Il •• , I aDeLl4 of the Water and s,on during· DOrmal :~fIIce 5011 ConservaUon IIet 1967. hours.. " . '. ~ Ibat 'tho Bay of Plenty DATED: At WhaQtane, Catchment' ,Conunisslon, In this l.ftb 'day of Seplem· Its CApacity as 'keglonal ber, 1fTT.· . Water Board, has received .•:.. J; D. CIIRUNG, app'Ucatl~ for water . ~.":,, Secretary. rights . as...-.~t"._t In Ibe Quay Street,: ',' Sclleduloqe!Ofr. .: P.O. Box 364, My penon; BoArd,'Co\m- . WHAKATANE. ell or PubUc Au\borit~ who Is ,of the, op~ dlif"hl. Interea~ C!I',,~lnterWa of , theWbU~·.l~~·could be prejlidld&llY";;:.ftoeted . by the arlin~bi&·. or,lIl1"o ~rlght. maYlodC.ee•• : ,",;ott;;~·'iJ' fOimdi t• ions ,aet~O\it •• for····sudJ:~ ilb) !lr ~'t&1i !'01A'::··or r.~o:. mtSllon before 4.Oa p.m, on the . 14th', day or October. 19~, • ..••. . Public notifications of application to discharge domestic sewage from Katikati. Source, Bay of Plenty Times, 14 and 24 September 1977. Only one objection, from the City of Tauranga, was received. This objection stated that the "Council wishes to lodge an objection to the proposal on the grounds that the discharge of 109 Application Memo, 14 September 1977, Bay of Plenty Regional Water Board, 19/4/361, BOPRC. 67 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report ------~~~~--~-~ insufficiently treated sewage would prejudice the interests of the public."lloThis objection and other evidence was scheduled for a hearing by the Regional Water Board on 18 November 1977. On the day of the hearing another late objection was received by telegram. This objection was from a Mr M.G. Brown of Katikati and stated: Wish to lodge objection to proposed Katikati sewage ocean discharge. I am sure more objections would have been lodged if people realize sewage untreated. Request adjournment until facts publicized. I I I In reply to this telegram, which was read and considered by the Chairman of the Tribunal, was a .statement as follows: That in respect of the telegram received the Tribunal confinns that the application as advertised specifically referred to comminuted domestic sewage and not treated effluent and in the circumstances there was no cause for the hearing to be adjourned. Details of the effluent as presented to the Tribunal on the 18 November 1977 were as follows: 110 D. L. Evans, Secretary Tauranga City Council, to Secretary Bay of Plenty Regional Water Board, 5 October 1977, 19/4/361, BOPRC. An objection was also lodged by the Ministry of Transport (Marine Division) on the mistaken assumption that the discharge would involve a new pipeline across the harbour and pennission had not been granted under the Harbours Act. This objection was later withdrawn. III Telegram, M. Brown, Katikati, to Bay of Plenty Catchment Commission, 18 November 1977, 19/4/361, BOPRe. 68 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report 8A Y OF PLEN ry 14:1'.77 Fig 4.4. Location plan of outfall pipe. Water right application No. 361. Source, Evidence presented to Regional Water Board Tribunal by the Tauranga County Council. 69 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report Evidence or statements were presented to the hearing by Ronald Hicks, Tauranga County Council, Tauranga City Council Health Committee, Department of Health and Dr M.F. Larcombe of Bioresearchers (summary of evidence-in appendix). As in the early hearings of the Dairy Association's water right, Dr Larcombe's evidence was again critical. However, unlike the earlier hearing, Dr Larcombeconcluded that the Katikati discharge would result in some bacterial contamination of the waters in the vicinity of the outfall. Dr Larcombe's amended statement of evidence suggested that more contamination would occur in the outfall area than he had previously estimated. The amended statement increased the distance of faecal coliform. bacteria contamination from 700 to 1100 metres from the outfall along the shore and a maximum distance of contamination towards the shore from 450 to 600 metres. This meant SB standards would be exceeded at times in the area around the outfall. This amended statement of evidence arrived at the Regional Water Board too late on 2 December 1977, one day after the Board made a decision on water right application No. 361. At a meeting of the Regional Water Board held on 1 December 1977, water right application No. 361 was granted. The Board rejected the Tauranga City Council objection using the argument that the discharge would be screened as it "considered this to be a marked improvement on the original proposal." The Board stated that, "on the evidence it heard,[it] is satisfied that there will be no adverse effect on the receiving waters at the point of discharge."112 .. The Water Right (No.361) permitted the Tauranga County Council to discharge screened domestic sewage from Katikati through a marine outfall subject to a number of conditions (summary in appendix C-2). These conditions included: a discharge rate not exceeding 1,000 cubic metres per day, a five day biological oxygen demand rate not exceeding 350 kg per day, a suspended solid rate not exceeding 200 kg per day, and the provision for the Regional Water Board to review conditions if water quality standards fell below class SB standards beyond a radius of 450 metres from the outfall. The permit terminated on 30 September 1993. 112 J.D. Carling, Secretary Bay of Plenty Regional Water Board, to Secretary Tauranga City Council, 5 December 1977, 19/4/361, BOPRC. 70 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report No appeals were made to the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board against the granting of the application. o Appl.fcatbt No, 0 HI-Tau TheBsy of Plenty Co-op. '~ ranga ·County 00 c:oanell. 0 eraUve DaLry Association A right to dlschal'le ~ tOOO Limited Is holder ~ Water cubic 'metre_or acreenecS Right No. 309 for the dis· . domestic °sowago' per clay charge or Industrial waste from. Katlkatl 0 0 'I'ownshlp, from . tho Katlkatl Dairy to a marine outran at.Map Factory ·throuihthe nme I Reference . N5S: 54188, ap- outfall. o' proximntely ·0 '600 metres tfrom the seaward coast or Matakana Island.··. 0" Notice of right to discharge screened sewerage. Source, Bay of Plenty Times. 4.3.1. Post-hearing reaction Soon after the water right had been granted to the Tauranga County Council for the discharge of screened sewerage off the Matakana Island coast, there was an outcry from residents living at Waihi Beach, objecting to the proposal. There was also one objection on 5 December 1977 from an owner of land on Matakana Island, Mrs T.M. Faulker~ of Otumoetai, who wrote to the Tauranga County Council and stated: As part owner of land adjacent to New Zealand Forest Products land on Matakana Island over which you propose to put a pipe line for sewerage disposal, I protest most vigorously. This matter has just come to my notice so I had no chance to object at the original hearing. The Council is risking the ruin of a beautiful natural asset as time goes on and Katikati grows. The Council has an alternative - either to wait till it is in a position to put in a sewerage treatment plant or at least put this waste through oxidation ponds first. Anything else is an irresponsible action. I 13 1 \3 Faulker to Chairman, Tauranga County Council, 5 December 1977, PIlII, WBOPDC. 71 Wai!angi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report This letter was replied to by Mr Ross (a County Council Engineer), who said it was unfortunate that Mrs Faulkner was not aware of the sewerage scheme, and that obtaining a water right was just the first step. It did "not mean the discharge will proceed." Mr Ross also said: Many people who had chosen to criticise the proposal have not taken the opportunity to fully acquaint themselves with the situation at Katikati and particularly the fact that raw sewage is at present able to escape to the harbour. You are perhaps aware that a proposal to deal with sewage from Katikati was rejected at a poll of ratepayers on the score of cost,and this present scheme is more in keeping with what a quite small community can afford. 1l4 Mr A Yeoman (Katikati representative on the Tauranga County. Council) was also unhappy with the water right application. In the Katikati Advertiser it was stated: CONSULTATION IS NEEDED The people of Katikati were not having a sewerage plan imposed on them without being consulted, the Katikati representative on the Tauranga County Council, Mr A.A Yeoman said. He was commenting on the granting ofa right to discharge sewage from the town of Katikati through a pipeline to be built by the Bay of Plenty Dairy Association to an ocean outfall beyond Matakana Island. Making an application for this right to discharge sewage was deemed prudent by the Tauranga County Council so the way would be clear to go ahead and see if a suitable arrangement could be made with the dairy association. lIS The real source of opposition to the proposal to discharge sewerage off Matakana Island came from the Waihi Beach community. A letter to the editor of the Waihi Gazette on 15 December 1977 by a person using the name 'Tua Tua' alerted local residents and called for action: Sir - I would like to suggest that your Waihi Beach reporter does a survey of our township. Ask how many people know the meaning of the word comminuted. Why? Because there is 114 Ross to Faulker, 6 January 1978, PllIl, WBOPDC. 115 'Consultation is needed' December 1977, Katikati Advertiser. 72 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report comminuted sewage coming their way in the not too distant future! Comminuted means o pulverised! Katikati township intends pouring pulverised raw sewerage into the ocean off Matakana Island. The tidal drift is northward, toward Waihi Beach shores which abound with shellfish. Raw sewage plus shellfish is a biological time bomb: Katikati can build a proper sewage treatment plant just like we had to. How about a mighty protest from the people of the Beach! We must act quickly! Who will speak Up?116 Another letter also commented: Unfortunately, there can be no guarantee' that th,e\Matlikanafereshore.'wiHnot:hecontaminated depending on wind and tides. How far the pollution'will;extendisanybody~sguess .but the fact remains that there will be some. I hope the peopleofKatikati are able to overcome their sewage disposal problem in one of the many ways available but not in the way of the presentproposal.ll7 A l~~ter to the Waihi Gazette also focused on the effect of the discharge on Matakana. Island Maori: «) ~ COAST POLLUTION Sir - May I appeal to the powers that be not to develop any further the village of Katikati if its sewage disposal is going to endanger the shellfish along the whole of the coast from Waihi Beach to Mount Maunganui, plus the two entrances to the Tauranga Harbour so plentifully endowed with these delicacies. Katikati is not importantenQugh to create .sucheo!ossakdamage to our environment and ecology. If it cannot pay for ;i:I::sewagetFEatmentplant;,thendt.shOldd not be permitted to develop at such a tremendous costt&Moori.and'ether.peo}'lle'whftMe:r-egttiar eaters of shellfish. Think of the pollution of the beach shellfish and also the vast scallop beds that lie along the coast. Katikati property owners should either pay their way or stop development. BE REASONABLE Waihi Beachl18 116 'Beach Residents Beware' 15 December 1997, Waihi Gazette. The Bay of Plenty Times also recorded the protest with the headlines 'Sewage Outfall causes disgust'; 13 December 1977, BOP Times. 117 'Katikati Sewerage' 15 December 1977, Waihi Gazette. 118 'Coast Pollution' 22 December 1977, Waihi Gazette. 