No action over dumping

Press, 26 July 1980, Page 6

No action over dumping

The illegal dumping ofl rubbish in test pits at the Waimaifi landfill site put the North Canterbury Catchment Board in an “unpleasant’ . predicament, the board’s water committee heard yesterday. The committee was diSr cussing whether; to takeaction against the Metropolitan Refuse Disposal Committee for failing to’ apply for a water- right to dump the rubbish.'About- 300 cubic metres of . rubbish was dumped and buried in. three test pits early 'this month. ’ ■ ■ It was decided that the refuse committee, was- legally required ; t& 'seek a. water right for dumping the rubbish,’but” because “the dis-

i charge was a. single event ‘on a limited scale, and part !of a scientific study, the board does not propose to take any action.” Mr J. W. Levy said that little would be achieved by taking the refuse committee to-court.:.' ; //j’"'';,’. best just' to rap them on the knuckles and tell them to do it right next time,” he said. ' A letter was received from the Waimairi Coastal* Protection Committee suggesting that the refuse committee be made to -remove the dumped rubbish." "5

’ MrR: Sheehan said that “if it-was wrong to put it in 1— it must- 5 be right to 'take said thq board,

should not condone the dumping, and suggested that the refuse committee should have dealt with the board at “a higher level” than it had. ’ Mr M. J. O. Dixon had > been assured by the chair!man of the refuse committee! [(Mr J. M. McKenzie) that: ithe committee wanted to co-| operate fully with the board,! even if it meant removing i the dumped rubbish. Dr W. R. Holmes said it would be a waste of public money to require the removal of the dumped rubbish. “Nobody is questioning the validity of the experiment; If the board is cbhvihced $ thai no harm has been done, we are left with

a technical breach of the law. As an offence against natural water it is trivial, and it is not a major offence against the law,” he said. In a letter to the board, the secretary of the refuse committee (Mr J. Reid) said the committee had not intended to evade applying for a water right.

“The 'committee had assumed that as the test pits were small, isolated, and scientific, no water right was required." The board will advise the refuse committee “to give early consideration to what authorisation is necessary for the main landfill -proposal, and any further experiments proposed.”