Group Meeting 5 5 February 2019 Reference Group Agenda New member - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Reference Group Meeting 5 5 February 2019 Reference Group Agenda New member introductions Sharing Opportunity (What I have learnt, and plan to contribute) Recap Solution Reminder/ BPOS Alignment Survey Results Presentation Wastewater
Meeting 5 5 February 2019
New member introductions Sharing Opportunity (What I have learnt, and plan to contribute) Recap – Solution Reminder/ BPOS Alignment Survey Results Presentation Wastewater Strategy Land Use Discussion Combining and Staging What does affordability look like Criteria v Option – Concept to Solution
Etu Araipu (Grey Power) Simon White (Otane Farmer) *Maybe* Marge Hape (Taiwhenua) JB Smith (Hapu) *Maybe* Ricky Carnie (Business/ Trade Waste – Triple NNZ Casings)
What I know
What don’t I know and want to know How do we make sure what we are doing is what the community wants
Are we looking for an option? Are we looking for a solution that has options? How do we balance what we want with what the community wants? How do we balance affordability?
Our effluent is treated in a sustainable way that creates a resource, protects our environment and continues to do so for generations to come
Values 1 (most important) 2 3 4 (least important) Social/ Recreational 5 27 25 18 Financial 23 23 13 16 Cultural 1 6 31 36 Ecological/ Environmental 45 19 6 4
5 10 15 20 25 30 1-100 101-250 251-500 500+ No response
No of respondents Dollars
Q21 - Considering affordability, how much would you be prepared to pay annually via a rates increase?
What’s a strategy? How does it differ from what we have done? What is its benefit?
What land use What are the considerations
Grazed pasture Harvested pasture Food chain crops Non- foodchain crops eg biofuel Annual crops Forestry Amenity eg parks and golf courses Soakage Eg RIB. trenches
Grazed pasture Harvested pasture Food chain crops Non- foodchain crops eg biofuel Annual crops Forestry Amenity eg parks and golf courses Soakage Eg RIB. trenches
Level of treatment
Moderate Low High Low Moderate Low High Moderate to high
Flow variability
Highest demand in summer Highest demand in summer Highest demand in summer Highest demand in summer Highest demand in summer Highest demand in summer Highest demand in summer Year round
Irrigation gain
Deficit conditions Deficit conditions Deficit conditions Deficit conditions Deficit conditions Deficit conditions Deficit conditions
Nutrient benefit
High – minimal additional fertiliser needed Moderate – some additional fertiliser may be needed Low – will require additional nutrients Moderate – some additional fertiliser may be needed Low – will require additional nutrients High – minimises need for additional fertilisation High – minimal additional fertiliser needed NA
Disease control
Moderate risk - Need to manage by treatment and/or withholding periods Low disease risk – may require withholding prior to harvest High risk – needs to be managed by treatment of wastewater Low disease risk, may require exclusion plan Moderate risk depending on amount of contact and withholding prior to harvest Low disease risk, may require exclusion plan High risk – needs to be managed by minimising contact (sub surface discharge, public exclusion areas) and treatment Low disease risk, may require exclusion plan
Method of irrigation
Mostmethod – No Depends on Depends on – Withstand Drip and Drip NA
Grazed pasture Harvested pasture Food chain crops Non- foodchain crops eg biofuel Annual crops Forestry Amenity eg parks and golf courses Soakage Eg RIB. trenches
Method of irrigation
Most methods suitable – must withstand animal traffic No restrictions to irrigation method Depends on crop e.g. drip in orchard, centre pivot
moveable sprinklers for field crops – most method suitable Depends on crop – most method suitable Withstand frequent cultivation, not impacted by crop height and density eg centre pivot, drip tape Drip and fixed impact sprinklers – need to avoid canopy and trunk Drip irrigation preferred, fixed impact sprinklers may be suitable in some situations NA
Method of harvest
Grazing with
cut and carry (minimal disturbance/ down-time) Cut and carry with
grazing (minimal disturbance/ downtime) Frequent disturbance for annual crops, minimal disturbance for orchard crops Variable Frequent moderate disturbance Infrequent clear felling with significant disturbance Frequent cut and carry (greens, etc) and cut and leave (roughs, etc) NA
Regulatory approval
Resource consent required, favoured by HBRC policy Resource consent required, favoured by HBRC policy Resource consent required Resource consent required, favoured by HBRC policy Resource consent required, favoured by HBRC policy Resource consent required, favoured by HBRC policy Resource consent required, favoured by HBRC policy Resource consent required
Industry approval
Dairy limited Dairy limited NZFSA concerns No issues known Dairy limited Acceptable Acceptable NA
Social acceptability
Mostly acceptable Mostly acceptable Limited acceptability Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable with Moderate – can be
Grazed pasture Harvested pasture Food chain crops Non- foodchain crops eg biofuel Annual crops Forestry Amenity eg parks and golf courses Soakage Eg RIB. trenches Industry approval Dairy limited Dairy limited NZFSA concerns No issues known Dairy limited Acceptable Acceptable NA Social acceptability Mostly acceptable Mostly acceptable Limited acceptability Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable with appropriate method Moderate – can be managed Tangata whenua acceptability Mostly acceptable Mostly acceptable Not accepted? Likely acceptable Limited acceptability Likely acceptable Unknown Moderate – can be managed
Which? Waipukurau and Waipawa Waipawa and Otane Waipukurau and Otane Waipawa, Waipukurau and Otane Considerations Costs Distance Access to prime land River crossings Versatility, future
? Do we pursue?
