Can We Dump Raw Shit Into Your River for the Next 25 Years?
38 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
I'm about two minutes away from one of the spots on the Heathcote, just by Tennyson Ave, where this is going to happen. It's never been the clearest, cleanest looking river in the world but apparently it's improved over the years. This looks like such a retrograde step.
-
Don't worry, Philip. It's only for 25 years. You'll still probably be alive when it's all over.
-
Unless I take a drink from the Heathcote in that time ...
-
At least you'll have the comfort of knowing
-- regardless of the eventual outcome --
that when it comes to the environment,
the Christchurch city council actually gives a shit. -
Ick.
But do be aware that comments like "separating wastewater and stormwater infrastructure" WILL freak out councillors. Auckland's strategy to deal with similar issues runs out to about 2035 I believe (that's to stop ALL dry-weather overruns. Wet weather would still be an issue). -
All those times when I've said "Christchurch is just a swamp, basically", apparently I was talking it up.
How particularly medieval of the Christchurch City Council.
-
Wellington council tried that 25 year thing to keep sending bad odours right across the southern suburbs - simply because they had built their composting pit wrong.
They got biffed, hopefully you will also be successful.
And, welcome back David.
-
David, this is the page for their Wastewater strategy: http://www.ccc.govt.nz/WasteWater/MajorSewerUpgrade/
I'd focus on that, rather than the 25year consent - they're just trying to get that as a technical buffer to let them do the work above I imagine. What you want to be encouraging is the speedy completion of that upgrade.
Auckland's Central Interceptor project is similar, currently scheduled for 2020 completion I believe. -
@Gareth: David's proposal for 3 year interim (but still renewable) consent needn't interfere with that work; if anything, it would be added incentive to complete it in a timely fashion.
-
Oh for sure, but I really doubt work like that is going to magically happen in three years time. And while the consent wouldn't interfere with it, it would add complexity.
If you want to use a time-constrained consent to force them to a completion date then I'd agree with that as a good plan. But work out what is a reasonable timeframe so they don't just dismiss it as unworkable and against the existing asset plan.
I guess my point is that you want to worry about getting the upgrade done as fast as possible more than you want to worry about the consent wrapped around it.
-
Hi Gareth, many thanks for that. Er... an upgrade plan wasn't communicated to me by the person I talked to -- and they definitely told me that the consent documentation wasn't available online (they did offer to mail me a CD).
I'll emend my objection to focus on the time limit. It seems to me that a quarter-century time limit is liable to de-incentivize them from making haste on their fifteen-year plan.
I was also concerned to note that false teeth might be released into the river -- which, in my opinion, is even more terrifying than ordinary sewage.
-
Not fancying the false teeth or a replay of the swimming pool scene from Caddy Shack in the stream at the end of our garden, I clicked the link and made a submission opposing the CCC's application. Can't say it was a literary masterpiece but hopefully it will add weight to numbers. Thanks for drawing attention to the situation David.
-
It seems to me that a quarter-century time limit is liable to de-incentivize them from making haste on their fifteen-year plan.
Very true, perhaps suggest an amended consent that is tied directly to the budgeted completion date of the Major Sewer Upgrade in order to continue the incentive on completing such an important piece of work etc etc...
Having read this page I'd actually get them to only have the consent to 2015 (i.e. 6 years) - looks to me like the Western Interceptor and Avon Upgrade projects are focussed on that issue and are both due for completion by then. If they want to keep discharging past that point then they should be explaining why it's necessary given the upgrade works...Sorry, but have been doing some work recently on these kinds of large scale public infrastructure works so got interested =)
-
Thanks for drawing attention to the situation David.
Indeed. It did take me a while to articulate a response, given my original reaction was vowel-less.
-
Anyone concerned about their abililty to make submissions on resource consents that might affect them ought to be taking a very careful look at the The RMA (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2009.
If passed, the bill will reduce your abililty to make submissions against projects you oppose, and make the process more expensive for submittors. Submissions on the Bill close next Friday (3 April).
