A week ago I critiqued Watercare (who provide our fresh and waster water services in Auckland) on their decision around a recycled storm-water scheme in Stonefields. You can read it here: Patch Protecting or Genuine Concerns?
This morning I noticed (and a few others) the editorial for the Herald this morning commenting again on the recycled storm-water scheme. Lets take a look bit by bit from the editorial this morning shall we?
Stonefields, a village-style residential development in what was the Mt Wellington quarry, has branded itself with environmental “sustainability”. The basis of that brand was a dual water supply. Every house built so far has both a drinking-water supply and a “third pipe”, bringing surface water from a central reservoir to toilets and outside taps. The system may have saved water from the metropolitan supplier, Watercare Services, but saving water is not the supplier’s prime concern.
Many, in fact, will suspect the monopoly supplier’s refusal to operate Stonefields’ scheme as intended is motivated by the simple desire to maximise its revenue. Not so, says Watercare. The scheme, it says, would have cost Stonefields residents more than they will pay for the normal water supply. And since the groundwater collected for the third pipe would not have been treated to the same standard, it would have been charging those residents more for a supply of lower quality.
Common sense is probably on the side of Watercare. Surface run-off, especially from roads, is polluted. It was going to have to be treated as it was pumped from Stonefields’ collection tank to the reservoir, though not to a drinkable standard. The company says the cost of collection, treatment and pumping would have resulted in Stonefields residents paying five times the cost of Auckland’s potable water. And most of the third-pipe water would be flushed into the same second pipe, where it would need sewage treatment and disposal
……
“Many, in fact, will suspect the monopoly supplier’s refusal to operate Stonefields’ scheme as intended is motivated by the simple desire to maximise its revenue.” When you read the rest of the editorial I wonder but not help that is “bending the truth” to a wide degree.
What would be nice if the editorial posted some hard figures on the actual cost Watercare is purporting for the third pipe recycled storm-water scheme. Costs that include both the set and operations of such a facility in comparison to the normal set up we already get. Then for good measure some comparative costs from overseas as well as the private sector to see if the scheme is not value for money as Watercare (and the Herald) claim
I also note saving water is not Watercare’s main concern. Well no if it is out to maximise income and profits which is telling as we further get down the editorial.
Cost is not the only consideration. Enthusiasts for third-pipe water conservation ought to consider what would be lost. This is a country in which the water is safe to drink. To slake a thirst, we turn on the nearest tap without a qualm. That would change if not all piped water could be trusted. The outside taps at Stonefields were to carry a sign that the water was not safe to drink. Do we really want that?
The former Auckland City Council ought to have thought of all these practicalities before it invoked principles of sustainability and made third-pipe reticulation a feature of Stonefields’ development consent. Its own water retailer, Metrowater, was going to run the system. But for the Super City’s creation, and the bulk supplier’s takeover of the whole system, the true costs of “sustainability” might never have been known.
….
I assume whoever wrote this has never been around much as plenty of outside taps (not drinking fountains) even in urban Auckland carry the Do Not Drink sign above the said tap. And can someone tell me – who races to the garden hose and drinks out of it – regularly? So a really weak excuse here in that section of the editorial.
Thanks to the Waikato River, Auckland will never be short of water. There is no point conserving the water for its own sake if it must be replaced by a costly supply of inferior standard, no matter how interesting or exciting the environmental engineering involved.
…
I am quite sure the people of the Waikato – especially those who use or treasure the river will be quite comforted that Auckland will never be short of water thanks to Watercare drawing water from there and then pumping it to Auckland after it treated – NOT. I am aware Watercare are seeking consent to double the amount of water intake from the Waikato River to pump into a growing Auckland. This consent process has riled the people of the Waikato as the extra intake will no doubt put strain on New Zealand’s longest river. It is of note the lower Waikato is reliant on rainfall, Lake Taupo and the Waipa River for its water flow – and it is certainly not unlimited either. Just look what happens when our South Island hydro stations get dry years and the knock on effects downstream…
Now if you want a contradiction then check this last bit from the editorial
More water falls on Auckland than the city can use. Only a fraction of Stonefields’ storm water was to be channelled into the third pipe. Most would have drained to the Tamaki inlet. Reducing stormwater pollution of the sea around Auckland is the real challenge. Collecting tanks and treatment may be the answer, and if the water can be put to a cost-effective use, all the better. But recycling for a needless purpose at greater cost is not sustainable.