73 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Ouifall Report Another concerned citizen was more explicit: Have the rights ofthe Maori people and Europeans also, been taken into consideration when permission was granted for the township of Katikati to discharge raw sewage into the sea off MatakanaIsland... The shellfish, which the Maori people so much depend upon, and many Europeans enjoy also, could become dangerous to eat. What a tremendous loss for so little benefit to such a small community [emphasis added] .119 In response to this 'battle cry,' manyWaihi Beachresidentsciid.speakupagainstthe sewerage proposaL Letters weresentto the Tauranga County Council and Regional Water Board asking for explanations. Also a protest petition was organised by Mr J.M. Ross and Mrs Jan Ross and copies were placed inshopsatWaihi Beach for people to sign. The petition was signed by 520 persons and said: We the undersigned residents and holiday makers ofWaihi Beach wish to record the strongest protest against the proposed Katikati sewerage scheme, as ocean currents will seriously endanger our sea-foods and beaches with the pollution effect of pulverised raw sewerage and could create a serious health hazard. In a letter that accompanied the petition, Mr 1M. Ross stated: These signatures of notices placed in some oftheshopsin WaihiBeachindicatethefeelings of many beach residents concerning your proposedsewerageschemei Disapprovalwas-aiso voiced about the Dairy Companies [sic] waste disposal methods present and future. We ask that you take note of these signatures and do not go ahead with this idea. Oxidation ponds appear to be the safest waste disposal method. Your reply to this letter and the significance of these signatures will naturally be printed in the Beach column of the Gazette. 120 119 'Coast Pollution' 22 December 1977, Waihi Gazette. 120 H. E. Collins, Tauranga County Clerk, to J. M. Ross, Waihi Beach South, 20 January 1978, P/lIl, WBOPDC. 74 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report On receipt of this petition, the County Clerk, Mr H.E. Collins, replied to Mr Ross that the petition was null and void as it had not complied with Section 438 of the Counties Act 1956. 121 Soon after the petition was presented to the County Council, another letter objecting to the proposed sewerage scheme was sent by M.C. Smith of Waihi Beach to the Regional Water Board: Many people around Waihi and Waihi Beach are angry over the decision by the Bay of Plenty Catchment Commission to give Tauranga County Council and Katikati Dairy Factory the go ahead with their effluent disposal scheme .. The.general publicdonothave the knowledge to know whether a scheme like this one is harmlesstoollrenvironment or not. There is nobody to tell us, and that Sir isa mistake. People are talking and groups are forming which may lead to a public outcry over this matter. It was with regret that nobody other than the Tauranga City Council noticed the advertisement in the paper regarding their right of objection. To inform the Public that this scheme is harmless to our environment may dispel any further action. 122 The Chief Engineer, Mr Revington, replied to Mr Smith stating that because it was thought by the Tribunal that the seaward side of Matakana Island was of little public use, the discharge was considered acceptable. Mr Revington also agreed that it was "unfortunate that the public advertisement which appeared in the Bay of Plenty Times was not noticed" [emphasis added] . I 23The Waihi District Environmental Association also lodged an objection to the Tauranga County Council, stating: My association is concerned that in this day 121 The deficiencies in the petition, from the perspective of Mr Collins, included that: the petition was undated, addresses of each signature were nor shown, each signature was not counter signed by the organiser of the petition, and there is no certificate to show signatures are genuine. 122 M. C. Smith, Waihi, to Bay of Plenty Regional Water Board, 25 January 1978, 19/4/361, BOPRC. 123 E. D. Revington, Chief Engineer Tauranga County Council, to M. C. Smith, 2 February 1978, 19/4/361, BOPRC. 75 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report absorbed by the vastness of the Pacific Ocean, we believe that the standards set down by the World Health Organisation should not be ignored. It has taken many years to establish these standards and while one small deviation may seem unimportant, an undesirable precedent is set and a principle laid aside. Expediency should never be allowed to compromise health standards or endanger the purity of our coastal waters. 124 TheWaihiBorough Council was at the forefront of the movement against the Matakana Island sewerage proposal. At the Works Committee meeting during February 1978, "all councillors made it clear that they would fight the issue and be prepared to support this by financial backing." Councillor A.J Dean thought "we have got to attack it from every angle" and that "if it is good enough for them [Waihi Beach] to have a proper treatment plants or oxidation ponds installed then it should be good enough for Katikati."125 TheWaihi Borough Council requested that the application to discharge sewerage off Matakanalsland be.readvertised. In a letter to the Regional Water Board, the Council said: In its advertisement in the Bay of Plenty Times on 14 September 1977, the Tauranga County Council notified of an application for a Water Right to discharge Comminuted domestic water sewage from the Katikati Township to a marine outfall. Public notification on 6 December 1977 stated your Board had granted a right to discharge Screened domestic sewerage. In view of the change in wordage the Waihi Borough Council considers that your Board has a legal and moral responsibility to reopen the matter of this application. It is considered the application should be readvertised. 126 This request was rejected by the Regional WaterBoardQnthe groundsthatthispoint had already been considered at the beginning of the hearing. As screening would result in improved treatment of the sewage, the Board thought there was no need for a re-advertisement or rehearing. 124 Secretary Waihi District Environmental Association, to County Clerk, Tauranga County Council, 1 February 1978, PIlIl WBOPDC. 125 'Waihi Borough will fight against proposed sewerage outfall' 9 February 1978, Waihi Gazette. Doc BlO. 126 P. e. Whelan, Town Clerk, Waihi Borough Council, to Secretary, Bay of Plenty Regional Water Board, 22 March 1978, 19/4/361 BOPRe. 76 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report With no response forthcoming from the Tauranga County Council, the Waihi Borough Council wrote to the Department of Health and the Minister for the Environment. 127 A challenge was also made to the Minister of Maori Affairs, Mr Rata, in the Waihi Gazette: CHALLENGE TO MR RATA Sir- As a visitor to Waihi I have been holidaying at Waihi Beach for most of my life which now extends over many years, I was absolutely disgusted to read in the Waihi Gazette the attitude adopted by the Tauranga County Council to a petition sent to them from Waihi Beach regarding the discharge of raw sewerage into the sea off MatakanaIsland. I know from many years experience that there is a tidal drift up and down the coast according to the winds and such discharge of sewage must affect Waihi Beach, the Katikati harbour and the abundance of shellfish which exists in that wonderful area. Likewise, when the tidal drift is southwards, then the Tauranga end of the harbour will be affected, plus the Mount beaches. The shell fish which abound on the ocean beach of Matakana are the heritage of the Matakana Maoris and such sewage must create a health hazard as far as these people are concerned. I hope the Maori Affairs Department and Mr M Rata, MP for these Maoris will make the utmost effort to stop this disgusting discharge. Mr Rata, this is a challenge to you. If you have the interests ofthe Maori people at heart, take up your courage and nobody will object to however many words you use in an effort to have this project killed. It could bring cholera to New Zealand as Jack of sanitation has done to other Pacific Islands. Anti-Raw Sewage Hamilton 128 The author could not find any other information concerning this letter and does not know if it was actually sent to Mr Rata. 127 P. Irvine, for Commissioner for the Environment, Wellington, to Chief Engineer, Tauranga County Council, 17 March 1978, PIlII WBOPDC. 128 'Challenge to Mr Rata' 9 February 1978, Waihi Gazette. 77 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report The Minister of Health, Mr Gill, in response to letters of concern about the sewerage plans, n supported the decision of the Regional Water Board and restated that the disposal of raw sewage was approved as the Matakana Beach was inaccessible. '29 The Minister's letter of reply was printed in the Waihi Gazette: I am informed that the Tauranga County Council proposes to provide sewers in the township of Katikati and disposal of the sewage, after fine screening, into the sea off Matakana Island. The serving of Katikati is most desirable and will prevent existing sewage discharges to water courses. The proposed discharge offmely screenedsewagethrougho.asea.:outfaUoff,Mata.kana:lsland has been carefully considered by the Bay ofPlentyCatchmentCommissioninjts capacity as Regional Water Board, in the granting of a right to discharge under the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967. The Department of Health supported the application for the right to . dispose ofscreened sewage at the location which in this instance is suitable, in the sea through properly designed outfalls. It is the department's policy to encourage the disposal of effluent into the ocean at points which are inaccessible to the general public and where no significant contamination can occur. C) In granting the water right the Regional Water Board imposed safeguards including provision for reviewing the conditions if the quality of the receiving conditions of the water right falls below a standard specified in the Water and Soil Conservation Act. oj am satisfiedthauhe Regional Water.Board, as the appropriate authority. for granting.the right to discharge, has considered all relevantinfonn:ation in:reaching a-decisionwhichwiU permit a much needed sewerage scheme to proceed. 130 The Minister of the Environment, Venn Young, (who received letters of concern from theWaihi District Environmental Association and Mr Ross) wrote to the Bay of Plenty Regional Water .Board and the Tauranga County Council requesting .information on the proposed sewerage scheme. The County Council replied to the Minister by sending copies of submissions presented 129 'Minister's views on sewage discharge' 23 March 1978, Waihi Gazette. 130 Ibid. 78 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report to the hearing and the report on the application by Sherring and Taylor. The County Council did not include the amended statement of Dr Larcombe. '31 The Regional Water Board, meanwhile, replied to the Minister by giving a general overview of the proposal which restated Dr Larcombe's evidence (not the amended evidence), the position that the Matakana Island foreshore had 'little public use', and that the scheme would improve the water quality of . Tauranga Harbour. 