WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT Committee for decision Low · Wastewater Management Committee 5 March 2020 1 of 82 10.2. Alternate Use and Disposal Update {report–number} Title: Alternate

Wastewater Management Committee 5 March 2020 1 of 82

10.2. Alternate Use and Disposal Update

{report–number}

Title: Alternate Use and Disposal Update

Section: 4 Waters Infrastructure

Prepared by: Wolfgang Kanz - 4 Waters Strategy Advisor

Meeting Date: 5 March 2020

Legal: No Financial: Yes Significance: Low

Report to WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT Committee for decision

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on current and ongoing work and processes regarding alternate use and disposal (AUD) and seek direction on proposed expenditure.

SUMMARY

The 2018–2028 Long Term Plan (LTP) included a budget for progressing AUD investigations. The following work has been completed to date:

Consultation with Tangata Whenua has been undertaken, a draft statement has been received from the consultant, and a final report is due for completion.

A draft overall stakeholder engagement plan has been completed.

An initial stocktake of what is happening in New Zealand and internationally regarding the beneficial use of treated wastewater was completed.

Further research has been carried out on:o The quality of water that is irrigated on different crops nationally and internationally.o Successful business models for the beneficial use of recycled water.

External funding has been sought as follows:o The Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) application is being revised based on feedback from

the Provincial Development Unit (PDU).o An Expression of Interest (EoI) for funding has been submitted to the Ministry of

Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) for AUD research.

A project plan has been completed for separation of mortuary wastewater from the conventional wastewater system. Council staff have provided costs required to initiate the project in the 2019/20 financial year and have provided a total project cost estimate of $250,000, with improved accuracy to be determined through this initial phase.


Alternate disposal of treated wastewater from the Te Karaka wastewater system was assessed in terms of mauri outcomes through the Mauri Compass training.

The Mauri Compass was finalised.

While the current LTP budget has enabled progress on AUD, additional funding will be required in order to move forward with separation of mortuary wastewater as directed by Council and make progress on AUD work as envisaged by the Wastewater Management Committee (WMC), which includes the work of the KIWA group. Further detail is provided in the finance section of this paper.

The decisions or matters in this report are considered to be of Low significance in accordance with the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Wastewater Management Committee:

1. Endorses the project plan for separation of mortuary wastewater from the conventional wastewater system.

2. Recommends that Council:

a) Approves an unbudgeted expenditure for the separation of mortuary wastewater in the 2019/20 financial year, comprising $45,000 capital and $10,000 operational costs (as detailed in Attachment 4).

b) Approves a further $195,000 and $17,500 capital be included into the 2020/21 Annual Plan and any future funding to be incorporated into the 2021–2031 Long Term Plan prioritisation process.

Authorised by:

David Wilson - Director Lifelines

Keywords: alternate use and disposal, AUD, mortuary wastewater, treated wastewater


BACKGROUND

1. Council has provided a budget of $725,000 for alternate use and disposal (AUD) investigations over the term of the 2018–2028 Long Term Plan (LTP).

2. Work has focused on engagement and investigations that support funding applications and material used to educate and inform interested and affected parties on AUD.

3. This report summarises progress to date on AUD work completed in the 2018/19 and 2019/20 financial years.

4. Separation of mortuary wastewater from the conventional wastewater system forms part of AUD investigations/activities.

DISCUSSION and OPTIONS

Project Management/Overall

5. Project management of AUD work is shared between Council’s Community Lifelines hub and the Transformation and Relationships hub. This is because the project comprises more than just a technical issue, but rather an outward-facing strategic project also requiring bylaw, planning, business, integration and engagement expertise.

6. The project manager is supported by a Junior Wastewater Advisor.

7. The current work plan is based on what can be achieved with the available annual budget. Additional budget/funding will be required in order to complete the proposed KIWA work plan and progress AUD at a quicker pace.

Funding Applications

8. The LTP budget for AUD investigations is considered ‘seed funding’ - a budget that enables partnership and co-operation with industry and other stakeholders to identify opportunities for collaboration and progress sourcing additional funding.

9. Council applied for $500,000 from the PGF to undertake a detailed programme of AUD work. The PDU has provided feedback to Council, with a meeting to be scheduled for the end of February 2020.

10. The PDU requested more information on the following aspects of the PGF application:

Further evidence of tangata whenua support of the PGF application (Report 19-93, 7 March 2019).

Further evidence of support from potential water users.

More information on alternatives for water sources, and why recycled water is necessary.

A truncation of spending into Year 1 of the proposal.

More information on how ‘spade-ready’ the project will be after the scope of work funded by the PDU is completed, and when Council will then implement AUD.


11. Council staff are updating the PGF application based on this feedback, with a revised application to be provided to the PDU prior to the meeting scheduled for the end of February 2020.

12. An Expression of Interest (EoI) was submitted to MBIE for the Endeavour Fund. This fund plays a unique role in the science system through an open, contestable process with a focus on both research excellence and a broad range of impacts. This investment mechanism supports ambitious, excellent, and well-defined research ideas which, collectively, have credible and high potential to positively transform New Zealand’s future in areas of future value, growth or critical need.

13. The EoI (Attachment 1) submitted to MBIE has been accepted. Council staff are working on the complete application to be submitted to MBIE before 5 March 2020.

Engagement

14. Focused engagement with tangata whenua commenced in May 2019 (undertaken by Council’s appointed supplier, Indigenous Corporate Solutions). The final report is expected to be completed in March 2020 and will be provided to WMC at its 4 June 2020 meeting.

15. Trust Tairāwhiti, through collaboration with Indigenous Corporate Solutions, produced a draft plan for progressing AUD engagement (Report 19-317, 5 September 2019). This is proposed to be implemented in the 2020/21 financial year, subject to funding.

Stocktake of Beneficial Use of Treated Wastewater

16. The stocktake includes the following:

Findings on the beneficial use of treated wastewater internationally.

Detail on the quality of water that is irrigated on different crops nationally and internationally.

Examples of successful governance and business models for the beneficial use of recycled wastewater.

17. The final report has been completed (Attachment 2). Murray Palmer will provide a short presentation on the outcomes.

Mortuary Waste

18. The Council’s wastewater resource consent includes the Turanganui a Kiwa Water Quality Enhancement Project (Clauses 18 and 19). Through this project the WMC recommended the separation of mortuary wastewater from the conventional wastewater stream, which was further endorsed by Council in 2019.

19. On 28 February 2019, Council resolved to remove mortuary wastewater from the domestic wastewater system. This update provides an overview of Council’s approach to the legal, operational and design requirements of the project.

20. A project plan for mortuary wastewater was produced and circulated to the KIWA Group, and requested changes were integrated based on feedback (Attachment 3). A provisional project timeline has also been included in Attachment 3. While Council staff have commenced with implementing the project plan, the WMC is requested to provide final approval of the project plan for implementation.


21. Staff are proposing an amendment to Council’s Trade Waste Bylaw 2015 (bylaw) making mortuary wastewater a prohibited substance. Council will amend the bylaw to:

Include mortuary wastewater under the list of substances prohibited from entering the wastewater system.

Require that such wastewater is separated at source and stored on-site in a manner suitable for easy collection and transport.

That mortuary waste can only:oBe transported by a Council certified contractoroBe disposed of at a Council designated receiving facility.

22. Doing this requires early review of the bylaw including engagement with iwi and other affected parties followed by public consultation and hearings before final adoption of the amended bylaw through a resolution of Council.

23. Council will work with mortuary providers to establish a system whereby mortuary wastewater is:

Isolated from the conventional Council wastewater system.

Captured and stored on-site at the mortuary facility.

Only transported by a certified contractor to a Council specified, purpose-built receiving facility.

24. There are four key operational components to this process.

Activity Description

Separation Mortuary wastewater providers will be required to capture all wastewater (including entrained solids) originating from or coming into contact with deceased human remains.

In most cases this will be achieved by the installation of a second gully trap to receive all waste from the mortuary preparation area and diverting it into an on-site storage tank.

Other domestic and commercial wastewater streams not associated with the mortuary preparation process can continue being discharged into the conventional Council wastewater system.

Storage Once separated, the mortuary wastewater will need to be stored on-site. The septic tank, similar to those used domestically across the region, will need the capacity to contain the maximum projected wastewater volumes produced by that facility over a predetermined time period (which is still to be determined). Council is assisting in the assessment of those volumes as they will also inform the tank capacity required at Council’s receiving facility.


Activity Description

Transport The safe and sensitive transport of mortuary wastewater necessitates a dedicated sucker truck, a vehicle that can collect, transport and unload wastewater under its own power, safely and considerately.

The size of vehicle and frequency of use necessary (which will inform ongoing operational costing) is yet to be determined.

Such a vehicle would likely be owned and operated by a contractor.

Disposal Staff are proposing to build a type of above ground effluent field known as a ‘Wisconsin Mound’ at the Taruheru Cemetery or similarly appropriate site.

The Wisconsin Mound is a type of above ground effluent field used by mortuary providers in rural North America. It is favoured for its low water volume demands and the secure separation of wastewater from groundwater.

This facility would include: dedicated road access receiving tank a settling and separating tank (can possibly be done by the receiving tank) septic tank pump system Wisconsin Mound (above ground effluent field) suitable access surface, parking and turn around.

