2017 PUBLIC CONSULTATION SURVEY REGARDING WASTEWATER OPTIONS Research report prepared for the Hutt City Council Bruce Sherlock May 2017 Hutt City Council 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page No. 1. Background 3 2. The need for research 4 3. Research objectives 4 4. Method 5 5. Information obtained 6 6. Timing 6 7. Research Results: 7 7.1. How acceptable are the options? 8 7.2. Option rated as No.1 preference 9 7.3. Rank order of preference 12 7.4. No.1 preference by age groups 13 7.5. No1.preference by ward 14 7.6. The relative importance of factors concerning wastewater disposal 15 7.7. The funding of the wastewater options 16 7.8. What Hutt City residents would like to ask the Council about the wastewater options 19 7.9. Respondent profile 24 7.10. Conclusion 25 8. Questionnaire 27 9. Wastewater options 35 Peter Glen Research Hutt City Council 3 1. BACKGROUND Hutt City Council provided the following background information for this research project. The Seaview Wastewater Treatment Plant discharges treated effluent into Cook Strait at Pencarrow Head. The treated wastewater is pumped from the plant to Pencarrow Head via an 18 km long main outfall pipeline. There are however two situations in which the treated wastewater from the Plant needs to be diverted to an alternative discharge point. These are: 1. When extreme wet weather causes the flow of wastewater through the Plant to exceed the capacity of the main outfall pipeline 2. When maintenance is required on the main outfall pipeline. Currently the alternative discharge point is to the Waiwhetu Stream approximately 120 metres from the Stream’s mouth into the Hutt River. Tidal flows mean that the discharge can travel up the Waiwhetu Stream as far as the Bell Road bridge on the incoming tide, although this effect does not occur during storm events when the stream is in flood. Over the last five years, wet weather discharges have occurred on average approximately four times per year, while there have been only three maintenance discharges in that five-year period. Wet weather discharges occur during storm events, when the quality of the water in the stream is low while the stream is in flood. The quality of the treated wastewater discharge can, in these circumstances, be better than the water quality in the Stream. Maintenance discharges can occur as a result of planned or unplanned work on the main outfall pipeline. Planned works are always undertaken in winter when recreation use is at its lowest and when fish spawning is not occurring. Unplanned works (repairs) by their nature can occur at any time. If these occur during dry conditions, the treated wastewater discharge can make up a significant proportion of the overall flow of the Waiwhetu Stream. The existing consent to discharge treated wastewater to the Waiwhetu Stream is due to expire in early 2018. While the treated wastewater is of reasonable quality, and discharges occur for only short periods, and consequently with only temporary effects on the Stream, regulations relating to such discharges are becoming stricter. Continuing with the current arrangement might not, therefore, be acceptable from a regulatory point-of-view. Hutt City Council is, therefore, considering which option to seek planning approval for and is seeking to understand community preferences as a valuable input to the decision- making. Peter Glen Research Hutt City Council 4 2. THE NEED FOR RESEARCH In order to understand community preferences, Peter Glen Research was commissioned to conduct an independent random survey of Hutt City residents. The purpose of the survey has been to gather information that can complement the public submission process, as well as identify the views of residents who would not normally make a formal submission to Council. The results of the survey are intended as one important input to the decisions that are made with regard to wastewater treatment and disposal. A large number of alternative solutions were initially investigated and these were subsequently reduced to a short-list of seven, which is still a large number for the public to consider in detail. Therefore, in order to facilitate a more manageable number of options, four possible solutions were selected for the research, which cover a broad range of environmental considerations and cost factors. These have enabled residents to provide feedback to the Council regarding the extent to which they are prepared to trade off environmental and other benefits versus cost. In turn, this will give the Council a good steer on the end-solutions that are likely to be acceptable to Hutt City residents. The four selected test options are shown in Section 9 of this report. 