132 Venn Young wrote back to the Waihi District Environmental Association and MrRoss between April and June 1978. To the Environmental Association, the Minister stated that he generally supported the decision ofthe Regional Water Board but recognised that "while open sea discharges do not use the wastes .mosteffectivelyand will cause a degree of pollution, the new water right will lead to a substantial improvement in water quality within the harbour area." He also emphasised the requirement for annual surveys, effluent testing and that "the Regional Water Board is able to give notice of cancelation if in its opinion public interest or the interest oflawful users of the sea water require.,,'33 To Mr Ross, the Minister emphasised that the discharge was acceptable due to the 'limited human use' of the Matakana Island foreshore, although it was not an 'ideal solution', and work was being done by Commission for Environment staff into land-based disposal methods. 134 Tauranga County Council (in the persons of the County Chairman, Engineer and Clerk) had an informal meeting with the Waihi Borough Council in an effort to "enlighten them more fully on their plans and to explain their reasons."Thismeeting was "quite unofficial and the Tauranga County trio had not wanted any publicity about the meeting."'35. Also in response to some concerns raised by the Ohinemuri County Council, the Tauranga County Council "promised a report will be made public on the implications of the proposed Katikati sewage disposal I3l Ross, TCC to Commissioner for the Environment, 12 April 1978, POL, 2/6G, MFE. 132 Revington to Commissioner for the Environment, 21 March 1978, POL, 2/6G, MFE 133 Minister for the Environment to M. D. Smeaton, 4 April 1978, POL 2/6G, MFE. 134 Minister for the Environment to 1. M. Ross, 16 June 1978, POL 2/6G, MFE. 135 'Unconvinced on sewerage plans' 23 February 1978, Waihi Gazette. 79 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report o scheme. "136 The Tauranga County Council did not readvertise tl:J.e application for a water right despite strong opposition from Waihi Beach. This position was supported by the Minister of Health and the Minister for the Environment. 4.3.2. Katikati sewerage disposal plans are implemented Despite opposition, the Tauranga County COU!'lciLurgentiy,:pushedahea(i;.;its>plan to use the Dairy Association pipeline. This 'urgency' .was.infl~~cedby,Council1or:Spratt;(a'director of the Bay of Plenty Dairy Association) who stated that the Dairy Association was proceeding with the contract to construct the. pipeline. With Councillor Spratt absent, the Tauranga County Council decided in principle to join in with the proposed Dairy Association discharge pipeline subject to the concordance of the Katikati Community Council and satisfactory negotiations with the Dairy Association. Negotiations between the Tauranga County Council and the Dairy Association were kept confidential. 137 The pipeline was built to specifications provided by Murray-North and Partners between July 197~and July 1979. These specifications were approved by the Ministry of Transport under the 1950 Harbours Act on 9 February 1978 (MD463). Conditions, accompanying this approval inc1udedthe requirement that the pipe be laid;to a:minimmn of·onemetrehelow the ground or 136 'Report promised' 23 March 1978, Waihi Gaze!f;e. Note: the author has not found this report. I370ne problem to surface·was a landowner, Mr Clarke, who did not formally consent to the granting of an easement for the pipeline over his property for the transport of sewage (he had agreed to an easement for the use of factory waste only). This issue was discussed at the Tauranga County Council meeting in February (Cr Spratt . ;was,absentforthisitem of business). It was decided that if MrClarke would not allow the pipe to carry sewage then the Council would not withhold its consent for the diversion of the pipeline along a road reserve and the costs of the diversion would be considered at a later date. By the end of May 1978, Mr Clarke, continued his objection against the pipeline carrying domestic sewerage and so the Dairy Association requested permission to divert the pipeline along the Marshalls Road reserve. Although the Dairy Association could oflaid its pipe across land owned by Mr Clarke, "it would render impossible the use of the pipeline for any other purpose." As it was planned that the pipeline would be used for Katikati domestic sewage, it "would be unwise to lay the pipeline on any property ) subject to such restricted use conditions" Permission to use the Marshalls road reserve was granted on 27 June 1978. 80 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report seabed. Notice-boards were also to be erected on Matakana Island and at Katikati declaring the existence of the pipeline, and the pipeline area was to be declared prohibited for anchorage.138 At the time it was the longest and biggest submarine plastic pipeline in New Zealand. The 200 mm PVC pipe was 135,000 metres long and had an expected life of 50 years. The pipe was buried across the. TaurangaHarbour with two metres of cover. The total cost of the pipeline came to in excess of 1 million dollars. Figure 4.5. Construction of the Matakana Pipeline. Source, Bay of Plenty Times, 22 July 1978. ') 13lkatikati factory effluent pipeline, specifications and approval under Harbours Act, 9 February 1978, P/lfl, WBOPDC. 81 Wailangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report The construction of the Dairy Association disposal pipeline was completed in July 1979 and o waste from the Katikati factory began to flow into the sea off Matakana Island by late 1979.139 While the pipeline was being constructed, talks between the Association and the County Council carried on and an agreement was finally produced for ratification in May 1980.WithCr Spratt . again absent from the meeting, the County Council approved the agreement on 21 August 1980. This agreement provided for the payment of $1 00,000 to the Dairy Association for the use of the pipeline. This payment was delayed until the Local Authority Loans Board had approved the raising of a loan. 140 The Tauranga County Council announced the agreement with the Dairy Association and plans for Katikati sewerage disposal on 5 November 1980. A public meeting was held on 2 December 1980 at Katikati(the agreement itself was signed on the 7 November 1980).141 The plans were organised into 6 stages. C) Stage 1: The purchase of217th share in the Bay ofPlenty Co.operative Dairy Association pipeline at a cost of $235,0.0.0. over 2-years. Also the purchase of land at Wills Road, construction of treatment plant, building and engineering bringing a total cost of stage 1 to $368,0.0.0.. Stage 2-6 Reticulation of Katikati Township. This would mean:a totahcestofaUstages.,oo.'$838jOOO; '. It was emphasised at the public meeting that the scheme was very urgent, as it was thought that \39 This flow was disrupted when the diffuser went missing as it "had been carried away by forces considerably in excess of any due to wave action" A new diffuser was installed and the pipeline began to pump factory wastes out to the sea in March 1980.; Wills, Murray-North Partners, to Engineer, Regional Water Board, 13 February 1980., 19/4/30.9, BOPRC. 140 Tauranga County Council memo, 21 July 1980., P/lIi WBOPDC. 141 Agreement between the Bay of Plenty Co-op Dairy Association and the Tauranga Council, 7 November 1980., PIlII WBOPDC. 82 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report the Lo.cal Autho.rity Lo.ans Scheme might finish so.o.n. It was alSo. emphasised that this scheme was affo.rdable as the o.riginal1975 o.xidatio.n and land-based scheme Wo.uld Co.st $1.4 millio.n in 1980 do.llars. One questio.n put to. this meeting was;. had any eco.Io.gical study been do.ne o.n the likely effect o.f discharging the liquid effluent into. the sea o.ffMatakana Island? The reply: Yes, an extensive study has been made and Mr M.F. Larcombe, of Bioresearchers Ltd, gave evidence at the hearing when the Water Right was granted. He said there would be some contamination near the outfall and the use of a simple diffuser was recommended which meant .. that the. water should be reasonably pure 200 metres fromthe.outfaU.·The pipeline' waste has to' be tested at least three times a year and at leastpnce:a'year a' investigation at the MatakanaBeach outfall. 142 This answer at the public meeting was inco.rrect in regard to. the statement that the water "sho.uld be reasonably pure 200 metres fro.m the o.utfall", as the amended evidence o.f Dr Larco.mbe had stated that the presence o.f effluent-derived faecal co.lifo.rm bacteria Wo.uld mean that co.ntaminatio.n Wo.uld o.ccur, at times, at a distance o.fup to. 1100 metres fro.m the o.utfall. After the fo.rmalitieso.fthe public meeting (which appeared to.SUPPo.rt the proPo.sals but no.t the Co.sts invo.lved) the Tauranga Co.unty Co.uncil made a fo.rmal applicatio.n to. the Lo.cal Autho.rities Lo.ans Bo.ard. In his repo.rt to. the Lo.ans Bo.ard, Mr Sherring stated that the pro.Po.sed sewerage system was designed fo.r a dry-weather water flo.W o.f 21 0 cubic metres per day o.r-a to.tal peak flo.W o.f 840 cubic metres per day. The· sewerage:~uld'heireatedbya:seree:niwhere suspended So.lids Wo.uld be co.llected and the fiIteredJiquidj,would:pass-through@nto;a::storage co.ntainer and then into. the effluent dispo.salpipeline. So.lids gathered fro.m the screen Wo.uld. be buried in pits nearby. Mr Sherring provided an environment impact assessment statement (in appendix) as required by the Department o.fHealth. Since 26 February 1974, guidelines fo.r these repo.rts were set by the Ministry fo.r the Environment. Mr Sherring stated in his repo.rt that many residents o.f Katikati wanted the sewerage plans to. pro.gress faster and that mo.st inquiries co.ncerning the 142 'Meeting discusses sewerage scheme' 3 December 1980, Katikati Advertiser. 83 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report scheme were on economic grounds rather than about environmental effects. 143 Adverse ecological effects were thought to be negligible. It was not stated by Mr Sherring that the shellfish in the outfall area were being gathered by residents of Matakana Island. On receiving the application and report, the Local Authorities Loans Board asked the Ministry of Works and the Department of Health to comment on the proposed scheme. Mr G.A. West, Medical Officer of Health, Rotorua, reported to the Director-General of Health on 19 January 1981. He stated that the proposed sewerage system would eliminate all existing unsatisfactory discharges. He put forward the following recommendations: • The Department of Health had no experience of this treatment. • I am satisfied with the principles involved. There is a need to keep watch over the effectiveness of the treatment. () Final decision on storage capacity and alarm systems for pumping stations require my approval. • Final method of treatment requires my approval. • Final location and design of pits requires my approval. • That this proposal for a sewerage system.forKatikati he favomabiy reported on to the Loans Board. 144 On the basis ofthis report, the. Director of Public Health send a letter to the Loans Board saying that the Director strongly supported the proposal and recommended samctioning of the 143 E. J. Sherring, Sewerage of Katikati Community, Tauranga County Council, December 1980, AAFB W4452 32/401 Box 194, NA Wellington. 14'Medical Officer of Health, Rotorua, to Director General of Health, 19 January 1981, AAFB W4452 Box 194, NA Wellington. 84 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Ouifall Report loan. 145 The Commissioner of Works also made a report to the Loans Board stating that the proposed works were essential and recommending that the loan be sanctioned, after plans had been directed to the District Commissioner of Works, Hamilton. 