‘Significantly non-compliant’

A Marlborough winery’s wastewater practices are to go under the microscope after the region’s compliance team found it ‘‘significantly non-compliant’’.

The Marlborough District Council carried out its annual wastewater inspection during harvest 2019, testing 23 of the region’s 38 rural wineries that discharge wastewater – which often consists of water used for cleaning floors and winery equipment.

Sixteen wineries, or 44 per cent, were fully compliant, while 11 were ‘‘non-compliant’’ and eight ‘‘technically noncompliant’’.

One winery was deemed ‘‘significantly non-compliant’’, due to environmental factors such as ‘‘ph exceedance, nitrogen loading and ponding’’.

Marlborough District Council environmental protection officer Rachel Neal said poor wastewater management could lead to contamination of surface and ground water and adversely affect soil and plant health.

‘‘Most plants and soil organisms will have an optimum ph range for growth and the ph of the soil affects which species will grow best,’’ Neal said.

‘‘Therefore it is important that the ph of the wastewater being discharged to land is within the required parameters to ensure that the ph of the soil is suitable to support plant growth.

‘‘Ponding of wastewater can increase the likelihood of anaerobic soil conditions, that can result in reduced plant growth, plant death, colour changes in soil, growth of black slime, rotten egg odours and crusting of soil surface.’’

Wineries not monitored were within Riverlands and Cloudy Bay industrial zones, and discharged directly to trade waste. Three wineries in the rural zone had their wastewater taken off site.

Compliance was assessed against the proposed Marlborough Environment Plan (PMEP) rules for the discharge of liquid and soil agriculture waste to land.

‘‘Non-compliant’’ wineries

generally exceeded the permitted range of ph on one or more occasion. Other breaches included the discharge of waste within a ‘‘soil sensitive area’’, surface ponding and exceeding the discharge rate.

Nine of these wineries had only one condition or rule assessed as non-compliant and two wineries had two or more conditions or rules assessed as non-compliant.

Council compliance manager James Clark said no adverse environmental effects were noted on site during inspections for the ‘‘technically non-compliant’’ and ‘‘non-compliant’’ wineries, but they were noted at the ‘‘significantly non-compliant’’ winery.

The council compliance team would investigate the winery further, and submit their findings to a compliance peer review panel to see if further enforcement action was required, Clark said.

Wine Marlborough general manager Marcus Pickens said the aim was for full compliance, so the industry did need to see some improvement.

‘‘In saying that, there is some ‘technical non-compliance’ there that could be easily fixed,’’ Pickens said.

‘‘From our side of things, we need to get people to learn from those that are doing well, it’s about sharing knowledge.

‘‘At its heart, everyone in the industry wants to be sustainable and look after the environment, there’s no question about that.’’

Grape marc, the solid end product once grapes had been pressed for juice, was also monitored.

The report said the 2019 vintage year saw improved management and awareness of grape marc storage, but noted it continued to be an industry challenge.