Introduction
This chapter examines two local authority environmental planning and decision-making processes. For each planning process I describe the institutional context and actors’ substantive agendas and their perspectives. The focus of this chapter is on identifying tensions between agendas and perspectives and considering their influence on the conduct of effective integrative processes. The data are from documentary sources16, observations and interviews on the two wastewater planning processes, as outlined in Chapter Three.
The two wastewater planning processes are:
• Palmerston North City Council’s ‘WasteWater 2002’, later renamed ‘WasteWater 2006’.
• Wanganui District Council’s ‘1992 Wastewater Scheme’, later renamed the ‘1999 Revised Wastewater Scheme’.
In the last part of the chapter I compare the two processes in terms of the influence of actors’ perspectives on processes and outcomes. These data, combined with Q- method data from Chapter Five, provide the basis for a discussion of the research findings in Chapter Six.
Palmerston North and Wanganui are typical, provincial North Island New Zealand cities (see Figure 5), with medium sized urban areas and populations (at the time of the fieldwork in 2001) of approximately 70,000 and 40,000 respectively. Their respective territorial authorities are Palmerston North City Council (PNCC) and Wanganui District Council (WDC).
16
The range of documentary sources varies, both between the two planning processes, and within them over time. Both councils produced in-house publications on their proposed schemes for public consumption, particularly at the resource consent application stage. Both wastewater planning processes gained media coverage over time, although the volume of reporting and range of sources for Palmerston North was consistently far greater than for Wanganui.
Figure 3: Map of New Zealand showing area of Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council and Wanganui city and Palmerston North city
Figure 4: Local government boundaries in the Manawatu-Wanganui region
The two councils are among seven territorial authorities within the boundary of the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council (see Figure 5). In New Zealand local government, responsibility for environmental planning and decision-making is divided
between territorial authorities and regional councils. At the time of the research, territorial authorities’ functions included the management of local land use issues such as subdivision consents, pollution and refuse disposal, but also extended to functions such as operating libraries and swimming pools, and liquor licensing. Regional councils had narrower responsibilities focused on regional planning and sustainable management of physical resources such as soil and water, lakes, rivers and coastal areas.
The Wanganui wastewater planning process
Until the 1970s, the Whanganui River received all of Wanganui City’s industrial and domestic liquid waste, mostly untreated. This combination of wastewater and stormwater was discharged to the river via 59 outlets, from approximately 30,000 houses and most of Wanganui’s industries including a large abattoir. By the 1950s the discharge had stretched the river beyond its carrying capacity, and in 1962 a number of cases of typhoid were notified in Wanganui, with one death resulting from shellfish poisoning. Following this, public health officials classified the lower river and adjacent beaches as polluted. The City was granted temporary permits in 1966 for continued discharge, with restrictions on recreational activities (WDC, 1991a).
In 1970 the Wanganui City Council announced a new ‘Wastewater Scheme’ designed around three components: the staged separation of wastewater and stormwater which would significantly reduce the volume of wastewater for treatment and disposal; the construction of an under-river pipeline and ocean outfall to eventually receive all of the City’s wastewater discharge; and the treatment of all wastewater before discharge.
The original Wanganui Wastewater Scheme (1979-1988)
Construction of the original Wastewater Scheme began in 1979 and was completed in 1984 at a cost of $23.5 million. Under that Scheme tradewaste was collected, treated, and discharged along with some wastewater via an under-river pipeline to an 1800 metre ocean outfall. Most domestic wastewater and stormwater continued to be discharged untreated into the river. Nevertheless, there was a dramatic, visible improvement in the quality of river water and surrounding beaches, particularly because of the removal of discharge from the City’s large abattoir. The 1979 Scheme left the Wanganui City Council with a substantial, but anticipated $2.7 million deficit.