—-
Okay so more water falls on Auckland than we can use yet we get 10% of our total supply from the Waikato with Watercare wanting to increase that to 18% of total supply. Auckland also in 1994 suffered a drought which eventually led to the Waikato pipeline being built in the first place so that Auckland would not be faced with a similar situation again. So which way is it? We get enough rain that we do not need the Waikato, or is Auckland that large that we need the Waikato to supplement our dams.
In any case the real question that begs to be asked is ‘who actually wrote the editorial?’ Watercare or the NZ Herald themselves…
Hearings Begin on Warkworth Section of Holiday Highway
The Herald has noted that the Board of Enquiry gets under way today for the Puhoi-Warkworth section of the Puhoi-Welsford Roads of National Significance Program otherwise known as the Holiday Highway.
Fast-tracking of $760m extension to be considered over 14 days.
Plans for one of the country’s most expensive transport projects – a $760 million extension of Auckland’s motorway network to Warkworth – go under the microscope today.
A board of inquiry appointed for fast-tracking planning consideration of the 18.5km extension as the first half of a Road of National Significance will preside over 14 days of hearings.
The Government is promoting the extension over 12 viaducts and bridges from the Johnstones Hill traffic tunnels south of Puhoi to a new roundabout north of Warkworth, as a vital freight and tourism link with Northland.
Even so, many of the 14,000 vehicles a day expected to use the new road by 2026 will double back to Warkworth’s often bottlenecked Hill St turnoff to eastern beaches.
That keeps critics such as Auckland Council infrastructure chairman Mike Lee calling it “the holiday highway” to the intense annoyance of Northland leaders and former Rodney mayor Penny Webster.
…
There will only be one traffic interchange between Orewa and Warkworth, to be confined to just south-facing ramps at Puhoi, after residents protested against an earlier plan which would have denied them access.
…
So you will need to double back and still get held up at the notorious Hill Road intersection at Warkworth in order to get to the eastern beaches. That in itself is rather self-defeating.
In any case the Holiday Highway even if fully completed as the gold-plated 4-lane motorway would still fall well short of where it would need to be if it were to serve the population and industrial centres of Northland. You would need to take the motorway all the way to Whangarei itself to get the “benefits” you would be sort after – much like the 4-lane expressway Auckland to Hamilton and Cambridge.
Ironically there has been two more cheaper but more beneficial transport schemes to connect Auckland up to Northland than the Holiday Highway. One is Operation Lifesaver devised by Transport Blog, the other is to fully upgrade the North Auckland (rail) Line from Swanson to Whangarei with a branch line to Marsden Point (home of a deep water port and our oil refinery) to allow our more powerful DL’s to haul longer trains from the area south (like logs).
You can read about Operation Lifesaver as an alternative to the Holiday Highway HERE.
Operation Lifesaver I believe follows the same premise as the upgrades to State Highway 2 that have happened and are going to continue to happen again soon. You can read what NZTA has done and what it will be up to with State Highway 2 here: Safety Improvements for State Highway 2. Once the upgrades are complete that section of State Highway 2 (which carries more regular, holiday and freight traffic than the Holiday Highway ever would) will allow that traffic to travel efficiently and safely to their destinations. So if these kind of simple upgrades to a much busier State Highway 2 are effective why does State Highway 1 going north need to be a 4-lane Motorway that does not really go the distance it would need to? And these upgrades to State Highway 2 are very similar to what Operation Lifesaver proposes.
Lets hope this Board of Inquiry puts the Holiday Highway under the same intense microscope as it did to a Wellington Highway project last month. And cross fingers the Board of Inquiry might start shifting us away from this motorway to something more viable that will not break the bank…
Herald being disingenuous again I noted from the Herald’s property writer Anne Gibson that apparently high rises are heading for our suburbs in Auckland and that people are “alarmed.” … Continue reading High Rises are NOT Heading for the Burbs
Seems we in Auckland are not the only one suffering road and transit chaos (on a regular basis) with for some unknown reason last night the CBD jammed up and both cars and buses unable to move very far very fast.
Melbourne this morning is gripped with a major accident on one of its Free-ways which has brought road traffic to a stand-still while their City Loop suffered a fault causing a meltdown on the heavy rail network.
There was a common theme though between Auckland and Melbourne as I looked through The Age – well three themes:
Decades long infrastructure deficits and neglect that both Auckland and Melbourne are trying to catch up on
Governments self congratulating themselves
Governments heading rather fast towards ineptness with major transport upgrades required (our Government with the CRL start date at 2020 despite the Prime Minister’s conditions for the speed up now being met, and the Melbourne State Government for differing its mass transit investment programs for two more electoral cycles (while hell-bent on their East-West Link motorway)).