25. Iwi guidance on the location, shape and vegetation on the Wisconsin mound will be necessary to preserve amenity values. Tangata whenua will also be engaged on operational matters.

26. Council staff have engaged with the region’s mortuary providers. Council is currently assisting with assessment of the wastewater volumes produced at Evans Funeral Services. These volumes will dictate the size and nature of the on-site storage and transport requirements (smaller on-site storage will have lower capital costs, however, require more regular transits to the receiving facility raising operational costs), as well as the capacity and design of the receiving facility.

27. The project team has estimated a capital cost of approximately $45,000 for the remainder of the 2019/20 financial year, with a potential total project capital cost of approximately $250,000 (Attachment 4). This is considered a conservative estimate, which will be refined over the next four months. The annual operational cost once the facility is established is estimated at approximately $100,000.

28. In implementing the project, cost-savings would be sought, and some processes (e.g. resource consent) and some infrastructure components (e.g. lining) may not end up being required. The scale of the project is to some extent unknown as mortuary wastewater volumes have not yet been quantified, which has a key influence on the sizing of infrastructure and frequency of collection and disposal. Water volumes will be monitored from the end of February allowing for designs to be progressed.


29. The costs will be reviewed going forward as high-level concept designs are refined to detailed design.

30. The costs of separating mortuary wastewater from the conventional wastewater stream are not currently included in the 2019/20 and 2020/21 Annual Plan budgets and not included in the LTP. Confirmation of direction and a recommendation are sought from the WMC to allow Council staff to estimate and promote a budget for the next LTP.

Mauri Compass

31. Council staff have worked together with Maumahara Consultancy Services (Council’s appointed supplier) and finalised the Mauri Compass. It is proposed to publish the tool in 2020.

32. Subject to funding, the tool will be considered in working on mauri aspects of separating mortuary wastewater from the conventional wastewater system, progressing and better understanding cultural aspects of treated wastewater, integrating Te Ao Māori and Mātauranga Māori into the Te Karaka Oxidation Ponds, Stage 3 of the wastewater treatment plant, and better understanding of the benefits of better wastewater quality and lower volumes of wastewater flowing out of the marine outfall (including complete removal of wastewater from the outfall).

Te Karaka Wastewater System

33. Through the development of the Mauri Compass, and considering the proposed upgrades to the Te Karaka wastewater system, Council staff have started the process of integrating issues of mauri into the design.

34. It is proposed to engage the KIWA group along with wastewater experts and other specialists to bring together western science and Mātauranga Māori and Tikanga aspects of wastewater in consideration of infrastructural and operational processes related to this wastewater upgrade.

35. To deliver the scope of work for the Te Karaka wastewater system as provided in Report 20-44 KIWA Group Terms of Reference and Work Plan, also being presented at the 5 March 2020 meeting, it will be necessary to request budget as no budget provision has been made.

KIWA Group

36. The KIWA group, established in terms of clause 18 and 19 of the wastewater consent, has been involved in work and processes related to AUD since 2015.

37. The terms of reference for the group, approved by WMC on 9 July 2015, are under review. A draft KIWA group work plan to 30 June 2021 has also been provided. Further detail is provided in Report 20-44 KIWA Group Terms of Reference and Work Plan, also being presented at the 5 March 2020 meeting. It is estimated that input from the KIWA group would comprise a minimum of $35,000 per annum.


ASSESSMENT of SIGNIFICANCE

Impacts on Council’s delivery of its Financial Strategy and Long Term PlanOverall Process: Low SignificanceThis Report: Low Significance

Inconsistency with Council’s current strategy and policyOverall Process: Low SignificanceThis Report: Low Significance

The effects on all or a large part of the Gisborne districtOverall Process: Medium SignificanceThis Report: Low Significance

The effects on individuals or specific communitiesOverall Process: High SignificanceThis Report: Low Significance

The level or history of public interest in the matter or issueOverall Process: Medium SignificanceThis Report: Low Significance

38. The decisions or matters in this report are considered to be of Low significance in accordance with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

39. Apart from extensive historical consultation on wastewater issues, AUD was included as part of the wastewater management options in the consultation process for the 2018–2028 LTP.

40. A detailed engagement plan has been produced by Trust Tairāwhiti, which will be rolled out in line with budget availability.

TANGATA WHENUA/MAORI ENGAGEMENT

41. The WMC includes iwi representatives from Te Runanga o Turanganui a Kiwa (TROTAK), Te Aitanga a Mahaki, Rongowhakaata, and Ngai Tamanuhiri. The WMC has been kept informed for the duration of the wastewater consent, including AUD matters.

42. The proposed AUD engagement plan provided by Trust Tairāwhiti was completed in collaboration with Indigenous Corporate Solutions, integrating tangata whenua consultation requirements.

43. Extensive consultation has taken place as a result of engagement with the KIWA Group and work on the Mauri Compass.


CLIMATE CHANGE – Impacts/Implications

44. Climate change impacts/implications will be integrated as follows:

Activity Description Impact before

mitigation/ adaptation

Mitigation Adaptation Impact after mitigation/ adaptation

Mortuary Wastewater

Separating mortuary wastewater from the conventional wastewater system. This will require additional infrastructure and operational activities.

Potential increase

Reduce vehicle use, efficient processes, improved technologies. Consider offsets.

Not applicable Potential increase

Te Karaka Upgrade

Implementing a wastewater polishing wetland.

Potential decrease

Maximise carbon sequestration and storage in the design.

Not applicable Potential decrease

Mauri Compass Use of a tool that enables semi-quantitative assessment of mauri, allowing for integration of mauri into regulatory processes and other projects. Promotion of better environmental quality and more natural processes as a result of through-earth and other value drivers.

Potential decrease

Apply a climate change 'lens' when considering mitigation strategies for mauri. Seek multiple benefits.

Not applicable Potential decrease

Use of recycled water

Enabling the use of treated wastewater (recycled water) for industry and agriculture. Integration of a polishing wetland as well as infrastructure for distribution and storage of recycled water.

Potential increase

Maximise carbon sequestration and storage in the design. Consider offsets to mitigate the likely increased carbon footprint as a result of increased agricultural production. Integrate climate change into farm management plans. Consider offsets.

Reduce water use Potential increase

Use of recycled wastewater solids

Finding a local solution for use or disposal of wastewater solids from the Biological Treatment Filter (as opposed to transport to landfill).

Potential increase

Find a use or disposal solution as close as possible to the wastewater treatment plant. Aim to render a product that can be used locally (e.g. soil conditioner) to reduce transport costs. Use of this natural product rather than chemical fertilisers. Consider offsets.

Not applicable Potential increase


45. The project team will consider indirect mitigation measures that offset increases in emissions. This may need to form part of a larger Tairāwhiti and Council initiative.

46. The project will align with future climate change requirements integrated into the 4 Waters section of Council.

CONSIDERATIONS

Financial/Budget

47. A budget of $725,000 for AUD investigations is included over the term of the 2018–2028 LTP. This budget will be spent on the following tasks:

Project management

Funding applications

Engagement with iwi, industry, other key stakeholders, and the farming community

Research and investigations required to provide the necessary information for the above to be meaningful

Identification of successful business and governance models for the use of recycled wastewater.

48. The $725,000 budget is spread out over the length of the LTP with between $50,000 and $75,000 allocated to any specific financial year. This sets the extent of work that can be done in any specific financial year. The work is therefore prioritised and significant effort is being spent on securing additional funding from external sources and collaborating with other organisations to enable more work in the short-term.

49. The WMC has requested a draft work plan for the KIWA group, which Council staff have provided in Report 20-44. This work plan will be delivered from within current budgets.

50. Applying for potential external sources of funding remains a priority for Council staff. In the event of receiving external grants (e.g. through the PGF), budget requirements will be reviewed and the work plan could then be accelerated.

Legal

51. Clause 8 of the consent is particularly relevant:“The permit holder shall use its best endeavours to adopt those AUD options that are identified as feasible and which will enable the progressive removal of the treated human sewage from the discharge, via the marine outfall, with the objective of complete removal by 2020.”

52. Council is continuing to investigate AUD with the aim of identifying feasible options that enable progressive removal of treated human sewage from the discharge via the marine outfall.

53. There are no legal implications arising from the matters discussed in the report in relation to the proposed changes to the Trade Waste Bylaw 2015. A report to the 18 March 2020 Sustainable Tairāwhiti Committee seeking approval to review the bylaw, including a mortuary waste amendment, is currently being drafted.


POLICY and PLANNING IMPLICATIONS

54. Investigations for AUD are included in existing plans.

55. The outcomes of AUD investigations and engagement may influence the LTP and spatial planning.

RISKS

56. Legal risks apply if AUD investigations are not progressed as envisaged in the wastewater consent. If this cannot be resolved, then it is unlikely to be able to achieve the tangata whenua objective of reducing and ultimately stopping the discharge of treated wastewater from the marine outfall.