How much are you prepared to pay? Assuming:
1,500
270
4,470
$10 million = annual repayment of $ 170/year/connection
How much are you prepared to pay? Assuming:
1,500
270
4,470
$10 million = annual repayment of $ 170/year/connection
Annuall Summary 20 years 30 years 40 years $ 5,000,000 $ 100 $ 85 $ 79 $ 10,000,000 $ 201 $ 170 $ 157 $ 20,000,000 $ 401 $ 340 $ 315 $ 50,000,000 $ 1,003 $ 850 $ 787
$- $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900 $1,000 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $50,000,000
Annual rate Increase ($) Loan Amount
20 years 30 years 40 years
100 % Land 100 % Water Cultural Preference Financial Preference Environmental Preference Recreational Preference
Discharge 100 % surface water Current treatment Additional treatment Combinations Surface water/Land disposal Surface water/Land treatment 100 % Land Land disposal Land disposal/land treatment Land treatment
Discharge 100 % surface water Current treatment Additional treatment Combinations Surface water/Land disposal Surface water/Land treatment 100 % Land Land disposal Land disposal/land treatment Land treatment
Discharge 100 % surface water Current treatment Additional treatment Combinations Surface water/Land disposal Surface water/Land treatment 100 % Land Land disposal Land disposal/land treatment Land treatment
Discharge 100 % surface water Current treatment Additional treatment Combinations Surface water/Land disposal Surface water/Land treatment 100 % Land Land disposal Land disposal/land treatment Land treatment
Additional treat Storage (m3) Reticulation (km) River discharge Land area (ha) Cost ($M) 100 % River Current treatment Additional treatment Combination Surface water/Land disposal Surface water/ Land treatment 100 % land Land disposal Land disposal/Land treatment Land treatment
Additional treat Storage (m3) Reticulation (km) River discharge Land area (ha) Cost ($M) 100 % River Current treatment None Yes Additional treatment A Yes Combination Surface water/Land disposal C 2.5 - 10 Partial /Indirect Surface water/ Land treatment C 95,000 2.5 – 10 Partial/No 100 % land Land disposal C 95,000 2.5 - 10 Indirect Land disposal/Land treatment B 95,000 2.5 - 10 Indirect/No Land treatment B 400,000 2.5 - 10 No
Additional treat Storage (m3) Reticulation (km) River discharge Land area (ha) Cost ($M) 100 % River Current treatment None Yes Additional treatment A Yes Combination Surface water/Land disposal C 2.5 - 10 Partial /Indirect 10 Surface water/ Land treatment C 95,000 2.5 – 10 Partial/No 180 100 % land Land disposal C 95,000 2.5 - 10 Indirect 20 Land disposal/Land treatment B 95,000 2.5 - 10 Indirect/No 200 Land treatment B 400,000 2.5 - 10 No 610
Additional treat Storage (m3) Reticulation (km) River discharge Land area (ha) Cost ($M) 100 % River Current treatment None Yes 2 – 4 Additional treatment A Yes 24 – 29 Combination Surface water/Land disposal C 2.5 - 10 Partial /Indirect 10 12 – 20 Surface water/ Land treatment C 95,000 2.5 – 10 Partial/No 180 15 – 35 100 % land Land disposal C 95,000 2.5 - 10 Indirect 20 14 – 24 Land disposal/Land treatment B 95,000 2.5 - 10 Indirect/No 200 23 – 45 Land treatment B 400,000 2.5 - 10 No 610 33 – 85
Additional treat Storage (m3) Reticulation (km) River discharge Land area (ha) Cost ($M, rates impact) 100 % River Current treatment None Yes 2 – 4 ($34 – 68) Additional treatment A Yes 24 – 29 ($408 – 492) Combination Surface water/Land disposal C 2.5 - 10 Partial /Indirect 10 12 – 20 ($196 – 332) Surface water/ Land treatment C 95,000 2.5 – 10 Partial/No 180 15 – 35 ($258 – 601) 100 % land Land disposal C 95,000 2.5 - 10 Indirect 20 14 – 24 ($232 – 398) Land disposal/Land treatment B 95,000 2.5 - 10 Indirect/No 200 23 – 45 ($384 – 763) Land treatment B 400,000 2.5 - 10 No 610 33 – 85 ($565 – 1,453)
Can we pick winners – which can we drop Can we narrow concepts to start looking at solutions What are the options based on?