Source: Horizons Regional Council Figure 5: Wanganui City showing main sewers and marine outfall
Despite these improvements, Wanganui Area Health Board reports in 1987 and 1989 identified ongoing health risks on the river and immediate coastline from swimming and eating shellfish. The City Council, primarily driven by financial concerns about the cost of further works, challenged the Board’s claims about pollution levels (Wanganui Chronicle, 25 February 1989, p.3) A public debate ensued, with a number of groups, including the Maruia Society (a nationwide conservation organisation) and Friends of the Shoreline (a local group opposed to continuing discharge), along with the Department of Conservation publicly campaigning for a river clean-up (Wanganui Chronicle, 5 November 1988, p.8). Nevertheless, the City Council continued to delay any further action.
In 1989 the Central Districts Catchment Board17 withdrew the City’s discharge water rights, forcing the new Wanganui District Council18 to apply for new rights (Wanganui
17
Catchment boards existed prior to the 1989 local government reforms. In 1989 most boards and other smaller bodies were amalgamated into larger regional councils.
18
Wanganui City Council was amalgamated into Wanganui District Council in 1989 as part of the New Zealand-wide local government reforms.
Chronicle, 28 April 1989, p.3). Many public submissions on the application were received, mostly in opposition to any further river discharge (Wanganui Chronicle, 5 November 1988, p.8; WDC, 1991b:48). A new Water Right was issued in 1989 for just two years, subject to quite stringent conditions. It required the Council to begin treating its wastewater, and to establish a Working Party for a comprehensive study of the issues. The Wanganui Wastewater Working Party (WWWP) was established by the Wanganui District Council in 1989 with membership from groups with an interest in the river and coast.
In 1989 the Council commissioned a public survey on treatment and disposal options (WDC & McDermott Miller Group, 1990). Five hundred and fifty responses were received, revealing a “considerable public willingness to pay for an improved scheme, at a higher priority than other Council works” (WDC, 2001a:69). Key findings were:
• Land disposal of wastewater was acceptable to 89% of respondents, whereas river or ocean disposal was acceptable to 53%.
• A separated wastewater system combined with land disposal was easily the most preferred option.
The Working Party recommended the Council adopt a scheme based on land disposal via irrigation of wastewater onto plantation forestry. The preferred site was the Harakeke Forest south of Wanganui.
The 1992 Wastewater Scheme
The District Council subsequently adopted the Working Party’s recommendations and applied for resource consents. This was a major new commitment, given the estimated $85.7 million cost, which was a huge sum for a small, relatively poor district19. Resource consents were subsequently granted by the Regional Council for the 1992 Wastewater Scheme. The basic features were:
• Full separation of stormwater and wastewater on all public and private property.
• Stormwater discharged to the river.
• Wastewater milliscreened and disposed of by irrigation onto Harakeke Forest by 2004.
19
1996 census data showed that the median household income in Wanganui was $27,021 compared with $34,707 in New Zealand overall.
• Tradewaste treated and disposed of via the ocean outfall.
Funding for the Scheme was planned through a $150 rates increase to be phased in over three years. However, after two $50 rates increases, the Council became increasingly concerned about the cost to the community (WDC, 2001a; Wanganui Chronicle, 4 April 2002, p.3). Since the late 1980s Wanganui had been in a state of economic decline, with rising unemployment and below average incomes. By 1996 the Council had come to accept that many ratepayers were unable to continue funding the 1992 Scheme. In the event, the third increase was never levied and the scheme was never fully completed. The pumping and milliscreening of wastewater was completed in 1996, along with some separation of stormwater from wastewater, but the land-based disposal was never undertaken. Instead a revised scheme was undertaken as described below.
The 1999 Revised Wastewater Scheme
In 1996 the Council decided to review the remainder of the Scheme on financial and technical grounds. It had become clear that central government funding would not be available to meet the shortfall. The Council now sought a better balance between the community’s desire to improve the river and coast, and its limited ability to pay. It believed a revised scheme was the best way to achieve this. Importantly, the Council now saw ocean discharge as a cheaper, preferable alternative to land-based discharge, partly because of technical and financial issues with the proposed forest site.