NEXT STEPS

Date Action/Milestone Comments

2 April 2020 Recommendations to Council for approval.

Approval required in order to progress the KIWA Group work.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Endeavour Fund Registration Final [20-47.1 - 7 pages]2. Attachment 2 - National and International AUD Stocktake [20-47.2 - 60 pages]3. Attachment 3 - Mortuary Wastewater Project Plan [20-47.3 - 3 pages]4. Attachment 4 - AUD Budgets [20-47.4 - 1 page]

DRAFT REGISTRATION:

Investment Area: Research Programmes

NZBN Number: (Unknown/Not Mandatory)

Registration Number: (Unknown/not Mandatory)

Total Funding Requested: $500,000

Title: Wai-kino to Wai-Māori – Adding value to wastewater disposal, integrating Te Ao Māori

Number of Years Funding Requested: 5 years of funding

Investment Objective: Economic

Investment Signals (Not Mandatory Field)

Select the Investment Signals that your proposal addresses (signaled in green below)

› General Signals

› Excellent research, with high potential impact in areas of future value, growth or critical need for New Zealand

In New Zealand, wastewater products have historically been considered as waste that requires disposal, rather than as a valuable resource. Consequently, alternative, modern solutions have been constrained by lack of innovation and New Zealand lags behind much of the rest of the world in this area - this research has a high potential to change how we view and use treated wastewater, improving production currently limited by water resources.

Over-allocated water resources across New Zealand, and in Tairāwhiti, present significant constraints to economic growth. This research will address the issues inhibiting the uptake of treated wastewater, and will deliver innovative toolkits and strategies that enable these barriers to be overcome. This is important work because of the significant economic potential offered by treated wastewater.

› Leverage wider investment and knowledge in New Zealand and overseas

The outcomes will include a range of toolkits and strategies for stakeholders to use and share, with research outcomes easily transferable to other regions of New Zealand. Smarter ways of using this valuable resource will have significant benefits for Tairāwhiti and New Zealand. The high potential of this research is reflected in support received from other councils, and initial feedback from experts in Australia.

Attachment 20-47.1


This programme will promote development and investment in associated research and industries, including nutrient management, irrigation systems, and social and cultural frameworks. The toolkits and strategies will in part be transferable as platforms for development in other sectors of resource management.

› Gives effect to Vision Mātauranga

A key component of this research programme comprises the integration of Māori knowledge, resources and expertise by Tangata Whenua to enable innovation and economic growth within the community. Central to success will be considerations of mauri, and how this is affected by process and tikanga.

Tangata Whenua make up 50% of the local population in Tairāwhiti. Mātauranga Māori research will therefore be resourced equally to conventional science promoting implementation and uptake of toolkits and strategies. The programme will include Māori as partners, building the capacity of Tangata Whenua in Tairāwhiti, supporting the development of iwi-led research.

› Take account of broader Government policy and strategy documents

Government is in the process of reviewing the national environmental standards with the aim of improving freshwater and marine environments. Government is strongly indicating a greater compliance with new standards which will impact on council operations. Council has adopted a freshwater plan which controls both the quality and quantity of water sources. The alternate use and disposal options will enhance the opportunity to improve water quality and supply, given the effects of climate change.

› Future Value, Growth or Critical Need Signals

› Creating & growing knowledge-intensive industries

Not applicable.

> Supporting the transition to a low-emissions economy

Not applicable.

Impact Category (Mandatory)

“Protect and Add Value”:

The research programme would provide tools and processes that serve to protect existing natural resources, safeguard Te Ao Māori principles, and add value to the economy, environment, and community.

Attachment 20-47.1


The economic objectives of the fund would be achieved through growth of the local, regional, and national agricultural sector, in response to better use and greater availability of critical water resources. This would also be the case for industrial applications, although likely to a lesser extent.

Treated wastewater would comprise an alternative sustainable source of water for agriculture and industry, complementing existing water resources and improving resilience (e.g. against climate change). Treated wastewater is produced consistently in terms of water volume and quality, presenting a reliable year-round source of water. The proviso is that wastewater risks are managed. Costs of wastewater treatment are significant, and the beneficial use of this resource presents a significant return on investment (supporting a circular economy).

This ‘recycled’ water has the potential to reduce demands off already critically-limited water supplies and allow for any spare capacity to be re-allocated. It also offers the potential for water users to increase water use where current allocations are limiting.

In large parts of New Zealand, on account of historical land processes Māori landowners have had disproportionately less access to existing water resources for economic growth. Treated wastewater offers an alternative water source, making possible reconsideration of water allocation, enabling Māori to develop their lands also. The project team has support from local iwi and hapu.

The agronomic potential of existing natural resources such as high quality farmland would be realised through greater possibilities for intensification and diversification in agricultural products. Increases in production would not only result in the growth of the primary agricultural sector, but also result in substantial knock-on effects in secondary and tertiary sectors, through processing of raw materials and the sale and trade of services related to these activities.

Treated wastewater is mostly discharged into natural water in New Zealand, a practice abhorred by Tangata Whenua. While this is primarily due to cultural and spiritual reasons, discharges to water also present environmental risks. Redirection of treated wastewater to agriculture and industry is an alternative that offers better environmental management, which will result in less pollution and better environmental quality, protecting natural environments and reducing health risks.

All of the above promote healthier communities, in terms of economic, social, environmental and cultural well-beings.

Research Keywords (Mandatory) List up to 15 key words that describe the nature of your research.

Wastewater, Mātauranga Māori, Culture, Environment, Alternate Use and Disposal, Perceptions, Water Allocation, Agriculture, Industry, Sustainability

Attachment 20-47.1


Research Classifications (Mandatory)An ANZSRC code is a standard classification that allows research and development activities to be categorised according to their intended purpose, outcome and/or discipline. Please specify with as few codes as possible. For each code, allocate the percentage of relevance totalling 100%. The codes selected will apply to the final proposal and cannot be changed after Registration. They will be used to help select Assessors for your proposal.

Field of Research (FoR) codes-05- Environmental Science 50%14- Economics 50%

Socio-Economic Objective (SEO) codes-82 Plant Production and Plant Primary Products 50%96 Environment 50%

Primary and Secondary Contact Details

Name, email address and telephone number-Primary Contact:Name: Wolfgang Kanz Email Address: [email protected] Telephone Number: 06 869 2891 / 027 548 5965

-Secondary contact:Name: Keita Kohere Email Address: [email protected] Telephone Number: 06 869 2720 / 0211573336

Proposal Summary and EligibilityProposal Summary (Mandatory):

We will research the barriers to wastewater re-use in the NZ context and develop strategies and tools to manage and overcome these barriers.

The project will generate new knowledge at the interface between indigenous knowledge and science and technology. It will research economic, environmental, social and cultural aspects of treated wastewater that inhibit the uptake of this resource in agriculture and industry.

Key questions:

Attachment 20-47.1


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

● What is the relationship between scientific wastewater attributes and cultural acceptance of reclaimed water as noa?

● What cultural practices (tikanga and kawa) are needed to support the cleansing process, removing tapu?

● Are there specific wastewater treatment systems that can play a role in restoring mauri, and to what extent?

● How can human health and environmental risks associated with use of wastewater be mitigated?

● How does the use influence societal uptake?● What can be done to diffuse negative perceptions on the use of reclaimed wastewater?

Research work will be carried out using Mātauranga Māori and western science approaches, in particular focusing on aspects of mauri and water, and using that as a means to quantify / describe change. Pilot studies and trials would play a key role in working through concerns.

Flowing on from the above research would be the creation of a toolkit that combines technical and cultural knowledge, providing communities with the means to practically overcome barriers to the beneficial use of treated wastewater.

Eligibility (Mandatory)Confirm that your application meets the eligibility criteria:› be made by a New Zealand-based Research Organisation or a New Zealand-based legal entity representing a New Zealand-based Research Organisation; Yes› be designed so that the majority of benefits accrue outside of the Research Organisation or legal entity which represents the Research Organisation; Yes› not be made by a department of the public service as listed in Schedule 1 of the State Sector Act 1988; Yes› be made under an investment mechanism specified in the Gazette Notice; Yes› be for research, science or technology, or related activities, the majority of which are to be undertaken in New Zealand, unless the Science Board considers that there are compelling reasons to consider the proposals, despite the amount of research, science or technology or related activities being proposed to be undertaken overseas; not be for research with the primary objective (more than 50%) of health outcomes (“health outcomes” includes cost savings to the health care system); Yes › meet any applicable timing, formatting, system or other similar administrative requirements imposed by MBIE in supplying administrative services to the Science Board under section 10(7) of the RS&T Act 2010; Yes › advise that the proposed funding recipient will, and the Science Board is of the view that it can, adhere to the terms and conditions of funding set out in an investment contract determined by the Science Board. Yes

Indicative Project Team (Unknown/Not Mandatory)

Attachment 20-47.1


The research team will be suitably qualified and have exemplary track records and experience across all aspects of the work programme.

Gisborne District Council would partner with Massey University as the research organisation, and include a multi-disciplinary project team.

