Lincoln sewage disposal approved

Press, 29 May 1985, Page 4

Lincoln sewage disposal approved

The Lincoln township sewerage scheme can now proceed. Development of the township has been held up pending the installation of the scheme.

The green light was given by Mr Justice Roper in a reserved decision given in the High Court after a hearing on May 16. His Honour has held that the decision of the Planning Tribunal (No. 3 Division) to allow the Ellesmere County Council to delete the second stage treatment process for the Lincoln sewage plant was correct in law.

Mr G. H. Nation appeared for the County Council and argued in support of the Tribunal’s decision.

Mr C. B. Atkinson, Q.C., represented the North Canterbury Catchment Board, which brought the case stated, and the North Canterbury Acclimitisation Society. In his decision, his Honour said that this was an appeal on questions of law pursuant to the Town and Country Planning Act. It arose from the Catchment Board’s grant of a water right to the Ellesmere council to discharge treated sewage effluent from the Lincoln township scheme into the L2 river which drained in to Lake Ellesmere.

The Acclimatisation Society supported the appeal.

The case arose from the majority decision of the Planning Tribunal on June 11,1984, to delete the second stage of the treatment process for the plant, a condition which had been imposed by the Catchment Board which was also the Regional Water Board.

In the second treatment 70 per cent of the algal content of the effluent had to be removed and the process had to be built and run to the satisfaction of the Water Board.

Evidence was of a higly technical nature but the major problem, was his Honour understood it, was the growth of a toxic bluegreen alga in the Ellesmere, the fourth largest lake in New Zealand which was highly eutrophic.

The effluent from an oxidation pond as proposed by the council in its sewage treatment, had a high level algal population which, as it died, released nutrients which then promoted further plant growth. It was the aim of the condition imposed by the Water Board to reduce the nutrients and in particular phosphorus, that found their way into the lake.

On the evidence before it the Tribunal found that some 91 per cent of the phosphorus entering the lake was uncontrolled and was probably uncontrollable. It came from agricultural development in the lake’s catchment.

Of the remaining 9 per cent, it came from what was referred to as “point sources” which could be identified and controlled, the major ones being sewage discharges and dairy shed wastes. It was calculated that the council’s proposed oxidation pond without algal removal would contribute 2.8 per cent of the total daily loading of phosphorus on the lake, or almost one third of the “point source” contribution; and with the algal removal, as required by the condition, 2.5 to 2.6 per cent, a reduction of between 0.25 and 0.36 per cent.

The Acclimatisation Society would have liked to see all phosphorus removed fro m the effluent.

The discharge of effluent into the lake by the council had been the subject of two earlier hearings before the Tribunal. In 1970, the discharge of Leeston effluent was under consideration, and in 1979, the Lincoln effluent.

In the Lincoln case the Acclatimisation Society sought almost complete removal of the phosphorus. Because Lake Ellesmere was not then in such a eutrophic state and its condition was still under investigation, the Tribunal considered that it would be unreasonable to accede to the society’s wishes.

Mr Atkinson had submitted that with the now proven deterioration in the lake’s condition and wider knowledge as to its cause, the time had come for every remedial step to be taken.

He had described the Tribunal’s deletion of the condition requiring stage two treatment, as a backward step, particularly when the board could have imposed a condition in the first instance requiring the complete removal of phosphorus by a chemical process known as phosphorus stripping. Dealing with the points of law raised his Honour said that it was questionable whether any of them were really questions of law.

The Tribunal had not rejected point source discharges as being of no importance. “What it did and what it

was required to do, was to conduct a balancing exercise, weighing up the benefits and detriments involved. The Tribunal had been told if the second stage condition was imposed the council’s annual operating costs would be almost doubled and its capital expenditure increased while there would be no measurable improvement in the waters of the lake,” His Honour said.

There was evidence by a Mr Bowden on how the lake’s problems could be overcome once and for all — that was by diverting water from the Rakaia River by way of the Selwyn River, or some other means, an exercise that would cost millions of dollars and was obviously well beyond the board’s means. Mention of that dramatic cure had been made by the Tribunal but it was not the basis of its decision.

It was simply pointing out the obvious namely, that the lake would remain at risk until the presently uncontrolled sources to nutrients were neutralised. Mr Atkinson had submitted that the Tribunal’s reference to Mr Bowden’s scheme was in effect and indication to the board that it should give up trying to save the lake, but it was clear from the decision that the Tribunal had no thought

of “abandonment” and referred to those who suggested it as “overstating the case grossly.” Dealing with the question of precedent the Tribunal was divided, his Honour said. One member. Mr R. A. McLennan, was of the _ opinion that the deletion of 'the condition did have some precedent value. “As I see it this is really what this appeal is all about.” his Honour said. “The board and the society accepted that the deletion of the condition would have no measurable effect on the lake, and what they “seek in effect is a decision which amounts to a declaration that in future in the case of an application relating to a controllable discharge, every practicable step that will result in a reduction of the phosphorus content will be ordered regardless of the benefits, detriments, or cost involved.”

From an environmental point of view that approach was to be applauded but it was not the way in which the Tribunal, dealing with competing interests, could resolve the matter. His Honour held that the majority decision of the Tribunal that there was no precedent in deleting the condition was correct. Each application had to be dealt with on its merits, he said.

The other main point sources, dairy farm discharges, were capable of control by land disposal systems and could not be compared with council’s undertaking. It had been submitted by Mr Atkinson that with the condition deleted, the council's water right had been changed so radically that the whole matter should be referred back to the Tribunal, or perhaps the board, for a rehearing with a view to investigating the possibility of imposing some alternative condition. What Mr Atkinson suggested was a condition which would require removal of all phosphorus presumably by the stripping method. “The Court has a discretion to direct a rehearing but I am not satisfied that I should exercise it in this case. The board could have imposed a more stringent condition in the first instance, or the Acclimitisation Society could have pressed for it on the appeal before the Tribunal. “In those circumstances further expense and delay to the council is not warranted at this stage. I conclude therefore that the Tribunal did not err in law in its conclusions and that a rehearing is not warranted,” his Honour said. Costs were reserved.