3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES These were defined as follows: a) To determine to what extent each of the four options are regarded as acceptable/not acceptable to residents of Hutt City b) To determine which of the four options residents prefer c) To understand residents’ reasons for preference d) To rank the relative importance of various factors that may have a bearing on the community’s decision, such as water safety, environmental and cultural considerations, impact on rates, etc. e) To identify any areas of question and/or concern that residents may have about the wastewater options. Peter Glen Research Hutt City Council 5 4. METHOD The survey was undertaken among a stratified random sample of 300 Hutt City residents. The survey participants were recruited using random selection procedures, but sample quotas were set to ensure that the survey was proportionately representative of the Hutt City adult population (16+ years of age) by age, gender and ethnicity. The interviews were also spread over the six geographic areas (wards) within the city, to ensure that a proper cross-section of the community was represented. The sample was therefore be structured as follows: WARDS SURVEY SAMPLE POPULATION No. % % Northern Ward 47 15.7 15.6 Harbour Ward 53 17.6 17.6 Western Ward 38 12.7 12.7 Wainuiomata Ward 53 17.7 17.6 Eastern Ward 52 17.3 17.3 Central Ward 57 19.0 19.1 TOTAL INTERVIEWS 300 100.0% 100.0% It is estimated that this provides a sampling variance of +4.7% at the 90% confidence level on the total sample. The survey was conducted using a combination of contact approaches and interviewing procedures. The majority of interviews were undertaken by way of telephone interviewing (landline and mobile), with some face-to-face interviewing, where necessary, to meet stratified sample quotas and to ensure that a proper cross-section of the community was engaged. In order to enable the selected residents to provide a more “considered” response to the wastewater options, explanatory material was provided to the research participants (where necessary) prior to the interview. It should be noted that this information was distributed to all Hutt City residents as part of the Annual Plans Consultation process, so some had already considered the material, or had it available to consider. If not, Peter Glen Research made the material available to them. This approach has been successfully used in previous plans studies for Hutt City Council. At enrolment, the purpose of the survey was outlined and an appointment arranged to call back, if the selected respondent was unable to complete the interview at the time of initial contact. Peter Glen Research Hutt City Council 6 The interview was administered by way of a structured questionnaire, which was developed in consultation with Hutt City Council. A team of experienced interviewers employed by Peter Glen Research conducted the interviewing. Peter Glen, the principal of Peter Glen Research, personally managed all aspects of the research project, from questionnaire design, through fieldwork set-up and supervision, to the analysis and reporting of results. 5. INFORMATION OBTAINED A copy of the questionnaire is attached in Section 8 of this report. 6. TIMING The fieldwork for the survey was conducted from 4 April to 6 May 2017. Peter Glen Research Hutt City Council 7 7. RESEARCH RESULTS Peter Glen Research Hutt City Council 8 7.1. HOW ACCEPTABLE ARE THE OPTIONS? After familiarising themselves with each of the four options presented, the research participants were asked to indicate how acceptable they would be to them, as a resident of Hutt City. The results are shown in the chart below. (n=300) Re-consent the existing discharge to Waiwhetu 43 25 26 6 Stream New discharge & structure into the Hutt River, 31 34 23 12 100m off Barnes Street New discharge & structure into the harbour, 600m 41 10 42 7 off Port Road New discharge & structure near the confluence of 48 19 23 10 Hutt River and Waiwhetu Stream, plus storage 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Acceptable I could live with it Unacceptable Unsure All four options were rated either ‘acceptable’ or ‘I could live with it’ by more than half the residents interviewed. However, some were rated more positively or negatively than others. Overall, at this stage of the interview there was not a clear preference. Peter Glen Research Hutt City Council 9 7.2. OPTION RATED AS No.1 PREFERENCE The research participants were then asked specifically to indicate which of the four options would be their No.1 preference. Opinion was almost equally divided across three of the four options, as shown below. (n=300) Re-consent the existing discharge to Waiwhetu Stream 28 32 New discharge & structure into the Hutt River, 100m off Barnes Street New discharge & structure into the Harbour, 600m off Port Road 12 28 New discharge & structure near the confluence of the Hutt River and Waiwhetu Stream, plus storage The 32% of residents who chose the re-consent option did so mainly because it was the least expensive option and they considered the current system was working adequately for Hutt City’s needs.