While the Council considered its options, regulatory changes were also imposing new standards on any future wastewater discharge. The Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council’s new Regional Coastal Plan 1997 made the discharge of wastewater and tradewaste discretionary activities. A Proposed Land and Water Regional Plan 1999 also set new river quality standards, and a New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 1994 set compulsory standards for coastal water quality.
The Wanganui District Council began a comprehensive review of the 1992 Scheme in 1998. Three groups of citizens were identified for consultation:
• Level One involved the formation of a Wastewater Project Scheme Consultation Group from those organisations, community groups and individuals who were
involved in the 1992 Wastewater Working Party plus tangata whenua for the Whanganui River20. The Consultation Group would work very closely with Council officers in assessing wastewater options and recommending a best option.
• Level Two comprised those individuals and organisations identified as having an interest in the issues apart from that of the general community, such as ratepayer interest groups, community groups and local industries that discharged to the river. It also included Ngati Apa, tangata whenua on the coast south of Wanganui, who would be affected by decisions on ocean outfall and coastal impacts. Consultation within Level Two would occur as and when required.
• Level Three comprised the wider community to be consulted when appropriate, through processes such as public meetings, submissions and notices.
At this point the Council signalled publicly that it had made a major change of direction. The Wastewater Consultation Group’s Terms of Reference, set by the Council, now explicitly excluded a land-based disposal option from consideration. The Terms of Reference required the Consultation Group to explore options for ocean discharge of all wastewater, and for an extended, less costly timetable (WDC, 2001c). The Consultation Group was asked to recommend preferred options (but to exclude a land- based option), while the Council would retain final decision-making authority.
Consultation Group meetings revealed significant tensions between Council staff (who were present at all meetings but not as Group members) and those Group members who still clearly preferred land-based disposal. This disagreement ultimately affected the Group’s final recommendations, which lacked the detailed guidance the Council hoped it would receive. The Consultation Group intentionally avoided making recommendations on any particular ocean or river discharge options because most members continued to prefer a land-based solution. Instead, the Group set out principles for council decision-making on the wastewater scheme (WDC, 2001c). The principles focused on balancing affordability with water quality standards, while recommending the Council commit to full wastewater treatment and full separation of wastewater from stormwater by 2010 if possible.
20
Membership of the Consultation Group included representatives for two local lobby groups: the Whanganui River Combined Recreational Users Group and the Friends of the Shoreline. Tangata Whenua were represented through Te Runanga of Tupoho and the Whanganui River Māori Trust Board an umbrella group of iwi for the lower reaches of the river, and the Putiki Marae Committee. The Group also included officers from the Department of Conservation and Ministry of Health. The Group was supported by Wanganui District Council officers and technical consultants Montgomery Watson. An observer from the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council also attended.
Level Two consultation occurred with groups identified above, who had a particular interest in the river or coastal environment. The Council attended particularly closely to coastal iwi Ngati Apa’s concerns about river and ocean discharge, and discharge to Harakeke Forest and the effect on possible burial grounds in the forest. Ngati Apa’s first preference was for land-discharge to another location (WDC, 2001b). Level Three consultation was through a brochure inviting comments, which was mailed to all households, and by advertisements and reports in newspapers.
Following consultation, the Council applied for new resource consents for an all-ocean discharge wastewater system. The Council maintained it had sought to balance community concerns about environmental outcomes and affordability, while taking account of the Consultation Group and community’s concerns about ocean discharge. In effect, this meant selecting the treatment and discharge options which provided the best water quality the Council believed the community could afford. All land-based options were excluded because of cost.
The Council applied for new resource consents for the discharge of stormwater into the lower Whanganui River for 35 years, and the discharge of fully treated wastewater via the ocean outfall for 35 years. The Council also applied to delay any decision on the specific treatment scheme until 2006 to allow them to take advantage of improvements in treatment technology.
The application was heard by the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council. There were no opposing submissions and some members of the Consultation Group spoke in support of the Scheme. Group members had all agreed that the application was the best compromise possible at the time, given the community’s limited ability to pay. Resource consents were granted without any substantial modifications to the application. The 1999 Revised Scheme was estimated at $35M.