Provisional project team:

First and last name: Wolfgang KanzOrganisation: Gisborne District CouncilRole: Project Manager / Mauri

First and last name: Professor Russell DeathOrganisation: Massey University, School of Agriculture and EnvironmentRole: Environmental Scientist

First and last name: Dr Martin NealeOrganisation: Puhoi StourRole: Environmental Scientist

First and last name: Ian RuruOrganisation: Maumahara Consultancy ServicesRole: Mātauranga Māori / Mauri / Cultural Aspects

First and last name: Dr Selva SelvarajahOrganisation: EnviroknowledgeRole: Wastewater Specialist

First and last name: Murray PalmerOrganisation: Nga Mahi Te Taiao Role: Societal / Environmental / Natural Resources / Cultural Aspects

First and last name: Hinemihiata LardelliOrganisation: N/A Role: Societal / Engagement / Consultation / Cultural Aspects

A final detailed project team will be provided if the Expression of Interest is successful. This applied research would combine expertise from the following areas:

● Project Management● Te Ao Māori● Mātauranga Māori ● Mauri● Wastewater Quality

Attachment 20-47.1


● Environmental Science● Environmental Health● Human Health● Engagement / consultation● Agricultural Economics● Market Assessments

Conflicts of Interest (Unknown/Not Mandatory)

MBIE will publish the membership of the College of Assessors on MBIE’s Endeavour Fund web-pages before your application(s) are assigned to Assessors. If you identify that an Assessor has an actual, potential or perceived direct or an indirect conflict of interest, you must notify MBIE immediately by emailing [email protected] with the details of the conflict.

Attachment 20-47.1


Stocktake of New Zealand local authorities wastewater management in the context of the beneficial use of reclaimed water and biosolids

Prepared for the Gisborne District Council March 2019

Nga Mahi Te Taiao

Attachment 20-47.2


Project background The potential for a land-based discharge of Tūranganui a Kiwa (Tūranga) Gisborne’s treated municipal wastewater has long been a focal point for the local and wider Tairāwhiti (Gisborne region) community. This focus has been particularly poignant given the high cultural, recreational and mahinga kai (food gathering) values associated with the Tūranganui a Kiwa Poverty Bay coastal embayment into which the primary treated wastewater is currently discharged.

Recently, the discussion around the land based discharge of the city’s wastewater has moved from exploring the difficulties inherent in such a discharge, given the geophysical and economic constraints associated with use of the Turanganui alluvial plains for such, to the economic opportunities that the availability of approximately 15,000m3 daily of appropriately treated, reclaimed water might provide to a bourgeoning horticulture industry currently stalled due to a severe water resource deficit.

This report aims to provide an initial background to the potential for beneficial use of reclaimed water and biosolids in Tūranga, and in particular the potential for utilising suitably treated waste water for irrigation of high value fibre and horticultural crops. It comprises three sections:

• Section 1: The current Aotearoa NZ context - What’s happening on the ground today, and - What’s the appetite for further extension of the use of reclaimed

water and biosolids nationally? - Is there potential for multi-council collaboration or information

sharing led by GDC and the Tūranga community. • Section 2: An introduction to the international context

- Who’s doing what and where, and why - What are the regulatory frameworks and standards within which the

industry operates - What are the experiences of those currently using reclaimed water?

• Section 3: Potential models integrating reclaimed water and the treatment of biosolids into current and potential economic practice

- What might this look like in a Tūranga context?

Section 1 thus aims to indicate the level of need and support for further exploration of the potential for the beneficial use of reclaimed water, including for the irrigation of both food and non-food crops, to enhance socio-economic, environmental and cultural outcomes for our regional communities at a national scale. Where information is available, options for biosolids management and use will also be explored.

Attachment 20-47.2


Section 1: Current wastewater management and aspirations for management by local authorities in Aotearoa NZ Method

As an initial ‘gauging of the waters’, on February 16 2019 an email request was sent to all other local authorities (district, city and regional councils and unitary authorities) as to their current practice, and any experiences of, interest in, or proposals for the beneficial use of reclaimed water.1 Support was also canvassed relating to the potential for nation-wide information provision and sharing around the potential for such beneficial use, and also a broader collaborative approach facilitated by GDC and the Turanganui a Kiwa community.

This request, the subsequent responses, and further conversations between ourselves and the council representatives (who generally were those individuals with responsibility for the wastewater management in their areas) have been combined with an overall review of the available information relating to wastewater management across the country2 and forms the basis of our current survey.

New Zealand has 13 regional councils (including three unitary authorities combining the functions of both regional and district councils), 12 city councils and 53 district councils. Generally, control and management of wastewater treatment in NZ is performed by city and district councils and unitary authorities or their dedicated infrastructure subsidiaries.

Of all 78 councils nationally, we received responses to our email questionnaire from, or on behalf of, 41 (approximately 53%). This was within a period of four weeks as of March 22 2019, with responses still trickling in. Our intention in the survey was not to gather detailed information from every council in the country, but rather a response from those who had a level of enthusiasm for land based wastewater discharge practices, and specifically irrigation of the reclaimed wastewater, and who may be interested in GDC and the wider Tairāwhiti community’s proposed research project and anticipated field trials.

Across the country, councils manage a total of 323 wastewater treatment plants, with some controlling only one municipal plant, while others have control of several (or in Auckland’s Watercare and Southland District Council’s case, 18 plants each).

Our survey asked councils to:

• Identify whether they are currently involved with utilising reclaimed wastewater for land-based purposes, or are considering such;

• Identify if they have experienced or anticipate any challenges or impediments to the use of reclaimed wastewater; and

• Identify if they might be interested in the two-year feasibility work that we have planned. (This could involve a simple sharing of information amongst participating councils, but also with the potential for further collaboration as the project progresses.)

1 The processes used to deal with biosolids across the country will be addressed as a component of Section 3 of this report, ‘Potential economic models integrating reclaimed water and biosolids into current and potential horticultural and commercial water use practice.’ 2 ‘Wastewater Treatment Plant Data 2017-18’ (provided by Jason Ewert).

Attachment 20-47.2


Some councils also offered information pointing to the goals or benefits that could be achieved by using reclaimed water, and we re-contacted all respondent councils asking if they would also like to specify any such goals or benefits.

In summary, some council responses reflect a simple yes or no, however most indicate varying levels of complexity in their overall wastewater management practices e.g. some have multiple discharges to land and water, and identify numerous benefits and challenges to the beneficial use of reclaimed water, while others may have a range of perspectives on how they might prefer to engage with GDC in the proposed feasibility study. These responses are then expressed as percentages of the whole number of responses for that particular question or topic, explaining the numerical diversity of responses across the survey.

Wastewater management by local authorities in Aotearoa NZ: state of the play

Current and proposed methods of discharge and alternative use (AU) of treated wastewaters

Sian Cass and Hamish Lowe (2016) provided a paper to the Land Treatment Collective conference held in Turanganui a Kiwa Gisborne in 2016 outlining the discharge venues of the 330 wastewater treatment plants that local authorities in Aotearoa NZ operated in 2012. This paper is attached as an appendix to this report and provides a national perspective against which the results of our survey may be measured.

Of the 41 councils who responded to our survey, and who identified the nature of their wastewater discharge/s or alternative use of the reclaimed water, approximately 37% of the total of 87 treatment plants are currently irrigating land with this3. Of these, at least 6% (5 plants) were using this for pastoral purposes (grazing or hay, balage, and ‘cut and carry’), approximately 9% (8 plants) were irrigating forest areas, and approximately 21% (19 plants) did not identify the nature of their land based discharge (although at least some involved other forms of irrigation).4 Three other discharges not included in the irrigation statistics were to rapid infiltration beds.

A further 12.6% (11 plants) of the respondent councils either already had specific plans for irrigation of their plants’ treated wastewater, while 8% (7 plants) were seriously considering this option. Thus around 47% of our respondents were those councils either currently using reclaimed water for irrigation, or who were planning for or investigating such. No respondents, however, were identified as using the treated reclaimed water for irrigating fibre or horticultural crops for human consumption.

3 Some councils, notably Auckland and ECAN, did not identify the nature of the discharges. 4 Where a discharge to land may have also at times involved a discharge to water, this has been included in our figures simply as a discharge to land.

Attachment 20-47.2


By comparison, of the respondents’ other current discharges, approximately 16% (14 plants) were to an oceanic environment5, 4.6% (4 plants) to an inshore coastal or harbour environment (of which Turanganui a Kiwa Gisborne is one), approximately 37% (32 plants) involved discharge to a river, stream, lake or wetland, and 3.5% (3 plants) utilised rapid infiltration beds. The discharge venues of 2 plants were not identified.

Figure 1: Discharge venues GDC survey March 2019

Figure 2: Discharge venues all NZ plants 2017/18

5 In the analysis of our respondents replies, we distinguish inshore coastal environments, embayments, harbours and the like where there tend to be high recreational, food gathering and cultural values present from those higher energy oceanic environments where these values are significantly less likely to be present. This is at variance with the ‘Wastewater Treatment Plant Data’ which separates simply coastal discharges from those to harbour environments.

Discharge venues all NZ plants 2017/18

Freshwater Land application Marine harbour Marine coastal

Discharge venues GDC survey 20219

Pastoral irrigation Forest irrigation Other land discharge

Rapid Infiltration Ocean Coast/harbour

River/stream No ID

Attachment 20-47.2


Summary of non-respondents wastewater management practice

Of the 37 councils who did not respond to our questionnaire, or who responded but without providing any information, and for the total of 225 treatment plants that they control, by far the most significant number of discharge venues were to freshwater (61%). The next largest group of venues was to land, although the specific nature of the discharges is not identified in the WWTP Data resource (21%). Discharges to marine harbour environments accounted for 10%, and the discharges to marine coastal environments accounted for 8% of the total discharge venues.

