Who’s at fault?
Human effluent spills
Councils responsible for sending thousands of litres of human waste into waterways face insufficient deterrents and it is time to hold individuals to account, two unlikely allies are arguing.
Human waste and toilet paper lining the banks of one of our most popular rivers, 1.7 million litres of waste flowing down the Waikato River, 900 litres of sewage poured in Lake Wakatipu, and 5000 cubic metres of wastewater and solids pour into the sea near Titahi Bay: facts of the offending by councils over the past five years do not make pretty reading.
Now two men more accustomed to being adversaries than allies – freshwater ecologist Mike Joy and Federated Farmers board member and environment spokesman Chris Allen – say it’s time to shift responsibility back to individuals.
Figures obtained under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act reveal that 51 abatement notices, 31 infringement fines, and 86 formal warnings were issued to city and district councils for wastewater offending since June 2014.
Many councils were repeat offenders. One was issued seven abatement notices, another was issued five. Two were issued four infringement notices.
The worst were taken to court, with seven prosecutions.
Successful prosecutions see the city or district council slapped with a fine to be paid to the prosecuting regional council.
This practice is referred to in several rulings as ‘‘Peter pays Paul’’, and judges imposing the fines are wary that it is ratepayers who will be paying the fine.
In many cases sentencing judges will convict and discharge the offending council on the understanding that it puts a sum equivalent to any fine toward an environmental project or restoration near the site of the offending.
But, opponents argue this has the perverse outcome of benefiting the offending party.
When a farm company is charged in the Environment Court for the likes of dairy effluent offending, it will often appear alongside the farmer or company director. Not so with councils.
Freshwater ecologist Mike Joy said the legacy of wastewater pollution in New Zealand waterways was partly due to there being no real deterrent.
Holding an individual to account, such as a council chief executive, could change that, he said.
‘‘It would probably be the only thing that will deter them because nothing else will worry
them. It’s the CEOs who are making the decisions to do nothing on improving their infrastructure so they can spend the money on more exciting projects.’’
He knew of rivers receiving unlawful discharges from councils and farmers, but ‘‘it’s the cocky that gets fined for his dairy shed effluent and the council, which has a discharge a thousand times worse than his, never gets fined’’.
‘‘Because the councils are ratepayer-funded they’re allowed to get away with murder. The fines should be much higher and they should go into a fund that upgrades infrastructure that is causing the problem,’’ he said.
Allen said farmers would like to see more consistency between enforcement of farmers and councils.
Waikato Regional Council’s decision this month not to lay charges over the discharge of 800,000 litres of wastewater into Taupo¯ in July illustrated the inconsistency, he said.
‘‘Councils seem to get away with a lot more and I think it’s the consistency of approach that’s missing.’’
Allen believed elected councillors should be the individuals held responsible.
‘‘You cannot get yourself out of the responsibility of health and safety . . . It stops at the top. That way the elected officials will hold everyone in the organisation accountable,’’ he said.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesman Louis Houlbrooke said councils should be hit with penalties even if it cost ratepayers in the shortterm, as it was the only way to improve behaviour.
A spokesman for Local Government New Zealand said the organisation did not wish to comment after learning the Joy had commented on the story.