146 However, the Commissioner of Works did inform the Director-General of Health concerning the treatment proposals. He stated: Although this Department could see merit in a joint disposal system which would remove community sewage from Tauranga Harbour it was recognised that some aspects were untried and the degree of treatment ·was minimaL Since then the techniques .of micro-screening have advanced but the Katikati proposal does involve some aspects that will only be firmed up on the basis of operating experience.147 The Local Authorities Loans Board sanctioned the application for a subsidy and loan for the proposed Katikati sewerage scheme on 10 February 1981. This application was still subject to Ministerial approval and conditional that the method of treatment was to the satisfaction of the Medical Officer of Health, Rotorua. On 3 June 1982 the Director-General of Public Health applied to the Minister of Finance and Minister of Health for loan approval. In regard to environmental impact, the Director-General stated that environmental procedures had been followed but a full enviFOnmental impact report was not considered necessary on the basis of the report supplied by the Tauranga County Council. The Ministers of Finance and Health gave approval on 24 June 1982. Conditions attached to this approval included the provision that final plans were to be submitted to the Ministry of Works and that the final method of screening disposal was approved by the Medical Officer of Health, Rotorua. This approval was given only one month after the Bay of Plenty Dairy Association announced 14SOirector-General of Public Health to Local Authorities Loans Board, 30 January 1981, AAFB W4452 Box 194, NA Wellington. 14t:ommissioner of Works to Local Authorities Loans Board, 28 January 1981, AAFB W4452 Box 194, NA Wellington. 147 Commissioner of Works to Director-General of Health, 6 March 1981, AAFB W4452 Box 194, NA Wellington. 85 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report the closure of the Katikati Dairy Factory on 24 May 1982. The factory itself closed on 11 June 1982. The pipeline had been in use by the factory since March 1980. An outfall monitoring study conducted by Bioresearchers was released in June. 1982. 148 The report presented the results of an investigation into the beach environment near the outfall off Matakana Island. This report indicated that there were no adverse effects on the environment surrounding the outfall. The discharged effluent was visible at the outfall but was totally dispersed at about 200-300 metres from the discharge point. All biological data was described as normal and undisturbed. There had also been no accumulation of organic material from the discharge. Although the Katikati factory had closed, the TaurangaCounty Councilcontinued with its plans to construct a screening plant at Wills Road and use 217th of the pipeline for disposal. Construction began on stage 1 during November 1982 and the treatment plant was completed in June 1983. It was thought by Mr Sherring in August 1983, that the County Council "is likely to take over complete control of the pipeline from the Dairy Association so they have control over wastes that could originate if a new industry is established in the Katikati area."149This idea became a serious proposition when on 24 April 1984, the General Manager of the Bay of Plenty Dairy Association, Mr AT Short, wrote to the Tauranga County Council. Short stated that at a recent meeting of the Board of Directors, it had been decided to give the County Council "first opportunity to purchase the balance of the pipeline not already covered in the.joint sharing arrangements, previously negotiated" for a total price of $650,000. 150 This proposal was put before the Works Committee of the County Council on 7 May 1984, which agreed in principle to proceed with the purchase of the entire pipeline. Negotiations began between the Dairy Association and County Council and, at a Council meeting on 20 August 1984, it was confirmed that the Council should acquire 148 Bioresearchers Ltd, Katikati Dairy Factory Outfall Monitoring Study, June 1982. 14'Record of conversion between W. A. Taylor, Regional Water Board and J. Sherring, Tauranga County Council, 19 April 1983, 19/4/361 BOPRe. 150A. T. Short, General Manager, Bay of Plenty Co-op Dairy Association, to County Manager, Tauranga County Council, 24 April 1984, 60/5/1 WBOPDC. 86 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report total ownership of the Katikati pipeline for a sum of $650, 000, conditional on the approval of the Local Authorities Loans' Board. Councillors Cameron, Spratt and Gasson declared a conflict of interest and refrained from discussion or voting during the Council meeting (all three had some involvement in the Bay of Plenty Dairy Association) . . Mr Sherring and the Tauranga County Clerk presented the plan to purchase the whole pipeline to Treasury, Ministry of Works and Development, and Ministry of Health officials in June 1984 at Wellington. Mr Sherring stated that the current water right expired in 1993 so the Council . needed to plan for an extra pipeline or other means'iofdisposalhyT990Atwasithought that the 217th capacity (1000 cubic meters) wouldbe'fully.takenupin:7~9'years(19931>The advantages for the County Council were that: • All trade effluent in the district could be controlled. Another major user may misuse the outfall and place Councils water right in jeopardy. • Price is reasonable. • Dairy Company is underwriting $100,000 balance over 6 years. • Dairy factory and plant available for future treatment. • Abuts commercial owned reserve land. • Full ownership would allow County-,Qonncil to be 'in.c()ntroLofplanning.and provide effluent disposal to a wider area outside Katikati. • Cost of an alternative outfall would exceed 1 million dollars. lSI The pipeline was to be purchased by the Council in the interests of forward planning. Full ownership by the Council would give a disposal capacity of 3500 cubic metres per day, enough capacity to provide for a township of 4,000 persons plus industry. It was forecasted by the 151 Notice of Meeting at Treasury, 1 June 1984, AAFB W4452 Box 194, NA Wellington. 87 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report () Council that Katikati would have a population of3,500 in the year 2005 and a wet weather flow of2,740 cubic metres per day. In his report supporting the application to the Local Authorities Loans Board, Mr Sherring stated that the County Council needed to buy the whole pipeline to provide for the future expected population of Katikati, and that any "return to in harbour effluent discharge will be quite unacceptable in terms of environmental values."152 As in the case of the previous loan applications, the Ministry of Works and Department of Health was asked to report on the proposal. On 6 August 1984, the Director-General of Public Health reported to the Loans Board recommendingHQ,an-acceptance:;oniliecbasisthatthe Council were the most appropriate authority to control the;:.pipelinein the interests' ofipublic health. Loan sanction was obtained at a meeting of the Loans Board on 7 August 1984. With the objective of providing for the future sewage needs of Katikati, the County Council, at a meeting of the Council on 20 September 1984, resolved to purchase the Katikati pipeline and borrow the sum of $650,000. Repayment would be recovered from the Katikati Community area over a period of 20 years. 153 Approval by the Katikati Community Council for the pipeline purchase was given at a meeting . held. on 22 June 1984. 154 After a long 'discussion, it was the opinion of the Community Council that "it was impractical to make a firm decision without more facts, therefore it is moved that Community Council approve in principle the purchase.ofthe pipeline."155 This approval was also accompanied bya resolution calling forapublic:meetmgassoonasJPossible~nespite guarded approval. in principle by the Katikati CommuriityCouncil~.the.K;atikati';Tatef>ayers were very vocal in opposition against the costs of the pipeline purchase once financial details had been 152 E.l' Sherring, Sewerage ofKatikati Community, Effluent Disposal Pipeline,Tauranga County Council, July 1984, AAFB W4452 Box 194, NA Wellington. 153 Instructions from Tauranga County Council, Katikati Sewerage - outfall disposal pipeline, 20 August 1984, 60/511 WBOPDC. 154 Katikati Community Council is a committee of the Western Bay of Plenty District Council. 155 Minutes ofthe Katikati Community Council, 22 June 1984,60/5/1 WBOPDC. 88 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report released in 1985. A public meeting was called for and the Katikati Fruit Growers Association wrote to the Katikati Community Council stating: The Community Council appears to have been hoodwinked by the County Council, and feel the County Council should be fully responsible for the cost of the pipeline over and above the 217th required for the scheme. Under circumstances where the pipeline was an obsolete asset of the Dairy Company, the acceptance of a commitment to purchase the entire pipeline, at an exorbitant price, is considered irresponsible. 156 Many residents feltthat the decision to buy the pipeline had been carried outbehind closed doors and there had been no opportunity for the residents· of Katikatito comment on the proposal before the decision had been made. The financial burden was thought to be just too much! Despite the opposition from Katikati residents, the County Council confirmed the purchase but was unable to come to an agreement with the Katikati Community Council over repayment terms. As a result, Cr Spratt put forward a resolution requiring an initial payment of $50,000 in 1985-86 and increasing by $10,000 each year so to repay the loan within 10 years. These amounts were recovered by a uniform charge which increased each year ($60 - $82 for 1984- 1988) on each rate assessment until total repayment of the loan in 1995/6. The legal procedures for transferring the ownership of the pipeline and easement rights were completed in December 1986. With this purchase, the Tauranga County Councilmadeafinancialcommitment to the continued use of the Katikati pipeline well into the future. Between 1986 and 1990, the Tauranga County Council continued to discharge screened effluent from Katikati into the sea off Matakana Island. In 1986 the Waterford area of Katikati was reticulated and connected into the Wills Road treatment plant. The old Dairy Association Water Right, No. 309, was cancelled on 7 March 1988. 156 Bulletin of the Katikati Fruit growers Association, March 1985,60/5/1 WBOPDC. 89 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report 4.3.2 Outfall Monitoring and opposition from the Matakana Island Community 1985-1989 A summary of water quality and shell fishing monitoring results is included in the appendix. Between 1985 and 1987 a number. of monitoring tests of water quality were carried out. These tests used suspended solids, BOD and flow rates as indicators, and samples were taken from the . tap near ..the treatment station. Results from these tests found that suspended solids varied between 20· and 180 grams. per cubic metre In February 1987 the Regional Water Board wrote to the County Council stating that conditions 4 and 7 of the Water Right were not being fulfilled. These conditions related to effluent testing and annual ecological surveys.157 In response, the Tauranga County Council began to undertake seawater sampling in the area surrounding the outfall. Results from sampling carried out on 27 July 1988 is illustrated below: On line with outfall 350 East, 200 m from outfall 300 East, 700 m from outfall 110 East 1200 m from outfall 100 West 200 m from outfall 140 West 700 m from outfall 140 West 1200 m from outfall 140 Seawater MOllllt()nn Results, 27 July 1988. Sea conditions for this sample were recorded as heavy breakers, very dirty, rising tide and a ) 157 W. A. Taylor, Bay of Plenty Regional Water Board, to County Manager, Tauranga County Council, 27 February 1987, 19/4/361 BOPRC. 