Analysing the Wanganui planning process
This overview of the Wanganui wastewater process identifies institutional practices and actors’ agendas, and highlights a range of actors’ perspectives and their influence on the integration of citizens’ agendas.
Institutional practices and actors’ agendas
The influence of institutional practices and actors’ agendas21 on the integration of citizens’ agendas appears reasonably clear. The Wanganui District Council and its predecessor, the Wanganui City Council complied with external regulatory requirements (public health and river and water quality standards) and with the resource consent process, including requirements for public consultation. Because of the scale and cost of the wastewater proposals, the Council undertook an extensive planning process, including a considerable amount of additional public consultation prior to, and in addition to that required. Input from the Wastewater Consultation Group also continued past the granting of consents and in addition to consent conditions.
One of the most notable features of the Wanganui planning process was the broadly shared Council and public agenda of cleaning up the Whanganui River in an affordable way. By the 1970s the river’s visibly polluted state had become a source of widespread public concern and embarrassment. There was general public agreement on the need for action, to the extent that successive councils were frequently criticised in the 1980- 90s for a lack of action—although the inaction was almost entirely due to financial constraints. This public-council consensus significantly reduced the potential for tensions in the planning process and increased the chances of the council and citizens reaching agreement on the best solution. As the Council’s Water and Wastewater Manager observed:
I guess we have this advantage over other councils in that we’ve gone from a pretty awful situation of chucking all our sewage in the river, moving as fast as this relatively poor community can go, in a very high profile way—so that people understand what we’re doing—which everyone accepts, either enthusiastically or reluctantly. Reluctantly because of the financial burden, but they accept it. So to that extent, the whole process is quite peaceful comparatively (16)22.
21
All four dimensions of the problem (institutional practices, actors’ agendas, and actors’ epistemological and procedural perspectives) are defined in Chapter One.
22
Numbering of interviewees is as follows. In this chapter and subsequent chapters I have identified research respondents in two ways: First, where respondents are quoted they have been numbered rather than named, in accordance with the confidentiality provision in their consent forms (see Appendix Three). Respondents are numbered in the order that they completed Q-sorts. Second, where respondents are being discussed in relation to their official capacity, I have identified them by position rather than by name (for example, ‘iwi representative’ and ‘council wastewater manager’). With the exception of written submissions from the 24 research respondents who were guaranteed confidentiality, all written sources follow referencing conventions.
This shared public-council agenda reflected the high level of public awareness of the visibly polluted river, prior to the removal of tradewaste in 1984:
The river was literally red [at the freezing works], and it’s not now. We re- instituted the bridge-to-bridge swim a few years ago…In fact, one of our problems now with the river is about conflicts of use—boats, fishing and swimmers—and that’s going to get worse. It’s great; it’s a good problem to have (16).
As one Council engineer reported:
The initial public commitment to very high rates for land-based disposal was because the public was embarrassed about the river and the previous nonchalant use of the river (20).
While the Wanganui community had been concerned about the costs of a wastewater scheme, they appeared convinced of the need for the scheme. The Council’s Assessment of Environmental Effects23 (AEE) (WDC, 2001a:15) observed:
The Wanganui community is very aware that the Council has embarked on the Wastewater Scheme and most people now simply want the job completed. All of the Council’s strategic and annual plans have been developed against the backdrop of the Wastewater Scheme. Plan submissions on wastewater have been at a low level since the 1992 scheme was commenced, reflecting the community’s feeling that the work is essential and the Council’s approach is appropriate.
However, while public input supported this view that the work was essential, by the late 1990s there was no longer public agreement, as suggested in the AEE quote above, that the Council’s particular approach to the problem was appropriate.
In the 1998 Review of the wastewater scheme the Council made a significant, but well- signalled shift to a full river and ocean discharge option, based on its conclusions that the 1992 Scheme was prohibitively expensive and would negatively affect community
23
An Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) is a report that states the effects a proposed activity will have on the environment. This provides the consent authority and other parties with information about likely effects and any measures that can be adopted to avoid, remedy or mitigate negative effects.