Challenges or impediments to the use of reclaimed water

Responding council representatives identified a range of challenges or impediments to the use of reclaimed water, particularly for the irrigation of food crops. These were:

• Meeting high water quality standards and the potential difficulties associated with residual contaminant removal and the general infrastructure costs this entailed were cited by 8 respondents (approximately 18%) as of particular concern.

• Regional topography, soils, climate (high rainfall), land availability and high groundwater tables were identified as major impediments for 8 respondents (approximately 18%).

• The availability of a plentiful current water supply for irrigation and commercial use was viewed as a disincentive by another 6 respondents (approximately 13%).

• Community and market perceptions relating to food safety and potential contamination were viewed as key impediments by 8 respondents (approximately 18%).

• Technical issues relating to logistics and infrastructure, volumes and storage, and resource consenting were seen as potentially problematic by 5 respondents (approximately 10%).

• Cultural values relating to the mixing of human bodily waste with food, or in places of particular importance to tangata whenua, were seen as potentially restrictive by 5 respondents (approximately 10%). It should be noted, however, that two others (including Gisborne District Council) pointed to the perception of local tangata whenua groups that appropriate land disposal by irrigation is likely to be preferable to discharge to coastal or fresh water.

• Four respondents (approximately 9%) felt there were no definitive challenges or impediments.

• One respondent just suggested that there were challenges and/or impediments but didn’t specify these.

Goals and benefits in utilising reclaimed water

The responses relating to the goals and benefits in utilising reclaimed water that have been gleaned from our survey of other councils closely align with the rationale for Gisborne District Council and the Tairawhiti community’s active investigations of potential alternative uses for our current waste stream. The goals and benefits articulated by the respondents can be summarised as:

Attachment 20-47.2


• Land based use of reclaimed water can remove effluent discharges from natural freshwater bodies or the coastal environment, including those discharges that might otherwise be leading to water pollution and limiting recreational and mahinga kai use (6 respondents, approximately 26%).

• It may provide for economic and social development by helping to satisfy the need by industry for water in an environment of scarcity. This could help pay for the treatment process itself or provide a level of profit (7 respondents, approximately 30%).

• It may provide for cultural values and protect the mauri of a specific environment by passing the treated effluent through land prior to entering natural water (4 respondents, 17.4%).

• Planned storage and natural treatment systems can enhance indigenous biodiversity e.g. through wetland and aquatic habitat development (2 respondents, 8.7%).

• The use of reclaimed water utilises technology that is well understood and involves an extensive set of international health and safety guidelines (2 respondents, 8.7%).

• Irrigation of reclaimed water and land application of the processed sewage biosolids can utilise and safely reintegrate important nutrients and organic matter back into natural systems (2 respondents, 8.7%).

Participation with Turanganui a Kiwa Gisborne reclaimed water feasibility project

A key goal of our research has been to gauge initial interest nationally in developing a further understanding of the potential for reclaimed water use in Aotearoa NZ, with a special focus on irrigation, including the potential for irrigation of fibre and food crops. To this end, we asked councils, ‘if you might be interested in the two-year feasibility work that we have planned. This could involve a simple sharing of information amongst participating councils, but also with the potential for further collaboration as the project progresses’. From a total of 41 respondents, 34 outlined their level of interest in our proposed investigative projects. The 34 responses were categorised as follows:

• 5 indicated that they were not interested in participating in the project, largely as they had no intention or perceived need to explore the viability of utilising reclaimed water, or of shifting to a land based discharge system.

• 8 stated that they were interested and would like to be kept informed of the project’s activities and outcomes as these progressed.

• 11 respondents said they were interested, and would be willing to participate in information sharing around the beneficial use of reclaimed water.

• A further 8 respondents stated that they were very interested and would be keen to share information and/or explore opportunities to collaborate further as the project progresses (e.g. such as sharing field trips and workshops).

Respondents by location and community focus

Of our 41 council respondents, 21 were situated along the country’s east coast, 4 were on the west coast, 6 reached to both east and west coasts (e.g. Wellington, Auckland, Far North) and 11 were at central inland locations. 30 respondents were from North Island councils and 11 were from South Island councils.

Attachment 20-47.2


Of the 21 east coast councils, 11 were in areas that, as with Gisborne Tairāwhiti, typically experience droughty summer and at times dry spring conditions. Of these 11, 9 expressed interest in being further informed about or involved with the proposed reclaimed water project.

Of the 10 councils who expressed strong tangata whenua and wider community interest in improved wastewater management for enhanced environmental, social and cultural outcomes, all expressed interest in being further informed about or involved with the proposed Gisborne Tūranganui a Kiwa reclaimed water project.

Context for Te Turanganui a Kiwa Gisborne

Background

There are certain key factors that characterise the context for Te Turanganui a Kiwa Gisborne’s current wastewater management program and ongoing aspirations. Possibly the most evident of these is the longstanding goal of local tangata whenua and much of the wider community for removal of the discharge of partially treated wastewater from our coastal embayment (Palmer 2010, 2014). This action is believed to go a significant way to restoring the mauri of te moana o Turanganui a Kiwa, the coastal marine environment here, and making available again the coastal resources for mahinga kai and commercial purposes.

In such a context, iwi leaders have also been cautiously but consistently supportive of an exploration of the potential for the land-based beneficial reuse of both the appropriately treated wastewater and similarly the processed biosolids.6 The major cultural tenet that human waste materials should be processed through or by Papatuanuku, the earth deity, is provided for by such action, and throughout the wastewater advisory processes the discharge to waste of the city’s treated sewage materials has also been referred to as contrary to sound environmental practice.

In 2013, a report was produced for GDC, ‘Strategic Water Study into the Supply and Demand Options for the Four Main Catchments within the Gisborne District’ (Aqualinc). The report states that:

Demand for water in the study area is projected to increase from the current level of 39 Mm3 /yr to 102 Mm3 /yr by 2063. This represents a 160% increase over the 50 year planning period. The distribution of this growth in water demand by use is shown below. This growth is dominated by irrigation demand. Sensitivity analysis indicates that the demand could be as high as 132 Mm3 /yr (238% increase) by 2063, if there is sustained high population and industrial growth, and increased demand for irrigation water.

It should be noted that there is also expected to be, albeit to a lesser degree, an increase in demand for water for commercial, industrial and livestock purposes. As of today, however, the Turanganui a Kiwa Gisborne district has reached full, if not over allocation of its irrigation season water (A flow river and groundwater) and is approaching full allocation of the B flow (Waipaoa River flows >4000L/sec; Te Arai River …?) water also. In such a context, and

6 A proviso to this support is the condition that mortuary wastes are removed from the general wastewater stream, and this approach has recently been endorsed by the GDC.

Attachment 20-47.2


particularly with industry and tangata whenua support, the potential for use of the reclaimed municipal wastewater is enhanced.

Significant research has been undertaken by GDC into the utilisation of natural wetland systems to treat our municipal wastewater, including for a range of microbial and emerging contaminants (EOC’s). The utilisation of some treated wetland configuration may further enhance the attractiveness of using the district’s reclaimed water (pers comms Rick Thorpe and the GDC’s Wastewater Management Committee) as are the development of storage ponds to maximise the amount of water available and further treat the reclaimed water for residual viruses etc. Such functional components may also provide opportunities for establishing aquatic habitat for a range of plant, invertebrate, fish and bird taxa.

Despite the potential, some significant challenges to utilisation of reclaimed wastewater in Turanganui a Kiwa Gisborne remain. These include:

• Perception and market acceptability • Effective and consistent treatment or removal of contaminants • Moisture retentive soils that characterise most of the district’s horticultural land • The presence of extensive shallow groundwater systems situated amongst deeper

aquifers • Tangata whenua cultural concerns • The availability of land and further treatment and reticulation costs.

Several important findings potentially linking councils have become evident from our investigation of the wastewater management activities across the country:

• There is strong interest in developing a collaborative approach including tangata whenua participation (e.g. Ecan, Western Bay of Plenty DC, Whangarei DC, Central Hawkes Bay DC)

• Specific integration of biodiversity into water treatment systems (Carterton, Whangarei)

• Achieving the goal of removing all discharges of wastewater to water and replacing with complete land-based systems (e.g. Horowhenua DC proposed within the next 2 to 3 years; South Wairarapa DC)

An interesting comparison can also be made with Marlborough DC whose wastewater volumes are similar to GDC (18,000m3 cf 15,000m3/day) and who utilise 40% of this to irrigate grass on land with [highly permeable soils and?] a high water table, with improving results. Marlborough DC are committed to further developing opportunities for the irrigation of the treated wastewater, also anticipating an environment of irrigation water scarcity.

Attachment 20-47.2


Summary

Across the country, there are significant synergies amongst the work being undertaken and planned by local authorities around land-based utilisation of reclaimed wastewater, particularly in those areas that typically experience hot, dry summers. These synergies align well with GDC’s current exploration of the opportunities for the beneficial use of our reclaimed wastewater to address tangata whenua and the wider community concerns, and to support economic development (Gisborne Chamber of Commerce, 2019).