90 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report strong onshore wind. 158 This test illustrates that on the beach in line with the outfall, and within 800 metres (outfall was 600 metres from the beach) of the outfall, faecal coliform levels exceeded class SB standards (the samples were not, however, taken over a 30 day period). In August 1988 bacteriological testing of the marine water and shellfish was carried out. These tests . found faecal coliforms to the strength of 160,000 per 100 g of flesh present in green lipped mussels living on the pipeline. The· Health Department limit for edible shellfish is 230 faecal Coliforms per 100g flesh. These results were generally expected from Dr Larcombes amended statement of evidence which arrived too late at the water right hearing in 1977. In September 1988, Howard (Hauata) Palmer (a Matakana resident) wrote to the Tauranga County Council asking the following questions: 1. Is the pipeline now being used for the discharge of human wastes? 2. Is the waste treated or untreated? 3. Was any special approval sought and given to the change? 4. Was the change advertised and objections invited? 5. Is there any risk of contamination of shellfish beds? 6. Is there any risk to human health? After no reply to this letter, Howard Palmer sent another letter on 23 November 1988 which requested the "courtesy of a reply" to hisoriginalletter,andstatingthatifno reply was received, a copy of the original letter would be sent to the Bay ·of Plenty Times .and the Katikati Advertiser. 159 The Tauranga County Council finally replied on the 1 December 1988. The answers to Howard 158 Staff Engineer to Senior Water Treatment Officer, Katikati sewage outfall- faecal coliform testing, 14 October 1990, 60/5/1/1 WBOPDC. Although the testing was carried out in July 1988, the results where sent to the Senior Water Treatment Officer on 14 October 1990. This raises the possibility that the Senior Water Treatment officer was unaware of the test results until October 1990; over two years after the test had been carried out. 159 Howard Palmer to Mr D. Hume, Katikati Community Council, 23 November 1988,60/5/1/1 WBOPDC. 91 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Ouifall Report Palmers questions included: Question 1. Yes, the pipeline is being used for human waste discharge. Question 2. The wasteis subject to milliscreening (did not say it was treated or untreated). Question 3. The Water Right was granted on 1 December 1977. Question 4. The application was advertised and one objection was received. Question 5. "To date the only contaminated shellfish have been those actually growing on the outfall diffuser", ie, at the end of the outfall line which is some 600 metres offthe beach. No contamination of shellfish beds has been found. Question 6.The risk to human health is extremely slight and water samples have shown no faecal Coliforms. The Council is required to monitor the situation. 160 This letter is the first evidence of Matakana Island residents receiving information about the Katikati discharge. This information did not say that the sewerage was untreated and did not state that high faecal coliform levels had been found 800 metres from the outfall. Following complaints from the Tauranga MoanaDistrict,Maori Council, whoiIad registered their opposition to the Matakana Island discharge to Members of Parliament and various government agencies, water and shellfish samples were taken during April 1989. 161 These tests found little evidence of faecal coliforms but the samples had taken two days to reach the Tauranga hospital 160 M. J. Reed, Services Engineer, Tauranga County Council, to Howard Palmer, 1 December 1988, 60/51111 WBOPDC. 161 The author can fmd no further information regarding the District Maori Council's involvement in the Matakana Island Outfall. Evidence should be presented during the Tribunal Hearing from members of the District Maori Council on this issue. 92 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report laboratory and it was stated in the report that "results may be invalid as interval between collection and delivery to lab was too long."162 Conditions at the time of sampling were fine with a north-west wind of 5 knots. Despite the invalid status of the sampling, a letter was sent to the TaurangaMoanaDistrict Maori . Council saying that no pathogenic· organisms were present in the water near the discharge;. and shellfish were free from contamination.163 ) 162 Details of Bacteriological Water Sample, Health Department, 21 April 1989, 60/5/1/1 WBOPDC. 163 1. C. Tootell, Health Development Unit, Tauranga County Council, to Secretary, Moana District Maori Council, 23 June 1989, 60/5/1/1 WBOPDC. 93 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report () The new Western Bay ofPlenty District Council and Bay of Plenty Regional Council came into existence in November 1989. The boundaries of the district included the Tauranga Moana area but excluded Tauranga City (which became Tauranga District Council). As affirmed by the Resource Management Act in 1991, the District Council took over most ofthe responsibilities of the old Tauranga County Council, and theR~gionaleotmcil took?over:the~ responsibilities of the Regional Water Board and CatchmentOommission. One of the most important problems for the new District Council Was (and still is) the provision of sewerage treatment and disposal systems for the fast growing. coastal towns like Katikati and Waihi. Katikati also had a number of problems relating to the pipeline and effluent quality. 5.1 SHELLFISH MONITORING AFTER 1990 Since the Katikati sewerage scheme had been in operation, problems had been encountered with effluent flow rates. Without dairy factory waste, the pumping system could not provide enough velocity.to prevent sedimentation in.the'pipeline.. By 1990 these problems·wereserious because the sedimentation was causing the effluentto'be;;inan:"ad~ance&;stage;of'clm::ayand much worse ·.than if the freshly screened sewage -had beencable'tO'be :pmnpoo'direet"inttt'th-e''Ocean.''164 As the author has. indicated earlier, monitoring of the effluent was: uncoordinated and many samples were taken from a tap near the treatment plant (thus it was unclear what the quality of effluent was, at the point of discharge into the sea). After 1990 the Regional Council carried out more regular testing. Generally BOD and suspended solid rates were within limits set by the l~atikati Wastewater Treatment, Proposals for 1992/3. Information handout at Public Meeting 14 July 1992,60/511 WBOPDC, P 3. 94 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report permit. One exception was in November 1991 when it was found that suspended solids were being discharged at 337.5 kg/day (as measured from the tap near the treatment plant) and so greatly exceeding the limit of 200 kg/day. Flows .(and BOD + SS), however, tended to vary greatly according to weather conditions (see summary of monitoring results in appendix). With the absence of major ecological surveys, the water and shellfish quality of the receiving environment off Matakana Island is unclear. Compliance monitoring reports carried out by the Regional Council have stated that this absence of annual ecological reports has been 'disappointing. '165 Two major reports were completed in June 1991. These reports, Biological Resources by Bioresearchers, and Water Right Study ofBay ofPlenty Ocean Foreshore Waters by Beca Steven Consultants, examined the environmental effect of discharging wastewater into the marine environment. Both reports produced conflicting evidence regarding shellfish contamination. The Biological Resources report, directed by Dr Larcombe, followed the style of previous outfall reports. Again a large number of edible shellfish species were identified in the vicinity of the outfall, especially tuatuas, green lipped mussels (on the outfall structure), clams, triangle shell, toheroa, paddle crabs, and fish. It was reported that local Matakana Maori had lodged an application for a declaration of a taiapure area under the Fisheries Act. 166 In the field survey, a study was made to determine the effect of the discharge on the shellfish, benthic organisms, and sediment quality by the sampling of tuatuas, subtidal shellfish, subtidal biota, sediments and 165 McLaren, P. Compliance Monitoring Report 1991-1992,. Minor Sewage Treatment Facilities in the Bay ofPlenty, 1993, Environment BOP; McLaren, P. Compliance Monitoring Report 1994, Minor Sewage Treatment Facilities in the Bay ofPlenty, 1995, Environment BOP. There were also instances when raw sewerage had·been discharged into the Tauranga Harbour from the Katikati treatment plant as a result ofmechanica1 faults or power shutdowns. As the storage capacity of the plant was very limited, discharges into the Tauranga Harbour would occur if the shutdown exceeded half an hour. 166 A Taiapure is a fishery reserve which may be declared by the Governor for better recognition of rangatiratanga under Article II of the Treaty of Waitangi. This application for Taiapure status is now not being pursued. 95 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report shellfish quality. () The results of the survey found that the Katikati discharge had resulted in: • no disturbance of sediments in the outfall area; • normal concentration in sediment metals; • no clear pattern was fOlilld· in the: con~ntration:of>¥Olatile,;solids~in';rel:ationship to the outfall; • no obvious contamination by effluent-derived copper, lead or zinc was found in shellfish samples near the outfall and all levels of metals found in shellfish were within Food and Drug Regulations (1973) standards; and • there was little effect found on the distribution and abundance of benthic organisms. In summary, Bioresearchers found that the Katikati discharge was having no' serious impact on the marine environment as the "high energy environment of the outfall area is resulting in effective dispersal of the discharged waste." While the report stated that the tuatua and scallop resources merited special protection, it al~oreJfirtedilia1: The habitat types present in the outfall area occur veFY extensively in the sUITooowng rurea. There were no areas of high. intrinsic value near the outfan,and no uses of subtidal resources that are incompatible with 'effluent discharge. Uses such as commercial crab fishing and long lining and recreational fishing from small boats are not threatened by th,e existing dischrurge. le7 Apart from mentioning that local Maori had made a taiapure application, the report (as in the case of previous Bioresearcher reports) did not include the values that locaL Maori placed on the 167 Bioresearchers, Biological Resources, June 1991, p 96. 