Skip to main content.

Hamilton local government meeting

17 October 2005

National Environmental Standards

Drinking water

  • It would be good to get feedback on submissions after consultation as sometimes it is not easy to see the impact of comments made, especially when they are not reflected in the final regulations or policy.
  • It is difficult to rely on Chief Executives for advice from a council, sometimes council staff are between informed
  • A critical drafting issue is how do we deal with cumulative effects?
  • The National Environmental Standards will result in pushing local authorities into regulating land use. This may create conflict between communities and local government over land use regulations. The government needs to show leadership regarding regulating land use and not leave the local authorities to deal with it on their own.
  • Showing the draft regulations in advance to local government is well received.
  • There is a lack of detail regarding setting protection zones.
  • There are reverse sensitivity issues regarding new water supplies (e.g. new subdivision).
  • There is an assumption that information on the database regarding the location of treatment plants is correct. However, the Water Information New Zealand (WINZ) database is not reliable. The Ministry of Health and regional council references are not always the same.
  • It would be good to see how many communities are failing the proposed Drinking Water Standards and what the implications will be. It would be useful to have some extreme examples and work through them regarding the implications of applying National Environmental Standards.
  • Is the threshold of 25 people > 60 days suitable?
  • The results of permitted activity assessment for Waikato would be increased regulation of land use.

Contaminated land

  • Environment Waikato has no problem with the philosophy of setting trigger levels. However, the system should be streamlined as it does not support the treatment of the environment and human health separately.
  • The soil numbers are problematic (especially Arsenic and DDT being much higher than those currently applied).
  • The process by which the numbers (National Environmental Protection Measures NEPM)- were derived is anomalous and does not work within the contaminated land management framework in New Zealand.
  • The Standard will result in a parallel processes between territorial local authorities and regional councils.
  • The soil limits should be defensible and consistent with overseas trading partners.
  • There are concerns as to why we are adopting some parts of the NEPM and not the whole package.
  • New Zealand does not have a strong voice in Australia and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (ANZECC).
  • There is a lack of understanding of the rationale behind adopting these numbers. It may help to have environmental and human health numbers in the Standard (as in the current guidelines used).
  • Councils do not want to set up a scenario where people think that a site is clean because it complies with the Standard, but is in fact contamination as an environmental issues had not been addressed. It would be useful to have reporting contaminated status included on the Land Information Memorandum (LIM).
  • The idea of licensing and accrediting contaminated land investigation was supported.

Air quality

  • We need funding for monitoring. If every local air management area starts monitoring there will be major compliance implications.
  • There will be no cross government approach. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) should be involved in building codes and insulation etc.
  • How will communities afford the cost of at least $4,000 for new heating and housing upgrade, especially people from lower socio-economic communities?
  • It appears that territorial local authorities can back off from enforcing building code regulations regarding wood burners.
  • The Carter Holt Harvey is outside the air management area so compliance with National Environmental Standards will not help the Tokoroa community with their air quality issues from Carter Holt Harvey. We need to use state owned enterprise powers to require insulation upgrades for SOE property.
  • There should be a housing corporation policy on the type of burners installed.
  • MfE needs to support pellet burners.
  • It would be good to have guidance regarding electric and gas generators. We need to disseminate examples of best management practices (e.g. Christchurch and Nelson).
  • It would be better to deal with the single issue nationally rather than amend all regional plans. Environment Waikato is considering a plan variation to prohibit open burning in Category 1 areas.

Sewage

  • We would like to see National Environmental Standards for on site sewage (septic tanks). We need to review regional plans in respect to implementing the Australia and New Zealand Standards (ANZS) and define areas at risk. Environment Waikato is beginning to define sensitive zones. MFE could develop rules on a national level to protect risk zones (e.g. a similar approach to groundwater protection zones).
  • The design of septic tanks has been included to some extent by regional plans. However, the issues of maintenance have not been considered. Operation and maintenance schedules would be really useful.
  • The septic tank issue has created high levels of disagreement between territorial local authorities and regional councils, the Building’s Act and RMA overlap, and there are different consenting requirements.

Biosolids

  • Biosolids guidelines have been written but National Environmental Standards are required. Environment Waikato is uncomfortable with the idea of spreading biosolids around the land as they are worried about the environment. They prefer landfilling. Environment Waikato believes that biosolids are a big marketing ploy that is suitable only if the contaminant levels are acceptable.

Vehicle testing

  • There should be National Environmental Standards for exhaust emissions, considering all contaminants in the National Environmental Standards and BTEX (Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xzylene). If the cars fail then get them off the road.

Farming and nutrient levels

  • There should be regulations to keep a nutrient budget (for an individual farm), regulating the maximum level of nutrient discharge from an individual property.

Building in hazard zones

  • There should be National Environmental Standards to protect from building in hazard zones (i.e. areas that are vulnerable to flooding, coastal hazard zones and any other hazard zones). It is too difficult to manage on an individual basis (building by building).

Vehicle noise

  • There are no controls regarding individual vehicle noise. This accounts for 25% of Waipa District Council noise complaints. The police can control the noise but not territorial local authorities.

Waste

Waste reduction

  • Local government is one of the biggest producers of waste and it is not showing leadership on this issue. Local government asks everyone else to reduce their waste but is not seen to be reducing waste in its own.

General comments

  • The National Environmental Standards lacks definition in some of the words they use (e.g. wholesome and potable).
  • Territorial local authorities need to have risk management in place.
  • There are concerns at the amount of time it will take for regional councils and territorial local authorities to review their plans.
  • There needs to be research into how ash could be used to good effect (e.g. mixed with green waste).
  • There is a lack of land for wastewater treatment plants.
  • Can the MFE look at the ‘waste to energy’ issues (i.e. anerobic digestion through biosolids)?
  • What treatment processes are out there to deal with biosolids? It is too risky to use them as soil conditioners.
  • We need to look at the efficient use of home heating.

Last updated: 17 September 2007