Thus actions taken by local authorities around protecting freshwater and coastal environments and restoring the mauri and mahinga kai resources of these environments by replacing discharges to water with land-based utilisation, resonate with those goals embodied in GDC’s wastewater management program and current resource consent (Watson et al, ‘Consent Decision’, 2009).

These synergies and shared goals provide sound basis for a collaborative approach to integrating treated wastewater streams into wider developmental programs as key resources rather than problematic waste products, while underpinning improved environmental, socio-economic and cultural outcomes at both regional and national scales.

Recommendations

1. Establish communication lines with other local authorities (LA’s) who have expressed interest in furthering an understanding of the potential uses of reclaimed water and biosolids.

2. Initiate contacts with those LA’s who have expressed a desire to establish a collaborative approach to explore the potential for using reclaimed water and biosolids and establish what such collaboration might entail.

3. Initiate contacts with those LA’s who have offered to share their information and experiences of using reclaimed water and consider what such sharing might entail (e.g. data provision, field visits).

4. GDC to consider joining the Land Treatment Collective. 5. Continue to explore the international regulatory and economic contexts around the

use of reclaimed water and biosolids. 6. Identify in further detail the tangata whenua cultural contexts relating to the

potential use of reclaimed water and biosolids. 7. Identify the range of tools available (wastewater treatment technologies, including

biological system technologies) to address these cultural and international regulatory and economic contexts.

8. Identify potential economic models to implement the safe and effective use of reclaimed water and biosolids.

9. Initiate small to medium scale field trials to test the viability and scope for the use of reclaimed water as a component of an overall freshwater management program designed to enhance socio-economic, environmental and cultural values.

Attachment 20-47.2


References

Aqualinc

Cassa, S. and Lowe, H. 2016. ‘How much municipal wastewater passes through land in New Zealand?’. Paper presented to the Land Treatment Collective Conference, 2016.

Palmer, M. 2013. ‘The importance of the social components of biotransformation in the treatment of wastewater Part 2: Water user experiences, perceptions and aspirations, Te Turanganui a Kiwa 2013.’ Gisborne Wastewater Technical Advisory Group.

Palmer, M. 2010. ‘Te Moananui O Turanganui A Kiwa: Social Outcomes Evaluation of the Gisborne City Wastewater Treatment Project 2010 to 2013: Part 1: Baseline Information 2010.’ Gisborne Wastewater Technical Advisory Group.

Water New Zealand (2017/18) NZ Wastewater Treatment Plant Inventory. Source: https://www.waternz.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=260 (provided by Jason Ewert, March 2019)

Watson et al. 2009. ‘Gisborne Wastewater Consent Decision’. GDC.

Attachment 20-47.2


https://www.waternz.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=260

Appendix 1

AS AT 19/03/19 Current and proposed uses/methods of discharge Land irrigation Other discharges Pastoral Forestry Other

land Planned Consider

ing Rapid infiltrate

Ocean Coast/ Harbour

Freshwater No ID

5

6

21 7 5 3 17 3 40 2

Challenges and impediments to the use of reclaimed wastewater Community and market perceptions re food safety/ contamination

Logistics and infrastructure, volumes and storage, resource consenting

Meeting WQ stds, residual contaminant removal, costs

Topography, soils, climate, land availability, high groundwater

Plentiful water currently available

Cultural values re mixing of human bodily waste with food, or in special places

None Yes (unspec)

5

4 7 6 6 4 4 1

Participation with Gisborne Turanganui a Kiwa reclaimed water use study Not Interested Interested / Stay

Informed Interested/information sharing

Very interested / Potential collaboration

4 22 19 9 Goals and benefits in utilising reclaimed water Satisfies need for water in an enviro of scarcity

Utilises technology that is well understood

Removes effluent discharges from natural waters

Can enhance indigenous biodiversity (e.g. wetlands, fish habitat)

May provide for cultural values by further passing through land prior to entering natural water

Nutrient value (Nitrogen, phosphorous, and general soil condition)

2 2 6 3 3 1 Potential/need for central government engagement Areas of engagement/participation to be determined 2

Attachment 20-47.2


Appendix 2

Attachment 20-47.2


HOW MUCH MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER PASSES THROUGH LAND IN NEW ZEALAND? Sian Cassa,b and Hamish Lowea a. Lowe Environmental Impact, PO Box 4667, Palmerston North 4442 b. Corresponding Author. Email: [email protected]. ABSTRACT There are approximately 330 council operated wastewater treatment plants throughout New Zealand. Each has a unique set of criteria that requires specific decisions to optimise the treatment processes and discharge. The smallest plant identified caters for only 7 households and the larger city treatment plants are catering for over 100,000 households plus industrial waste. Although the large variation between plants makes it unrealistic to compare them; the type of discharge systems with in each region is often common. Lowe Environmental Impact LEI undertook a survey that focused on the type of wastewater discharge system used for each treatment plant, with a focus on the plants that used land based discharge options. The discharges were categorised into three main groups: land, water and combined land and water. These categories were further divided into ocean, in-stream and bank discharges to surface water; and trees, dairy, cut and carry, grazed and high rate discharges to land. Survey results indicated that 43 % of treatment plants nationally discharge to land in some way. This percentage is reduced when expressed on a population basis with only 11 % of the national wastewater flow being discharged only to land. Of the total number of treatment plants utilising a land discharge system, 50 % utilise in-stream and bank discharges and 23 % adopt a high rate discharge to land system. Of the systems that utilise an irrigation approach, 11 % irrigate trees, 0 % dairy pasture, 11 % cut and carry, 6 % grazed pasture. It is noted that some systems discharge to both water and land, and in some cases use multiple forms of land application are used. The data collected has enabled the following areas to be explored: The uptake of land treatment in New Zealand; Types of land treatment adopted; The proportion of land based versus water discharge systems per region; and The types of discharges taken up considering the populations serviced. This paper explores national and regional trends with the use of land treatment. A comparison between the number of systems and a population equivalent basis is also provided to allow consider the impact of the larger municipal discharges. KEY WORDS Land Treatment, Community, Trends, Wastewater Discharge INTRODUCTION There is drive in New Zealand to improve water quality and water management. This has been exemplified by the establishment of the Land and Water Forum that is pulling together as many

Attachment 20-47.2


directions and ideas as possible to drive a way forward. One component of this is the waste stream. This paper profiles the discharge of municipal wastewater in New Zealand and its contribution to the water management scene. However, the data presented here creates more questions than answers, including: What are the environmental effects from different types of WWTP discharges? Does it require attention now or later? Is land application appropriate for all or only appropriate for smaller populations? What is the value from the current land applications? Do these councils consider it the best approach and why? Is additional wastewater treatment the best approach? Should there be more recycling of water at the source, in each home? Are households the most relevant focus today or should industry and commercial plants be a greater focus? Land application of wastewater removes the traditional discharges from waterways. This is beneficial socially, culturally, recreationally, environmentally and economically. Wastewater can become an asset for land production by providing irrigation and nutrients instead of a contaminant to waterways, especially during low flow conditions. Removal of contaminants by shifting the wastewater from rivers to the land allows the waterways to redevelop their natural ecology and become an asset for recreation. Culturally building the health of waterways is an important development for replenishing the mauri and becoming a resource for both Maori and the whole population. Irrigation of wastewater to land can be designed as deficit, non-deficit or high rate applications. This equates to no drainage to groundwater, minimal drainage to groundwater or significant drainage to groundwater. These options use the soil and plants as contaminant filters while benefiting them with a supply of water and nutrients. A preliminary survey was carried out by LEI that identified which WWTPs around New Zealand use what type of discharge system. This survey distinguished between discharges to land or water or a combined system using both. Further classification of the three systems was undertaken as, grazed pasture and high rate discharges to land. The data was developed to include the populations that were serviced by the WWTPs and estimates of the volumes discharged calculated. A combined land and water discharge system does not take water out of waterways completely, but provides most of the benefits that are offered by a land based system. One difficulty with land application is that most of the wastewater is available in the winter when soil moisture levels are high and irrigation is not needed. The consequence is that a large amount of storage is required if 100% land application chosen. A compromise is to have some wastewater discharged to waterways at high flows, mostly occurring in winter. The effects from these discharges are often minimal on the environment. Conversely, irrigation mostly in summer, during low flow periods in waterways, has the potential for the greatest positive effects on the environment. The number of WWTPs, the volumes from the plants and the type of discharges are identified and described in this paper. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Attachment 20-47.2