Meanwhile I notice the very conservative Utah is continuing to push through its mass transit investment which patronage levels doing very well indeed. For that matter I am noticing more Northern Hemisphere Conservative Governments pushing through large mass transit programs while the Southern Hemisphere Conservative Governments fall behind the 8-ball. Not amusing when you live in one of those Southern Hemisphere countries…
Stonefields was to be served by a third plumbing network.
New Zealand’s first environmentally sustainable public “third pipe” scheme, planned to serve thousands of homes with recycled storm water, has been plugged.
Rain falling on Stonefields – a redevelopment of a former East Auckland quarry – was to be fed to a storm water retention pond and treated to feed a plumbing network to toilets and garden taps.
However, despite the network being built at a cost of more than $7.5 million, municipal water supplier Watercare has rejected it on grounds of potential water quality and price issues.
Residents are disappointed..
“The chance of us all realising cost savings from using non-potable water supply and reducing our monthly water bills, including waste water charges, will be removed from us without consultation,” said the Stonefields Residents Association.
A Watercare spokesman said the decision was intended “to protect public health – treated storm water would not meet New Zealand’s drinking water standards and Watercare’s A Grade for water supply could be jeopardised by operation of the third pipe system.”
Watercare also said the cost of running the system would result in Stonefields residents paying five times more than the $1.34 per 1000 litres that Watercare would charge.
——ends——-
So Watercare are rejecting this “third-pipe” which is “treated” because of water-quality and price issues. Yet the water (which a savvy person could also connect a rain tank to as well) was to be used for toilets and garden taps rather than the taps we get our drinking water from. So you will have to forgive me Watercare but I never knew we needed A-grade water for the garden tap and toilet as I never knew I was going to be drinking out of them…
It’s not recycled black-water (water that has come from a sewerage plant) and the storm water is “treated” so what is the issue here?
The issue is most likely Watercare would be upset because they might get a drop in revenue especially around the 80% waste-water charge will honestly stinks. I know from the 100% fresh water I draw from the Watercare mains does not end back down the sewer pipes at the 80% level – especially in the Summer – yet I get hit for it.
I know here where I live in Papakura there is some storm-water ponds that also act as a “lake” for the local park that could be potentially used in a scheme that Stonefields would have got until now.
At the same time I thought Auckland was meant to be an Eco-City and recycling treated storm water for non drinking purposes would have been a good step in reaching those “eco” goals.
Roll eyes material this is – really.
Looking over storm water pond to North Western flank of the park. New Social Housing development to occur behind that flank
So National or Labour on Housing And the battle for the housing affordability answer is very much under way with Labour and their Kiwi Build, and National with … Continue reading Labour on Housing
[Please note I am not taking aim at Digi-Poll in any shape or form and I do respect their credibility as a polling company highly. I do however, take aim at the NZ Herald for their “reporting” and not laying out the fall statistical facts about the poll clearly in their article]
I did notice the Herald Digi-Poll out this morning citing a poll about Mayor Len Brown. You can read the article here: Thumbs down for Len Brown – poll
What the online piece did not show was the actual graphs which can be seen below from Twitter earlier today:
Now, the Herald-Digipoll is supposed to be a real survey, with samples that are more or less representative after weighting. There isn’t a margin of error reported, but the standard maximum margin of error would be a little over 6%.
There are two aspects of the data that make it not look representative. Thr first is that only 31.3%, or 37% of those claiming to have voted, said they voted for Len Brown last time. He got 47.8% of the vote. That discrepancy is a bit larger than you’d expect just from bad luck; it’s the sort of thing you’d expect to see about 1 or 2 times in 1000 by chance.
More impressively, 85% of respondents claimed to have voted. Only 36% of those eligible in Auckland actually voted.
,.,,,
So, how could the poll be so badly wrong? It’s unlikely to just be due to bad sampling — you could do better with a random poll of half a dozen people. There’s got to be a fairly significant contribution from people whose recall of the 2013 election is not entirely accurate, or to put it more bluntly, some of the respondents were telling porkies. Unfortunately, that makes it hard to tell if results for any of the other questions bear even the slightest relationship to the truth.
The journalist running the story is not known to be “objective” from time to time and has been pulled up before for either slanting or giving a misrepresentation (that is his opinion rather than a claimed fact).