What criteria
How much detail is needed?
Can we apply a simple traffic light approach at this stage
Environmental Recreational Financial Cultural Workable
Community involvement in ongoing governance
Through consent conditions
Tangata whenua involvement in ongoing governance
Through consent conditions Meets PC6, NPS WQ, NES AQ Parameters to be described No direct water discharge May need to be examined more closely so is also included in the variable criteria
Doesn’t irreversibly compromise a water or soil body
Through diligent investigations, design and consent term monitoring
Mauri and mana is improved (land and water)
Options evaluated using Cultural Impact Assessment
Considered a good neighbour to existing land and water users
Based on community / local iwi and hapu values
Recreational values preserved or enhanced
Based on community / local iwi and hapu values
Able to be modified or expanded to match growth needs (additional capacity)
Design
Able to be modified to match quality improvement needs
Design
Meets water quality targets Safe in which to swim – Bacteriological quality Meets water quality targets Safe from which to gather food – Bacteriological quality Meets water quality targets Nutrients managed to healthy levels – Nitrogen & Phosphorus
Objective Measure of success Ease of achieving PC6 Cost to consent Ease of achieving NPS WQ Cost to consent Ease of achieving NES AQ Cost to consent Potential for NIMBY/localised opposition Collaborative consultation process, approval sought and obtained from neighbours and other affected parties Potential for odour Compared to current No aesthetic degradation of water ways – solids, colour Avoid solids and colour entering surface water Community aspirations for no discharge to water Option meets community expectation for social, cultural, environmental and economic wellbeing Restore mauri of waterway CIA incudes recommendation Can solution be staged? Time to implement Does not exceed a cost ceiling To be determined based on rates impact Loss of productive land is minimised Based on area and duration of restriction Opportunities provided for employment and commercial ventures Reuse potential for treated wastewater or change to operational requirements Return realised from beneficial reuse Net cost of operation Consenting costs Comparative costs, amount of information required
100 % Surface Water Combinations 100 % Land Objective Current treatment Additional treatment Surface water/Land disposal Surface water/ Land treatment Land disposal Land disposal/Land treatment Land treatment Ease of achieving PC6 Ease of achieving NPS WQ Ease of achieving NES AQ Potential for NIMBY/localised opposition Potential for odour No aesthetic degradation of water ways – solids, colour Community aspirations for no discharge to water Restore mauri of waterway Can solution be staged? Combined effect of upfront (CAPEX) and operational (OPEX) costs is manageable Loss of productive land is minimised Opportunities provided for employment and commercial ventures Return realised from beneficial reuse Consenting costs Sum . Rank .
100 % Surface Water Combinations 100 % Land Objective Current treatment Additional treatment Surface water/Land disposal Surface water/ Land treatment Land disposal Land disposal/Land treatment Land treatment Ease of achieving PC6 Ease of achieving NPS WQ Ease of achieving NES AQ Potential for NIMBY/localised opposition Potential for odour No aesthetic degradation of water ways – solids, colour Community aspirations for no discharge to water Restore mauri of waterway Can solution be staged? Combined effect of upfront (CAPEX) and operational (OPEX) costs is manageable Loss of productive land is minimised Opportunities provided for employment and commercial ventures Return realised from beneficial reuse Consenting costs Sum . Rank .
Use traffic light approach
Time to implement 0-5 years 5-10 years 10-15 years 15-20 years 20 to 30 years Rates impact of CAPEX ($ per household per year) 0-100 101-250 250+ Odour Better than current Same as current Worst than current Loss of productive land Area is small (<2 ha) or productive land use is retained Area is moderate (2-10 ha) or restriction to land use is reversible within 10 y Irreversible loss of productive capacity to an area greater than 10 ha
100 % Surface Water Combinations 100 % Land Objective Current treatment Additional treatment Surface water/Land disposal Surface water/ Land treatment Land disposal Land disposal/Land treatment Land treatment Ease of achieving PC6 Ease of achieving NPS WQ Ease of achieving NES AQ Potential for NIMBY/localised opposition Potential for odour 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 No aesthetic degradation of water ways – solids, colour 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 Community aspirations for no discharge to water 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 Restore mauri of waterway Can solution be staged? Combined effect of upfront (CAPEX) and operational (OPEX) costs is manageable Loss of productive land is minimised 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 Opportunities provided for employment and commercial ventures 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 Return realised from beneficial reuse 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 Consenting costs 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 Sum . 15 14 16 14 13 7 7 Rank . 6 4.5 7 4.5 3 1.5 1.5
Takes time and technical knowledge Need to score colours Do it now or get us to do? All concepts or are their winners?
When Focus Home work required?