96 Waitangi TrilJunat Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report marine environment and kaimoana of the outfaU area. The Water Right Study ofBay of Plenty Ocean F'Oireahore Waters report by Beca Steven also examined the existing impacts of the Katikati outfall. Information was collected from two surveys conducted on 26 February 1991 (survey l)and II May 1991 (survey 2). On both days shellfish samples were taken at grid locations 250 m, 500 m, and 1000 m, north and south of the outfall and at the outfall itself. . Survey 1 samples found low levels of contamiFIaJtion:excep1rflomdi1~:ar.ea.directly adjacent to the pipeline outfall. These shellfish were descrihed~f'highly,c0ntaminated}'t~&; Survey 2 samples, however, were taken during and preceding strong onshore wind conditions. These conditions were "of sufficient strength and duration to cause migration ofllie effluent field to the shore with reduced dilution."169 The impact of reduced dilution caused shellfish gathered on the beach to show "considerable contamination and most would be considered unfit for human consumption.''i7O The highest faecal coliform count was record 500 metres south of the pipeline ) with 4,300 MPNII OOg. As stated, the Health Department limit is 230 faecal eoliforms MPNII OOg. This contamination had a greater impaet at night as ultra"'-violet light influences bacterial mortality.Jtwas also the first report to mention the interests of Matakana Island Maori and their opposition to oeean outfalls. The Beea-Steven report concluded: Shellfish in the offshore area around the Qutfall,,,:hnot.·appearto,,he signifitantly:contaminated by bacteria. However; under strong offshorewind::conditions,:the.sheUfIsb~n'the'shoreline within 1000 metres of the outfall can be severely contaminated. Since no other bacterial source exists in· the area, the outfall must be considered to pose a potential health risk to the consumption of shellfish from the area. 17l 16& Beca-Steven, Water Right Study o/Bay o/Plenty, Ocean Foreshore Waters, 1991, Wai 215, A20, P 12. 169 Ibid 170 Ibid 171 Ibid, P 19. 97 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report () Comprehensive shellfish monitoring has only been carried out since 1995 (see appendix). This monitoring has used faecal coliforms, enterococci, and salmonella as indicators of pollution. The Regional Council affirms that, while recent research has shown that faecal coliforms alone have little credibility as an indicator of contamination, they do "reflect the likelihood of human or animal sewage in close proximity."172 Again shellfish monitoring shows a wide variety in faecal coliform levels. These levels have generally been recorded as below 330 MPN/100g. A high faecal count was recorded recently on 24 June 1997 as 3,500 MPNIlOOg on the beach at the pipeline. 173 In consideration of the evidence generally dependent on the measurement of faecal coliforms, .the author's own interpretation of shellfish quality at ocean beach, Matakana Island is as follows: 1. The sewerage effluent causes shellfish near the outfall structure to be unfit for human consumption at all times. 2. At nighttime and during periods of heavy onshore swell, the extent of serious contamination increases to at least 1000 metres from the outfall structure. 5.2 PLANNING FOR SEWERAGE, EARLY.1990s 172 McIntosh, J. Bay ofPlenty Regional Council, Shellfish Quality Assessment, 1992, p 45. "For the reasons . set Gut in the comprehensive reports· of the. United States National Academy of Science (NAS 1991) and of the United States National Advisory Committee on Mircobiological Criteria for Foods (NAC 1991), there is little . scientific credibility attached to the use of faecal coliforms in this manner. This is particularly so in the New Zealand context,· where due to our large animal populations, faecal coliform numbers in many of our coastal waters are elevated." 173 The Shellfish Quality Assessment programme (SQA), as part of the regional Natural Environmental Regional Monitoring Network, uses eight indicators of shellfish quality: clostridium perfringens, e coli, enterococci ent3, enterococci ent6, faecal coliforms, vibrio parahaemolyticus, vibrio alginolyticus, and vibro vulnificus. After considering the monitoring results ofall these eight indicators is the shellfish quality determined Unfortunately the SQA programme does not include the ocean foreshore of Matakana Island. 98 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report In 1990 the District Council attempted to re-evaluate sewerage and waste disposal in the Tauranga Moana area. 174 This re-evaluation had three objectives; "to meet the needs of residents, maintain a high standard of public health, and protect the environment."175 To achieve these objectives it was recommended that the District Council implement future planning to clear all wastewater from Tauranga Harbour and arrest declining environmental standards. This report did not mention the need to take into accountMaoriconcems about wastewater disposal. The report planned for the creation of four wastewater catchments; North-West, Katikati, Omokoroa~ Te Puna,. and. Te Puke-Maketu; ,Eaeno:Hhese,catchmentsw,o:uld,be !serviced by an ocean outfall as illustrated in Figure 5.1. l7'This re-evaluation was based on the perceived need to provide for population growth in the area. An earlier report by Murray-North in 1983 assessed the implications of the growth ofKatikati. This assessment assumed that the "existing reticulation scheme can be expected to accommodate projected growth" and that "only a large food processing or other horticulture related industry could strain the capacity of the outfal!." Reference to Maori interests were not included in this report; Murray-North, Assessment ofImplications ofGrowth in Katikati and the Riding, July 1983. 17Westem Bay of Plenty District, Wastewater Collection and Disposal Concept Report, August 1990. 99 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report -- Dlstrlct 8oundories - Wastewater Sub Region Boundaries ~ Urban Areas -... Proposed Ocean Outfoils ~ ...... ~ () WESTERN SA Y OF PLENTY DISTRICT o .'iltm 10km t I • , , I I WESTERN BAY OF PLENTY DISTRICT PROPOSED LONG TERM WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL CONCEPT PLAN Figure 5.1. WBOPDC Proposed Long Tenn Wastewater Collection and Disposal Concept Plan. Source, Wastewater Collection and Disposal Concept Report, 1990, p 2-3. The Katikati Catchment Wastewater scheme remained based on the use of the Katikati pipeline ) and Matakana Island outfall for the future disposal of sewerage. It was thought that volumes of 100 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report wastewater could be substantially increased and problems overcome if oxidation ponds and pumping were provided. It was recommended in the short term that current operational problems concerning the Katikati discharge could be solved.using oxidation ponds and the outfall could be extended. In the medium term, it was assumed that the existing outfall could be used beyond 1993 up to an equivalent population of 5,550. In the long term (to year 2015), the life of the existing outfall would nearly be finished and a new outfall might need to be constructed. By the year 2015 it was planned that collection of effluent would be extended to cover the area from Woodlands Road to the Wainui River. -- , Z J <.I.1L_I_... I_-,--, Figure 5.2. Katikati Catchment Wastewater Scheme Concept. Source. Wastewater Collection and Disposal Concept Report. 1990, p 19-20. The Western Bay of Plenty District Council planned that the Katikati pipeline and Matakana Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report Island outfall would provide for the sewerage needs of the area well into the 21th Century. Key issues of the wastewater plan were: that no discharges should be allowed into Tauranga Harbour; that ocean disposal was the only practicable means.of effluent disposal; and that schemes must be affordable to the communities involved. The effect ofthe pipeline on Maori interests was not considered inthe collection and disposal concept plan and this was noticed by the Public Health Service. In a letter to the Area Health Board, E. G. Fox commented on the plan: The second major point [the first point was,cost]thatconcems me is the reIianceonsea outfalls for disposal of treated sewerage. From a strict 'health' viewpoint these may be adequate. I wonder, though, how much consultation there has been with local Maori communities and whether the concept of sea outfalls has been accepted by these communities. 176 5.2.1 Treatment plans at the old dairy factory site The upgrade of the Katikati treatment plant was planned for 199112 and the basic plan for the Katikati sewerage unit was to provide primary and secondary treatment of wastewater using oxidation ponds. This treated waste would then be pumped into the Matakana Island pipeline using a pumping cycle of sufficient duration to enable the complete replacement of all liquid in the pipeline, so that the pipe would be fullyc1eaned with each discharge; To achieve this liquid replacement, it was envisaged that water would be taken from Tauranga Harbour. The site being investigated for the oxidation ponds was part of the foreshore of Tauranga Harbour and reclamation of some 3Ahectares oftheHarbour would be involved. The plan required approval from the Department of Conservation (which administered the Harbours Act 1950), and conditions on the original 1977 Water Right would need to be amended to allow for an increased 17fpox, Public Health Services, to Tootell, BOP Area Health Board, 12 November 1991, AAFB W4452 Box 168, NA Wellington. 102 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report o daily discharge of 1300 cubic metres.177 The arrival of Beca Steven's Water Right Study, in July 1991 stimulated further debate and plans for Katikati sewerage. Plans to build oxidation ponds on Tauranga Harbour were abandoned after .. it was found that the.. proposed .reclamation did not .have the support of the Ministry for Environment or the Department of Conservation. The District Council began to look· for new sites and treatment options. At a public meeting in Katikati held on 14 July 1992, new proposals were released by the District Council. These proposals included the use of oxidation ponds and continued use of the Matakana Island pipeline ~d:,ou:tfall;()xidation,pondswere chosen because they were cheap, simple, natural, environmentally.friendlyand~·appropriate to the investment already made in the Katikati reticulation, pumping stations and the present pipeline to the ocean outfall. "178 Out of a total of six sites investigated for the location of oxidation ponds, the Leech property on Beach Road was selected on the basis that: it was adjacent to the existing pipeline, close to Wills ( .. ) Road pumping station, close to sea level, and able to be expanded ifneeded. At this stage there was still $309,000 owing to the Council on the pipeline with each Katikati ratepayer paying $1,140 each year. After this meeting, some ofthe Katikati Community. Board. Members.(Harris, Clarke, McGowan, Mayo, and Wanakore) decided to find an alternativescheme',whichwo:uld:utilize the old Katikati Dairy. factory site and avoid the need to buy the iLeechpropeny foroxidationp0nds. A feasibility study by the Waste Technology Group of Mosgiel was commissioned and a Katikati Sewerage Disposal Working Party was set up in December 1992. The Working Party's terms of reference· included the consideration of options for sewage treatment and disposal, facilitation of public presentation of the options, consideration of submissions and the recommendation of a preferred 177 I. S. Carlisle, Bruce Henderson Consultants Ltd, to Manager Engineering Services, WBOPDC, 26 Mareh 1991, 60/5/1 WBOPDC. 171katikati Wastewater Treatment, Proposals for 1992/3. Information handout at Public Meeting 14 July 1992, 60/5/1 WBOPDC, P 4. 103 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report DptiDn tD the District CDuncil. The Waste TechnDIDgy Group repDrted in OctDber 1992 and recDmmended that the .Old dairy factDry site cDuld be used as a site fDr effluent treatment. 