Identification of WWTPs and descriptions of the type of discharges used were collected by direct contact with councils and from the most up to date data from council websites. Reference to the Water NZ spreadsheet (WNZ 2012) of similar data was also referenced. The data for each includes: Number of WWTPs; Populations serviced by WWTPs; Volume of discharges; and Type of discharges. It is noted that the data must be interpreted in general terms because of the following assumptions: The ‘urban population’ (Statistics NZ estimated 2015) are the contributing number of people to a WWTP; 300 L of water used/person/day; and 50 persons contributing to plants where a population was not identified. The urban populations in a given locality were often added together on the assumption they represented the combined population contributing to each WWTP. A flow of 300 L/person/day has been allocated to calculate the wastewater discharge from each WWTP. The amount is based on approximately 200 L/person per day from household use. The additional 100 L allocates a nominal value to account for infiltration and inflow (I & I) through the reticulation network and possible industrial or commercial inputs that may enter a municipal plant. The reality is that in many communities the flows are much greater as a result of I & I and industrial discharges. There were over 100 WWTPs where the population was not easily identified. It was assumed that these plants service populations below 100. This assumption was based on the remaining population in New Zealand not accounted for from the urban statistics, which implies that 7 % population are serviced by individual on-site systems. It is known that some WWTPs have very low populations served, such as the Waiotira plant in Northland that services 7 only households. A nominal figure of 50 persons contributing to these WWTPs was given to complete the data set. This data was categorised as follows: Nationally; Regionally; Per district; Per discharge type. General categories for the type of discharge used were created to compare the data. The following categories were used to distinguish the different approaches used for discharges: Water Discharges o Ocean o River in-stream o River bank Land Discharges

Attachment 20-47.2


o Irrigated to trees o Irrigated to dairy o Irrigated for cut and carry o Irrigated to grazed pasture o High Rate o Unknown land discharges Unknown Discharges RESULTS AND DISCUSSION National - Number of WWTPS There are 330 WWTPS in New Zealand that were identified in this investigation. These service a population of approximately 4.4 M with the remaining 7 % of the population using individual on-site systems. The majority of discharge comes from 18 WWTPs that service populations above 35,000 people. Mangere being the largest plant, services 1.2 M people with a volume of 1.3 x 108 m3/year. Of the 18 plants, 8 have populations above 100,000. Figure 1 represents the number of plants that service the populations. Fig. 1: Number of WWTPs servicing populations National - Volume of wastewater from WWTPs Approximately 83% of the wastewater produced is from the 18 plants servicing populations above 35,000 people. This is nearly 400 M m3 per year by comparison to 79 M m3/year from the 312 plants servicing small populations below 35,000. These numbers are based on 0.3 m3/person/day, as described above. The actual volume is represented in Figure 2 below. This graph can be compared to the number of plants presented in Figure 1 above to recognise the small number of WWTPs with large volumes.

Attachment 20-47.2


Fig. 2: Volume from WWTPs above and below 35,000 National - Water use Options To enable some understanding of what these figures may represent in terms of beneficial re-use of the nutrients in the wastewater, they can be equated to irrigation and nitrogen fertiliser. At 400 mm/year of irrigation, 117,000 ha could be irrigated. At 150 kgN/ha/year, 78,000 ha could be fertilised. This production of resources primarily comes from the 18 large WWTPs. Table 1 shows the proportion of irrigation and nitrogen fertiliser from WWTPs servicing above and below 35,000 people, therefore 18 WWTPs versus 312 WWTPs respectively. Table 1: Potential irrigated and fertilised hectares from WWTPs Population

Wastewater Volume

Irrigated at 400 mm/year

Nitrogen Fertiliser at 150 kgN/ha/year

Units m3/year hectares hectares From WWTPs > 35,000

391,864,913 97,966 65,311

From WWTPs < 35,000

79,656,323 19,914 13,276

Total 471,521,236 117,880 78,587

Attachment 20-47.2


Reclaimed water use: the international context

Prepared for the Gisborne District Council February 2020

Nga Mahi Te Taiao

Attachment 20-47.2


Attachment 20-47.2


Background Introduction

The use of human waste in agriculture has a long history of varying extent across the globe. Nevertheless, increasing urbanisation and the development of reticulated sewerage systems has tended to result in the disposal of wastewater down the path of least resistance, typically to rivers, estuaries or the coastal marine area. Such environments are, however, important sources of food and natural resources, and usually embody significant social, economic and cultural values. Consequently, opposition to the discharge of untreated or poorly treated wastewater to these environments remains a constant, and provides a key driver to the development of wastewater reuse (reclaimed water) programs in many jurisdictions globally.

Another key driver to the use of reclaimed water is the combined pressure of population growth and economic development, and in particular agricultural development, on existing natural water supplies. In some parts of the world, the use of reclaimed water provides the only way human populations can exist in a contemporary urban form. In other parts, with bourgeoning populations or a thriving agricultural economy, reclaimed water provides the sole economically viable solution to the maintenance of social and economic development programs.

Further, concerns around the over exploitation of natural water resources and the effects on aquatic ecology and freshwater fisheries, and the overall social, cultural and economic sustainability of regional communities, is becoming increasingly embedded in statute and government policy in some jurisdictions. Where this occurs, levels of water extraction are more likely to be reduced than extended.

All of these drivers apply in the district of Tūranganui a Kiwa (Tūranga, Gisborne) where fertile soils, relatively abundant groundwater and river resources, and a warm temperate albeit drought-prone climate have provided for the establishment of a successful and buoyant horticultural industry. From one perspective, however, this industry has been built on the over-exploitation of the natural waterbodies of the district, whilst on another, it has been recognised that there is significant room for growth in the industry if an appropriate source of water could be identified.

Overlain over this situation, however, is the strong cultural tenet deriving from the Tangata Whenua (literally people of the land, referring to the First Nations people of Tūranga) that for treatment and purification, human waste should be passed through land rather than discharged to natural fresh or coastal waters. An associated tenet considers unacceptable the mixing of untreated human waste with food or areas of spiritual significance. Consequently, opposition from Tangata Whenua and others to the continuing discharge of partially treated municipal wastewater into the ocean embayment (Te Moana o Tūranganui a Kiwa, Poverty Bay) just offshore from the city beaches, has been consistent and strongly articulated.

These local economic, ecological, social and cultural factors create a distinctive context for the potential development of a program of wastewater treatment and reclaimed water use in Tūranga that can satisfy the multiple values and socio-ecological relationships that are evident here. This report explores the international state of play relating to the use of reclaimed water and biosolids, with the hope of informing such development.

Attachment 20-47.2


Project brief The guiding brief for the overall project was to provide:

• A stocktake of what other Councils in Aotearoa New Zealand are undertaking in terms of Alternate Use and Disposal (AUD) (Report, part 1);

• A stocktake of what is being undertaken in Australia and other countries, focussing on similar countries, in terms of AUD;

• Details on opportunities and constraints, as experienced elsewhere (e.g. perceptions, markets, etc.);

• Based on the above, the keys to unlocking treated wastewater and wastewater solids as a resource;

• Where available, noting any business models that may have been successful in delivery of schemes for the use of treated wastewater and biosolids;

• Context for learnings from the above in terms of the Tūranganui a Kiwa Gisborne context.

The stocktake of the AotearoaNZ situation is contained in Part 1 of our report, and the stocktake of the international situation comprises Part 2.

Project methodology: the international context NMTT staff utilised a range of sources for information relating to the use of reclaimed wastewater and biosolids globally. These were:

• Use of current publications, in particular ‘Milestones in Water Reuse, The Best Success Stories’, Asano et al., 2013;

• A broad internet search of potential examples and case studies; • Discussions via email and phone calls with a range of people working in the field,

including in particular Steve Jamieson, NZ Manager for Trility Ltd, an international provider of wastewater treatment systems;

• Input from colleagues in particular Wolfkang Kanz (GDC), Paul Naske (Gisborne Chamber of Commerce and Rua Bioscience Ltd), ...

• Previous work completed by Nga Mahi Te Taiao in the field of wastewater and biosolids research and community participation in waste management.

Because of the diversity of sources of information and consequent reporting in the literature, there is less consistency than we would have preferred in the way the various reclaimed water and biosolids systems could described in our report. Nevertheless, we have tried to draw a picture of the various projects, their jurisdictions, and the reasons for their implementation. Our work is skewed somewhat, however, as all of the projects described are identified as being successful, with very little available information relating to those reclaimed water and biosloids projects that haven’t achieved their goals.

Material from these sources provides the basis for the production of this report, and we have collated into a series of tables and spreadsheets, access to the primary sources of information for readers to undertake a more detailed exploration of the various projects and jurisdictions, should they so wish.

Attachment 20-47.2


Jurisdictions considered and cases reported on To provide a broad range of information, and position Aotearoa NZ in the international community of reclaimed water users, we considered a range of jurisdictions utilising reclaimed water (and where relevant biosolids) both nationally and across the globe. International jurisdictions considered in detail were as follows:

• Australia (WA, Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania) • Hawaii (Oahu) • Italy (Milan) • France (Noirmoutier) • Mexico (San Luis Potosi) • Belgium (Torreele) • Republic of Namibia (Windhoek) • Israel (several areas) • California (San Diego)

Attachment 20-47.2


Table 1. Summary of international jurisdictions considered and where available brief summaries of their reclaimed water practice

USES STANDARDS SYSTEM BRIEF JURISDICTIONS Aquifer recharge (indirect potable)

The reclaimed water is treated to drinking water standard and injected into the aquifer

Torreele, Belgium; Perth, Western Australia

Residential purposes Potable water (direct)

Potable water supply (blended with other potable water sources such as bore water)

Windhoek, Republic of Namibia

Toilet Flushing Domestic watering

Class A

Victoria: Melbourne Eastern Irrigation Scheme; Western WWTP South Australia: Willunga Scheme; Glenelg WWTP South Australia: Willunga Scheme; Christies Beach WWTP

Pasture (grazed) Class B Secondary + disinfect Tasmania Coal Valley; Israel; Mangawhai

Pasture, Lucerne (cut and carry) Class B Secondary + disinfect Tasmania Coal Valley; Israel; Taupo NZ Fodder crops Class C Secondary; Nutrients retained; flood

irrigation Victoria: Melbourne Eastern Irrigation Scheme; Israel

Commercial turf production

Tasmania Coal Valley; Western Australia; Namibia

Golf courses Class A; R1 R-1 Secondary effluent from the (WTP) enters rapid mix tanks, treated chemically and flocculated. Sand filtration utiilised to meet max NTU turbidity standards, followed by UV disinfection.

