St Marys Bay and Herne Bay Residents Associations are up in arms about a planned $44 million project which will see diluted raw sewage pumped into the harbour under the Harbour Bridge.
St Marys Bay and Herne Bay are two of the remaining Auckland suburbs where substantial separation of stormwater and wastewater has not taken place. A number of renovated homes in the area have been separated, but according to veteran activist and community stalwart, John Hill, Healthy Waters does not appear to have any inventory of the properties with separated pipes to the street.
The plan presented to owners entails a 1.8m diameter underground pipe from London Street to Masefield Beach/Point Erin.
This pipe is to collect wastewater/sewage/stormwater from the combined sewer system in St Marys Bay and eastern Herne Bay.
The pipe will connect to a pumping station sited in Pt Erin Reserve, and then pump back into the combined sewer system.
When the pipe becomes full, it will overflow into the Waitemata Harbour in the main tidal channel near the Harbour Bridge.
Overflows already occur regularly, but council says this $44 million proposal will reduce overflows in the area from about 50 annually to 20, but here is no guarantee the cost can be held to $44 million.
The resident groups maintain that separation of stormwater and wastewater could take place for about the same or even less, money, but is a better long-term option.
Watercare has a long-term plan to produce a $1.5 billion Central Interceptor to run from Grey Lynn via Western Springs and Mt Albert to Mangere, carrying the mixed wastewater/sewage/stormwater to the treatment plant. This giant 4.5m pipe is at least eight years away. Moreover, it will be needed eventually for wastewater alone, and, in the meantime, simply relocates the problem stormwater.
A public meeting of around 120 St Marys Bay and Herne Bay residents recently unanimously opposed the development without further consultation. The meeting also called for a peer review of the project by independent overseas experts to assess its necessity value and integration into the Western Isthmus Water Quality Improvement Plan.
At the public meeting David Abbott observed that before the amalgamated ‘super city’ was formed, Auckland City had budgeted for sewage/wastewater pipe separation, but since amalgamation there had been a shift in policy and the council should now be asked to justify the reasons for this. Dirk Hudig referred to a US Environmental Protection Agency report on the desirability of separated pipes. Another resident, John Bower, commented that the council had required that he separate his stormwater and wastewater to the road, yet had done nothing to carry out that separation in the street.
Councillor Mike Lee said it made no sense in the 21st Century to be dumping sewage and contaminated wastewater/stormwater into the harbour. He believes that the two council bodies, Healthy Waters and Watercare disagree on the need for separation but the Healthy Waters' view that separation is not necessary has prevailed. Why spend $44 million on this stop-gap project when long term the need is to separate pipes, Lee asked the meeting.
The current proposal would be a complex and technical engineering feat, and it needs all the care and input from experts in a number of fields. There are clifftop home owners who are very concerned at the probable instability that might result under their houses.
A number of locals presented significant arguments why the proposal needs further investigation.
I recently sat in on a meeting between David Abbott, St Marys Bay Association chairman and Herne Bay Resident’s Association co- chairman Dirk Hudig, with local board member Vernon Tava.
The St Marys Bay/Herne Bay argument was cogently, politely and clearly put and received.
It is clear that there are a number of intelligent, experienced residents in these suburbs who will not tolerate the council’s lack of genuine consultation. David Abbott and Dirk Hudig are two of those residents.
They are not standing protesting in front of bulldozers in the street. They say they have been given information selectively and that they are politely requesting a more detailed and comprehensive review of the proposal.
If council can persuade these residents that their proposal is the best going forward, and their arguments hold up, that further consultation will not have been in vain.
At the moment, it looks like another example of top down imposition which angers people most - telling residents what is best for them, not asking for genuine input which may result in a better outcome for all. (JOHN ELLIOTT)