More information and handy guides to submitting on the bill are available on the The Green Party and the Forest and Bird Protection Society websites.
-
It did take me a while to articulate a response, given my original reaction was vowel-less.
Much like my response to the Auckland "supercity" report.
-
Gareth Ward wrote:
Very true, perhaps suggest an amended consent that is tied directly to the budgeted completion date of the Major Sewer Upgrade in order to continue the incentive on completing such an important piece of work etc etc...
Having read this page I'd actually get them to only have the consent to 2015 (i.e. 6 years)Thanks again, Gareth. I've put my name down to go along to the hearing so I'll read through all the gumph in detail, and give them my thoughts... your suggestion of tying it to a timetable sounds very reasonable.
It's annoying that I only just found out about these plans. I haven't had time to go through all the documents in my usual hair-splitting manner.
Don Christie wrote:
And, welcome back David.
Cheers, matey!
-
I was also concerned to note that false teeth might be released into the river -- which, in my opinion, is even more terrifying than ordinary sewage.
True story: my uncle once lost his false teeth while swimming at Takapuna beach. (He was drunk at the time.) Two wacky things then occurred: he reported them lost to the police station (did I mention he was drunk?) and actually *recovered them* the next day via the police lost property.
I want to meet that good and amazingly non-squeamish samaritan one day. A person who would, while wandering along Takapuna beach, pick up someone else's false teeth and hand them in to a police station is... really unusual, surely?
-
I was also concerned to note that false teeth might be released into the river -- which, in my opinion, is even more terrifying than ordinary sewage.
that reminds me of one of my pop's funny-but-true-as stories.
When he was abut 75ish he got on the home-brews with some mates (most of whom were about 10 years younger..). All he remembered the next morning when he woke up all gummy was that he had puked profusely into the toilet...however, this was in Whangamata - not CHCH.
-
haha - Danielle posted while I typed out my response/ - no-one handed in my pop's (paternal grandad) teeth :-(
-
Danielle?
did your Uncle wear?? them again?
-
"Clean green NZ".
"100% pure".What kind of people are we (well not us ) that we allow things like this to happen? Did we suddenly time-warp to 1980?
Thanks David, for helping us oppose this.
-
Did we suddenly time-warp to 1980?
Even further. I recall being in Chch in 1976, back when the garbage sacks were a weird sky blue. A worthy organisation, the name of which I haven't retained, was running newspaper ads opposing discharges into the municipal rivers with the great slogan"Our Grandfathers Swam in Canterbury's Rivers. Our Grandchildren May be Able to Walk on Them".
-
Do we think the government should impose some minimum national standards and targets for water and wastewater?
I see that the government couldn't stomach improving the drinking water standards (due to costs involved for rural communities). The same applies for the cost of improving wastewater.
Water and waste bills separate from your council rates would be a more transparent way of seeing where your money is going. It would help people remember that infrastructure improvements aren't free.
For all the bad points of the UK privatised water industry at least they have a government body which regulates standards (OFWAT) Also they have drivers to reach minimum EU standards.
Saying that, the UK has thousands of these sewer/ stormwater overflows, they just get regulated on how frequently they can overflow. To get rid of them would be very expensive.
What a shame they never thought of putting two sets of pipes in to begin with…..
-
Rosie - there's been an ongoing discussion among the inhabitants of Big O about water for literally quarter of a century.
*We pay rates to 2 local body councils (WDC & WRC). We get very little in return for our rates.
*We run our own water scheme.
*Actually, the government has been working on improving water quality (including drinking water quality)for a number of years, especially to rural/small town areas.
*We are investigating substantial improvement to both our reticulation & our water quality as a result of government -allied with local body- initiatives.
*Government is offering hefty subsidies to bring things up to scratrch -where tiny places like Big O can also contribute.
*Waste & water costs are quite separate on our rates bills.
*FORFEND any kind of privatised water system/s in AotearoaNZ!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.