179 Despite these recDmmendatiDns, Bruce HendersDn CDnsultants remained uncDnvinced .Of the value .Of using the .Old dairy factDry site, In their repDrt in SUPPDrt .Of new resDurce cDnsents, the .CDnsultants recDmmended using DxidatiDn pDnds .On .the Beach RDad property as '~beingthe mDst econDmically and envirDnmentally apprDpriate, with capacity tD take the wastewater fDr the pDpulatiDn .Of 2011 and. beYDnd." 180 It was assumed by Bruce HendersDn CDnsultants that the existing pipeline wDuld be used tD discharge the treated effluent: Suggestions have been made that the effluent should be disposed of onto land, but for this present application, other disposal options, including land disposal, have not been considered. It will be difficult even to fund thetreatmentplantfor now and.to abandon the investment of the pipeline would not be commercially realistic as it would have a nil value to others unless alternative use and buyer could be found. lsl On receiving this repDrt, the Katikati Wastewater WDrking Party, requested further study be c.Onducted .On treated wastewater dispDsal DptiDns. This study was cDmpleted by Bruce HendersDn CDnsultantsin February 1993. In this repDrt threedispDsal sites were examined; mainland dispDsal, Matakana Island land-based dispDsal and using the existing Matakana Island .Ocean· .Outfall. .All three sites. were assessed in terms .Of track recDrd,developmeilt flexibility, NIMBY (nDt in my backyard reactiDn), cultural concerns, ,affDrdability artd.ease .Of regulatDry procedure. On the basis .Of this criteria,.it was: recommended ,that Katikati.:sliould cDntinue tD use the existing .Ocean .Outfall after primary and secDndary treatment. The main benefits .Of using the pipeline were its IDW cDSt, its existence, and the likelihDDd that regulatDry prDcedures wDuld be 179 Waste Technology Group, Report on Katikati Sewage Treatment using the old DairyFactory Site, October 1992. 18 181 Bruce Henderson Consultants, Katikati Wastewater Scheme, p 8. 104 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfali Report reduced. 182 The report did not comment on Matakana Island iwi opposition against the continued use of the pipeline 5.3 OPPOSITION FROM THE MATAKANA ISLAND COMMUNITY In April 1991 a small article appeared in the Bay of Plenty Times which commented on the problems of Katikati andWaihi sewerage and stated that Katikati untreated sewage was being discharged into the sea. The reaction to this 'truth' was angry: a letter to the editor in the Bay of Plenty Times appearing on 11 of April explains clearly: POLLUTION Sir- For many years Matakana Island people have shown a great deal of concern over the dumping of sewage via a pipeline from Katikati and discharged on the eastern side of our island. Although the pipeline outlet is several hundred metres out into the ocean, those who planned this masterpiece expected the people to actually believe that this was a clean safe way to discharge sewage. We have in our possession all relevant information concerning the pipeline which we acquired from the TaurangaCounty Council in 1989. Nowhere in this conglomeration of material does it show that the engineers ever consulted the tangata whenua. I cannot remember our people being given a right to object. One can argue that notices appeared in the local newspaper. I can' argue back and state Matakana.Island residents did not get a newspaper during that period intime and any notices published at that time would have been convenient 0nly to the planners, Our people were told that the sewage had been treated before passing through the pipeline, but we still questioned this, because of the stench and residue sometimes appearing at the outlet area. Now at last someone has told the truth, shocking as it may be - but not unexpected. In last Saturday's BOP Times on page 3, the statement is loud and clear, I quote: "Katikati sewage is pumped raw across the harbour and Matakana Island by pipeline where it is discharged 18isase of regulatory procedure probably refers to a assessment of likely opposition and objections in the resource consent process. 105 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report on the eastern side of the island. My first reaction was to dynamite the pipeline. But when I fmally calmed down, I decided I would not stoop to those kinds of tactics in the belief that two wrongs do not make a right. The Maori people liken the sea to a garden: the supplier of their kaimoana, a playground for their children and the belief that healing comes from the serenity of the waters in its purest form. The Matakana Island people are not going to sit back and allow their Moana to be desecrated. When will they ever learn. IRATE ISLAND RESIDENT Matakana Island The issue was discussed at a meeting of the Matakana Island Trust held at Opureora on 14 June 1992.183 It was agreed that: The legal length of the pipeline itself is in question. The discharge of raw sewerage is absolutely not acceptable and the community at large demand some remedial measures take place to address this issue. We are aware that the Katikatipeople are looking into treatment options before Sept 1993 expiry date of their permit; however we feel that for too long, this issue has not received the attention it should have, and we want immediate action on the matter. 184 The response from the District Council agreed thatthe; currentdischarge was unacceptable and informed the trust of plans to upgrade the treatment plant. The members of the trust were also invited to a public meeting. 185 183Matakana Island Trust is a representative body of the Matakana Island community. 184 C. T. McGlynn, for the Matakana Island Trust, to Secretary, Tauranga County Council, 14 June 1992, 60/5/111 WBOPDC. 185 B. Henderson, to Mrs C. T McGlynn, Matakana Island Trust, 19 June 1992,60/51111 WBOPDC. 106 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report Another letter was also sent by the claimant (on behalf of the Matakana Island Trust) on 18 September 1992. This letter re-emphasised that "the discharge of raw sewerage is absolutely not acceptable and the community at large demand some remedial measures to address this issue." The letter also said: We know that a proposal was put to the Katikati people concemingwater rights and we also know it was not accepted. What other measures, if any, have been taken to counteract that? We would like to ask ifthe Matakana Island Trust can be made a party to any submissions, and copies of this letter be sent to the Community Board and Ratepayers. 186 On receiving this letter, the MatakanalslandTrustwas invited to join the Katikati Wastewater Treatment Working Party. With 30 of September 1993 approaching (the expiry date of the discharge permit), time was running out for the resource consent application, and decisions on the proposed treatment options had still not been made by early 1993. Henceforth, the District Council applied to the Regional Council on 11 February 1993 for permission to continue discharging raw sewage while the new resource consent application was being considered and processed under section 124b of the Resource Management Act. This permission was granted and an extension was given until 30 June 1993 to lodge the Katikati sewerage discharge consent application. In March 1993 the Katikati Wastewater Working Party reported to.theDistrict Council its recommendations and findings inregard to the forthcoming Katikatisewerage resource consent application. The activities of the Working Party included public meetings, a public open day, visitation ofsites, and discussionsatOpureora Marae (Matakana Island) and Rereatukahia Marae (Katikati). The recommendations included: That the Resource Consent Application be for the discharge of Katikati secondary treated wastewater, based on a dual Sequential Batch Reactor system, or similar mechanical plant and 186 Matakana Island Trust, to Tauranga County Council, 18 September 1992,61/7/1 WBOPDC. 107 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report n discharge through the existing pipeline to the ocean outfall off Matakana Island. 187 The location of this treatment plant was to be the old dairy factory site. In the long term it was recommended that the Council work towards land-based disposal options, but land-based disposal was not recommended at present due to an "unduly significant financial burden."188 Key reasons for choosing this treatment option included; that the existing land, plant, pipeline, etc were owned by the Council, SBR treatment was thought to produce better quality effluent than oxidation ponds, and that residents were clearly against the costs. and adverse effects of oxidation ponds. Many .submissions to theWorkingR:aftyAlad'suppo:rtedthe;continuedrtrse of the pipeline as the Katikati ratepayers had already made';l?J"gefinancial: investrnent:bYfhuying the pipe in 1984. The Matakana Island Community made a four page submission to the Working Party. After giving a brief overview of the history and interrelationship between the Maori community and Matakana Island, the following objection was recorded: We strongly object to any proposed wastewater discharge into any waterway, harbour or ocean, or'on to any land that makes up Matakana, Rangiwaea or Motuhoa Islands, or on to any beach or foreshore surrounding these islands. 189 This objection was based on the consultation.process. and-cultural values. In summary the submission says: • In regard to consultation, the Matakana Island community say that they were never consulted in 1977 when the water right was obtained by the County Council; advertisements in the Bay of Plenty Times were not noticed. 187 Katikati Wastewater System, Objection on behalf of the Matakana Island Community, May 1993, 611711 WBOPDC. 188 Ibid ) 189 Ibid 108 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report • Later the Matakana Island Community were led to believe that the sewerage was treated as the term milliscreened was thought to be a form of treatment. From 1982 the Tauranga County Council has been discharging raw sewerage into the ocean off Matakana Island. • In terms of international standards, it was thought that the existing pipeline was not long enough and that the discharge point should be at least one kilometre from the mean low water mark (this point was made to illustrate the inefficiencies of the existing system, not to be construed as an.agreementto ocean-discharge). • Shellfish have been regularly collected from ocean beach by the Matakana and Rangiwaea community. • The Katikati Wastewater Working Party did meet with the Matakana Community on the 6 March 1993. However this amount of consultation is inadequate and that proper consultation has not occurred in the first place. • In truth, the Tauranga County Council would have gone ahead with the pipeline plan even ifthe Matakana Island community had objected to it. • In regard to the cultural values ofthetangata whenua, waste and food do not occupy the same receptacle. These values are undermined by oceanoutfalls. • Maori cultural values are being ignored as problems are attempted to be solved from only a Pakeha perspective. In conclusion, the submission stated that finance should not be the only consideration and that the right decisions may require "high financial input today but the benefits to coming generations would be enormous." As equal partners to the Treaty ofWaitangi, Maori people should not have to continually defend their values, and the "Maori view should not only be heard but it should 109 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report be taken heed of."190 Despite this objection, the District Council went ah~ad and applied for Resource Consents under the Resource Management Act on 29 June 1993, for a treatment plant on the old dairy factory site and use of the existing Matakana Island outfall. The consents applied for included a land use consent (for the operation of a sequenced batch reactor), a temporary coastal permit, and a discharge consent. The new discharge consent (application 023604) was to provide for 2000 cubic metres of effluent in wet conditions (or 800 cubic metres in dry conditions) treated to a secondary level after June 1995, when it wasexpectedthatthenewtreatmentplant would be commissioned. The effluent would be dischar:ged at the ocean outfall located off Matakana Island. Western eay of Plenty Distr.ct Ccmci1 Kaek.::"ii \¥.3steo.vater . KATIKATI OCEAN OUtFALL Figure 5.3. Sketch Plan of proposed Katikati sewerage disposal scheme. 