Dairy farms favour Oceania pipeline plan

Oceania Dairy’s proposed pipeline to deposit treated wastewater into the sea has attracted limited support, mostly from companies near the Glenavy dairy factory.

The proposal has proved controversial, with 117 of the 126 submissions to Environment Canterbury opposed.

The Chinese-owned company wants to build a 7.5km pipeline to discharge up to 10 million litres of treated wastewater. It claims this is more sustainable as ‘‘the surrounding community does not support more wastewater being discharged on land’’.

Murphy Farms’ submission says it had seen daily ‘‘the challenges Oceania have in discharging their wastewater to ground, the main challenge is having to apply wastewater and effluent in nonconducive conditions all-year round’’.

Murphy Farms criticised the regulations governing Oceania, saying they ‘‘believe the effluent conditions that were consented when the factory was built are not fit for purpose and do have adverse effects on the soil’’.

However, Murphy Farms added: ‘‘We are in favour and support this proposed outfall because it will mitigate odour and soil damage. In a practical sense it must be easier for ECan to appropriately monitor a piped ocean fall and Oceania to adhere and manage to its consent conditions by having an outfall.’’

The Morven Glenavy Ikawai Irrigation Company (MGI) is also in favour.

‘‘We support the discharge to the coastal marine area because the discharge onto land is not sustainable during winter months and during rainfall,’’ MGI’s submission says.

‘‘The land discharge is highly visible and it impacts on MGI because stakeholders think the irrigation company is irrigating, when in fact it is Oceania Dairy.

‘‘The coastal alternative is the preferred option and the farms involved still have a supply of MGI water to irrigate land with.’’

Waitaki North Ltd, a supplier to the company, offered its support saying as owners of a property at Glenavy, ‘‘we continue to see the benefits from modern facilities which Oceania Dairy provide, including the provision of management policies that protect the land, water and air surrounding the factory’’.

‘‘The proposal is well planned with the environmental impacts well researched with appropriate safeguards.

‘‘We understand the importance of retaining the safeguards for water quality and believe that the proposed outfall will provide additional support this well into the future.’’

Cantley Developments offered guarded support, saying it wanted assurance ‘‘all effects on its farming operations are suitably avoided, remedied or mitigated through the imposition of appropriate consent conditions’’.

Marion Seymour was one of the few individual submitters in support of the proposal, saying the treated material going into the ocean should not have any detrimental effects.

‘‘I see nothing to hinder this proposal going ahead. A better option than that operating at present and a much longer term one.’’

She questioned whether most objectors had read all the documents.

ECan will host a hearing on the proposal later this year.