Kaiteriteri sewerage plan rejected

Press, 13 February 1979, Page 22

Kaiteriteri sewerage plan rejected

Nelson reporter Ratepayers in the Kaiteriteri beach, Little Kaiteriteri, Stephen’s Bay, Tapu Bay, and Riwaka areas have voted strongly against a Waimea County Council sewerage plan for Goodall’s Island. The scheme would now not be proceeded with and the loan sanction would lapse, said the County Clerk (Mr A. A. Audrey). A high percentage of persons eligible to vote did so: of the 327 on the roll ■ (plus 14 special votes), 79 voted for the scheme, .211 were opposed to it, and four votes were declared informal. The rejection of the plan ends at least 12 years of investigations by the council to find an acceptable scheme for one of New Zealand’s best known tourist areas. Many thousands of dollars have been spent on the investigations. The matter had been discussed well before 1967, when a firm of consulting engineers was commissioned to investigate and

draw up a scheme. This came before the council in 1969 but was shelved when opposition arose to a recommendation that oxidation ponds be established at Sandy Bay and that the treated effluent be pumped into the bay. ' A similar scheme proposed that same year for ponds to be sited at Tapu Bay was also rejected because of the release of effluent into the bay.

In June, 1976, the council considered seven options put before it by the county enigneer (Mr K. H. P. Beck) and the Goodall’s Island project was selected.

The Council will not permit any further subdivisions in the area until a sewerage system has been provided. Several big subdivisions, notably at Riwaka and Little kaiteriteri (extending into Stephen’s Bay) have been held up. The rejection of the scheme may have serious ramifications for the Kaiteriteri motor camp, one of New Zealand’s top holiday resorts. . The Domains Board, which

administers the camp, was granted water rights for about 11 years but this right. will expire before the 1879-80 holiday season.

The chairman of the board (Mr B. Rowling) said the bpard would now proceed with an alternative sewerage scheme, a sand-filter scheme which would cost about $BO,OOO. ’ The rejected scheme was estimated to cost $570,000, of which $341,000 would have been raised by loan. During its 30-year period the loan charges would have been $37,556 plus plant maintenance and running costs of $lO,OOO annually. These would have been met by $14,307 annually from the Domain’s Board, a subsidy of $9389 from the general rate, and about $65 for each serviced water closet in the area (excluding the camp), yielding a further $23,860. The Government would have provided a subsidy of $168,000 and sub-divi-ders $61,000.