190 Ibid llU Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report A prehearing meeting was held to discuss the Matakana Island outfall issue. During the meeting, Mr Hauata Palmer made a number of points regarding the outfall. These points included: • the previous ten years of discharge had been too long and a number of mistakes had been made in the past regarding the pipeline and sewage discharge; • aquaculture development is proposed in the Matakana Island coastal marine area; • large numbers of shellfish had been found dying on the beach near the 'outfall; • alternative discharge locations should be considered and ultimately the pipeline should be closed; • there is still some opposition to the discharge of effluent that has been treated by wetlands; and • land-disposal is the most accepted option. 191 These issues were included in a formal objection by Hauata Palmer on behalf of Matakana Island iwi. This objection included the following statements: a. the reputation of the iwi is related to quality of food offered to visitors on special occasions. Tauranga Moana area contains finest mataitai and sea foods. b. the existing pipeline across the harbour is an environmental threat; 191 Pre-Hearing Report, Included in Report ofR.B. Gardner for Joint Hearings Committee, 10 June 1994, 19/4/361, BOPRC. During an earlier discussion on Matakana Island land-based disposal at Opureora Marae, it was agreed that land disposal on the island could be acceptable provided access to urupa was not restricted, however, the location of many urupa was not known. 111 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Ouifall Report c. the discharge has breached articles two and three of the Treaty of Waitangi as customary o fishing rights are now restricted due to the presence of the outfall. Howeve:t:, the extent of contamination over the beach area is unknown. Regulatory organisations of the Crown should be actively protecting the natural resources of the area; d. m terms of future development, the Matakana community is seeking to develop aquaculture. This development right is undermined by the discharge; e. between January 1994 and June 1995"astaggering77~;800;cubicm:etreswill have been discharged - to say nothing of the 5,OQO~OOO cubic metres: of the; past ten years during which time nothing was done to remedy the situation;"and f. treatment will still not guarantee the presence of unaffected mataitai. In conclusion the Matakana Island community sympathised with the costs of the problem, but reiterated they wanted "the ocean outfall on Matakana Island removed and the discharge right be cancelled forthwith."192 The Minister of Conservation also made a submission stating that the proposal was a restricted coastal activity and. was contrary to Part II of the Resource Management Act" in terms of providing for sections 5, 6(e), 7 (c and f). IHhe consent wasdeclined,theseconcems would be met in full by the Regional Council. The concemscould, however,betnetl~part if consent was . granted for a limited time (until 1995 for screened sewerage and no greater than 10 years for treated sewerage) and subj ect to' strict conditions in relation to shellfish quality, reporting, and an investigation programme to satisfy iwi concerns. Two other objections were received from Edmonds, Marshall and Burcher on behalf of several 192 Matakana Island Community Objection, Included in Report of R. B. Gardner for Joint Hearings Committee, 10 June 1994, 19/4/361 BOPRC. 112 Waitangi Tribunal Research R A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report local Katikati commercial enterprises and the Katikati Fruitpackers Co-operative. These objectors had concerns about the environmental effect of the proposed treatment plant on their business and argued that the plant would be on the wrong site, with no buffer areas, and air emissions would result. On 23 May 1994, before the resource consent hearing began, the claimants sent their claim to the Waitangi Tribunal concerning the prejudicial affects of the discharge of sewerage into the waters . offMatakana Island. The claim was. registered by the Tribunal as Wai 228 on 6 April 1995. In its report to the·Minister ofConservation(aS1the.'dischargepermitwastreated as a restricted coastal activity), the Joint Hearings .Committee observed that·the "disposal of sewage cannot cease immediately" and the proposal was not for a long term period. It was also accepted that the "discharge of human effluent through a pipeline into the ocean is culturally unacceptable to the tangata whenua of Matakana Island." However, the financial implications of alternative treatment "resulting from the withdrawal of Government subsidy" were also noted. 193 In its decision, the committee considered that the resource consent be granted for only a short term and conditional on the preparation of a long term plan. 194 These recommendations were approved by the Minister of Conservation and the coastal permit was signed by Denis Marshall on 11 October 1994. Key aspects of the permit conditions .. provided that after 30 November 1996, all effluent would be treated by sequential batch reactor, all wastewater would meet a high standard, sheHftshmonitoring would.bee~teBsive, and plans for the long term disposal. of sewage would be submitted to the.RegionalCouncil by October 1996 (summary of conditions in appendix). This consent meant that secondary treatment of the effluent was required by 30 November 1996 and a long term plan was to be provided to Environment BOP for further upgrading. Although the District Council had succeeded in obtaining a temporary permit to discharge 193 The Local Authorities Loans Scheme was closed down in May 1986. 194 Report of Special Joint Hearings Committee, 10 June 1994, RMR 2410, DOC. 113 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report sewage off Matakana Island, the sewerage plans were totally disrupted by the failure to obtain a change of designation for the construction of a treatment plant on the old dairy factory site and an air discharge permit. 5.4 KATlKATI SEWERAGE OUTFALL PROPOSALS 1995-1998 After the District Council failed to get consent to build the treatment plant at the old dairyfactory site, the Katikati Wastewater Working Party was reconvened and a project co-ordinating committee was established with consultant MrAlan Withy appointedas·project manager. The Working Party essentially started again and began to look into all the options for the disposal of Katikati sewerage. It also implemented a consultation programme with Matakana Island people and the Katikati community. The Working Party also visited other sewerage disposal systems at Rotorua, Taupo, Turangi, and Taumarunui. Seven options were identified by Bruce Wallace Partners (who were appointed to advise the Wastewater Working Party in late 1994), in August 1995: Option Location of Treatment Plant Details IA Prospect Drive aerated lagoons wetIand,existing ocean outfall IB Wills Road compact activated sludge plant, filter, UV disinfection, existing ocean outfall Ie Old Dairy Factory Site compact SBR plant, UV disinfection existing ocean outfall 2 Prospect Drive aerated lagoons, wetland, UV, discharge into Tauranga Harbour 114 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report 3 Wills Road compact SBR, nitrogen removal, fine filter, UV, overland flow, seep to harbour shoreline 4A Prospect Drive aerated lagoon, retention pond, forest irrigation on Matakana Island 4B Wills Road compact SBR, retention pond, forest irrigation on Matakana Island 5 near Katikati aerated lagoon, retention pond, discharge by forest irrigation near Katikati 6 option 3 with horticultural irrigation in growing season 7A, 7B, 7C option lA, lB, and 1C with pastoral irrigation in growing season These options were assessed according to a number of criteria which included: cost, land availability, impact on Katikati growth, technical robustness and operational simplicity, flexibility for expansion, potential for adverse environmental impact, and ease for consent processing. 195 On the basis of this assessment, it was recommended by Alandale Associates that the Working Party focus on options IB and 4B.l;6Three down sides to these favoured options were identified as: proximity of the treatment site to residential dwellings; the potential impact on harbour side coastal zone; and tangata whenua opposition to any activity on the island. Significantly, the assessment criteria did not explicitly include Maori interests or values. Two other consultant reports, presented to the Working Party on 30 November 1995, brought further bad news for Katikati. The first report by Bruce Wallace Partners Ltd advised that 195 Bruce Wallace Partners Ltd, Katikati Options Report, August 1995. 196 Alandale Associates, Katikati Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Investigation, September 1996. 115 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report sections of the existing Katikati sewerage reticulation scheme were under capacity and remedial measures were estimated at $420,000. The second report was a verbal presentation on an assessment of infiltration of ground water into the existing sewer reticulation with a remedial cost of $1 ,200,000. The problem of infiltration came to a head during the winter of 1996 when it was found that 500 cubic metres of sewage and groundwater had been discharging into the Tauranga Harbour in times of heavy rainfall.. As a temporary measure, the District Council transported the surplus discharge to the Waihi Beach North treatment plant using tankers at a cost of$I,OOO a day. Due to problems at Waihi Beach caused by rain, the District Council ended up discharging sewage at Busby Road. Bruce Wallace Partners also carried out an assessment of the life expectancy of the existing pipeline structure. Their study assessed the pipeline according to age, decomposition, joint failure, and pipe dislodgement. In general, the consultants found the pipe to be in good condition. It was, however, "conceivably possible that some cracking of the solvent cement pipeline joints under the harbour has occurred and some leaking is resulting." Bruce Wallace recommended an underwater survey to check for leaks and stated that the pipeline had an expected life of another 20 years. The pipeline could also be upgraded by the installation of an internal liner. 197 By June 1996 the Katikati Wastewater Working Party had came to a decision concerning the future treatment and disposal of Katikatisewerage. The option chosen was: The treatment of sewage from Katikati be by aerated lagoons, surface flow wetland and ultra violet treatment on a Hume owned block off the end of Prospect Drive, subject to appropriate engineering requirements. The consultation process in regard to the sewerage treatment proposals was conducted between August 1994 and October 1996. A summary of consultative meetings or contacts is as follows. 197 Duncan to Withy, 23 November 1995, WBOPDC. 116 Waitangi Tribunal Research R. A. McClean Matakana Island Sewerage Outfall Report