So I would be very careful in trotting out this poll which has misrepresentations and a bad case of slanting as proof of fact against the Mayor. Using such a poll in that method will not do your credibility any good – although two of the oppositional five Councillors had (although expected).
Back to City Building we go as there is nothing to see from that Orsman piece.
Auckland Council is looking for new Commissioners to take up the reigns from mid-year. Note these are not Commissioners for the Unitary as they have already been appointed.
From Auckland Council
Applications invited for independent hearing commissioners
Applications are invited from qualified people to join Auckland Council’s pool of independent hearing commissioners.
A current “Making Good Decisions” accreditation by the Ministry for the Environment is preferred, and will be essential from 12 September 2014, along with skills in general planning or resource management law.
Applications close on 14 March 2014 for positions starting 1 June 2014 for a three year term, reviewable annually.
The council currently has contracts with about 60 independent commissioners and these contracts are due to expire on 31 May 2014. Under this review, the council is seeking to appoint about 40-50 independent commissioners.
Independent commissioners will sit as panel members, some as chairpersons.
They will sit on hearings for such purposes as resource consents, Section 357 objections, bylaw dispensations, reserve management plans, plan changes, special consultative procedures and notices of requirement.
Expertise in one or more of the following is required:
planning
resource management law
engineering (transport and infrastructure)
landscape architecture
ecology, biodiversity and environmental management
freshwater management
the Treaty of Waitangi and kaupapa Maori
community
coastal management
heritage and conservation management
urban design
air quality
rural planning and land management
waste management
Hearings Committee chair Councillor Linda Cooper said the council had been well served by independent commissioners in the first term. The opportunity now arose to review and refresh the pool as the council moved forward under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and Resource Management Act changes.
“We are entering a new planning era providing great prospects for skilled professionals and I’m sure that will be reflected in the quality of the applicants,” she added.
Two selection panels, each comprising senior managers from the council’s Democracy Services and Regional and Local Planning departments and a member of the Independent Maori Statutory Board, or person nominated by the IMSB, will present a list of preferred candidates to the Hearings Committee in May 2014.
Applicants should apply via www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/careers including Curriculum Vitae, a copy of their accreditation from the Ministry for the Environment, and, if they wish to be considered for a chairperson role, an example of a recent decision they have written.
Further information is available from Elizabeth McKenzie on 09 307 7557
—ends—
So send your applications now and be at the leading edge of helping shape Auckland’s future
As Mayor Len Brown said in the elections last year, the Council Controlled Organisations (the CCO’s) were to be reviewed by the main Council. The CCO’s include (but not limited to):
Auckland Transport
Watercare
Auckland Council Investment Limited
Auckland Council Property Limited
Waterfront Auckland
ATEED
From Auckland Council on the review:
Council to review super-city organisations
24/02/2014
Auckland councillors will be asked to approve the draft terms of reference and timeline for a wide-ranging review of Council-Controlled Organisations (CCOs) at the next Governing Body meeting on 27 February, says Mayor Len Brown. The draft terms of reference can be found here (item 12, page 9).
Len Brown said: “Our CCOs deliver a huge range of services for Aucklanders, from water management, to major events, through to the big improvements we’re making in public transport. We need to ensure that as ratepayer owned and funded organisations, they are as lean and efficient as possible, with no waste and no duplication of effort.”
A key election pledge from Len Brown, the CCO review will aim to ensure Aucklanders are getting value for money from the seven council controlled organisations set up during amalgamation, and that they are fully accountable to ratepayers and elected representatives.
Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse, Chair of the CCO Governance and Monitoring Committee said:
“Having had three years to work with the CCOs, we are at an ideal point to assess how well CCOs are performing on behalf of our communities, and to look at potential changes where they are needed across council. The review will assess what worked well in the first term and what we could do better going forward. “It is very important that while the review is going on we continue to work with our CCOs to deliver for Auckland.”
Councillors, local board members, CCOs and the Independent Maori Statutory Board have all been given an opportunity to provide feedback on the review’s draft terms of reference. These groups have also contributed to the development of two CCO current state assessment reports that councillors will receive ahead of the Governing Body meeting.
The seven CCOs are Auckland Tourism Events Economic Development (ATEED), Auckland Transport (AT), Watercare, Auckland Council Investments Limited (ACIL), Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL), Waterfront Auckland, and Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA).
What Counts Some estimated numbers on events around Auckland over the weekend and last week. Len Brown Stand Down Protest: peaked at 300 but was 50 people there by … Continue reading The City and What It Gets Up To
Talking Southern Auckland 