Victoria: Melbourne Eastern Irrigation Scheme; Tasmania Coal Valley; Oahu, Hawaii; San Luis Potosi, Mexico.

Parks and landscape irrigation R1 As above Hawaii, Oahu; Windhoek Republic Of Namibia; Adelaide; San Diego

Sportsgrounds

Windhoek; Republic Of Namibia Ornamental/biodiversity ponds R1 As above Hawaii Oahu; Windhoek Republic Of

Namibia Flowers ??

Orchards and vines (fresh)

Cherries Class A Advanced + disinfect Israel; San Diego

Attachment 20-47.2


Stone fruit Class A Advanced + disinfect Tasmania Coal Valley; Israel; San Diego

Orchards and vines (processed)

Hops Class A Advanced + disinfect Tasmania Coal Valley; Israel; San Diego

Wine grapes Class A Advanced + disinfect Tasmania Coal Valley; Israel; San Diego Fresh vegetables (cooked) Class A Advanced + disinfect Victoria Melbourne Eastern Irrigation

Scheme; Tasmania Coal Valley; Victoria Werribee Irrigation District; Noirmoutier, France; Israel; San Diego

Fresh vegetables (uncooked)

Dissolved Air Flotation and filtration plant (SA Water Operated)

South Australia Willunga Scheme; Virginia Pipeline Scheme; Bolivar WWTP; Israel; San Diego; Noirmoutier, France; Israel

Fresh salad products

Class A Advanced + disinfect Victoria Melbourne Eastern Irrigation Scheme; Victoria Werribee Irrigation District; Tasmania Coal Valley; Israel; San Diego

Human food products (processed) Class A Dissolved Air Flotation and filtration plant (SA Water Operated)

South Australia Willunga Scheme; Virginia Pipeline Scheme Bolivar WWTP; Israel; San Diego

Indirect agricultural irrigation (via aquifer recharge)

Milan, Italy (Treatment Plants Milan San Rocco; Milano Nosedo; Peschiera Borromeo)

Non-food tree crops Eucalyptus Class A

South Australia Willunga Scheme Industrial purposes Industrial boiler

feed/steam power generation

RO RO High quality utra pure process water, Reverse Osmosis demineralised water. Secondary effluent treated via continuous microfiltration process using a membrane filter to remove particles > 0.2µm. Water then run through 6 parallel RO skids, with high pressure feed pump and cartridge filter with 5-µm cartridges.

Israel; San Diego; Hawaii Oahu

Attachment 20-47.2


Standards and guidelines for the use of reclaimed water and biosolids Standards and guidelines In spatially large and geographically diverse jurisdictions such as the USA and Australia the discharge and use of treated wastewater is generally controlled at a state level, although guidelines and standards particularly as regards public health may have also been developed nationally. At a global level, the WHO provides guidelines for the safe use of sewage-related products in agriculture and standards for drinking water quality, amongst a myriad of other relevant publications.

In the context of such a range of standards and guidelines, an overall analysis of these was beyond the scope of our report. Nevertheless, the following were considered from jurisdictions that were likely to be relevant to the socio-cultural and economic environment of Aotearoa NZ and those of our trading partners.

• Queensland Water Supply Regulator, Water Supply and Sewerage Services, Department of Energy and Water Supply State of Queensland. 2013. ‘Water quality guidelines for recycled water schemes November 2008.’

• Dettrick, D. and Gallagher, S. 2002. ‘Environmental Guidelines for the use of recycled wastewater in Tasmania, December 2002’. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment.

• Victoria State Government. 2018. ‘Guide for the completion of a Recycled Water Quality Management Plan For Class A water recycling schemes.’

• Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Environment Protection and Heritage Council, Australian Health Ministers Conference. 2006. ‘Australian 21 Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing Health and Environmental Risks (Phase1).’

• Australian guidelines for water recycling https://www.waterquality.gov.au/guidelines/recycled-water

• Public Health Regulations 2005

• Australian and New Zealand Agriculture and Resource Management Council, Environment and Conservation Council Council of Australia and New Zealand. 2000. ‘Australian Guidelines for Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting.’

NB: The 2018 revision of the Water Quality Guidelines is presented as an online platform, to improve usability and facilitate updates as new information becomes available https://www.waterquality.gov.au/anz-guidelines

• New Zealand Guidelines for Utilisation of Sewage Effluent on Land. 2000 (not reviewed due to lack of availability).

Table 2 provides an example of one such set of guidelines. Tables 3, 4 and 5 provide a further set of examples. NZ Guidelines for the utilisation of municipal biosolids is contained in Appendix 2.

Attachment 20-47.2


https://www.waterquality.gov.au/guidelines/recycled-water

https://www.waterquality.gov.au/anz-guidelines

Table 2. Reclaimed water use and environmental guidelines (Environmental Guidelines for the use of recycled wastewater in Tasmania, December 2002)

Attachment 20-47.2


Table 3. Classes of reclaimed water and the associated acceptable uses (typically subject to site controls) (Guidelines for Environmental Management Use of Reclaimed Water, EPA Victoria 2003)

Authors’ note; quote: ‘Class A+ is the highest class of recycled water for non-drinking purposes in Queensland. It is highly treated through two different treatment plants with multiple process steps to meet stringent environmental and health guidelines. It is safe to use around the family home for non-drinking purposes. Rigorous monitoring and testing regimes are in place to ensure the treatment plants provide consistently high quality Class A+ recycled water.’ https://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/general-faqs-on-class-a-recycled-water-38548.html Retrieved February 17, 2020

Attachment 20-47.2


https://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/general-faqs-on-class-a-recycled-water-38548.html

Table 4. Acceptable agricultural uses - livestock access and food safety controls for specific irrigation methods (ibid)

Attachment 20-47.2


Authors’ note: From our research of global projects, where reclaimed water may be used as part of a potable source, or will be entering an area that is used to extract potable water (e.g. an aquifer), application of the drinking water standards of the relevant jurisdiction to the reclaimed water use appear to apply. These standards, in the jurisdictions we have considered, as well as the range of microbiological and chemical characteristics identified below (Table 5) typically require assessment of a wide range of emerging contaminants (EOC’s), heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants (POP’s), etc.

The FAO Guidelines that comprise Appendix 1 of this report, although succinct, provide valuable insights into the potential scope of water quality assessment parameters involved in the sustainable use of reclaimed water, as do the ANZECC Guidelines also referred to in our bibliography.

Attachment 20-47.2


Table 5. Classes of reclaimed water and corresponding standards for biological treatment and pathogen reduction (ibid)

Attachment 20-47.2


Case studies Water recycling for irrigation and nutrient recovery, biosolids for energy production and fertiliser

Shafdan, Tel Aviv Israel

Israel is one of the world’s largest users of reclaimed water, in 2018 providing 31% of the country’s total irrigation water used for farms and orchards. This equates to 87% of the total volume of treated wastewater from 150 plants across the country being utilised for agriculture. The Shafdan Wastewater Treatment Plant is an example of one of these plants, located in the heart of Israel and serving a population equivalent of more than 2.5 million people within the greater Tel Aviv metropolitan area. The plant treats 470,000m³/day, providing a total of 140Mm³ of reclaimed water close to potable quality pumped annually to farms for irrigation.

Shafdan is seen as a leader in human waste management, the biosolids produced by the plant also utilised for making bioplastics and fertiliser, as well as generating biogas onsite sufficient to meet 90% of the plants energy requirements. In partnership with Ostara, a Vancouver-based water treatment and nutrient recovery company working throughout Europe, North America and now Israel, a new plan is afoot to install a Nutrient Recovery Facility for the plant.

‘We are very excited to partner with Ostara to solve our nutrient removal issues. As nearly 100 per cent of our treatment water is recycled for irrigation, the Ostara process will be key to preventing phosphorus from internally recirculating within the plant, causing operational issues, as well as supporting the plant’s innovative water recycling program,’ said Yuval Sela, Chief Engineer for the Shafdan facility (2018).

The Shafdan Wastewater Treatment Plant’s unique method of using natural sand filtration to create reuseable quality effluent water is one of 30 projects world-wide chosen by the United Nations to showcase the ability of local authorities to pro-actively deal with environmental problems. Once operational, the Ostara process will also remove nutrients from Shafdan’s wastewater stream and recover them to produce a high-value, continuous release fertiliser. This will be a key part of a current plant expansion project to recover more water and energy resources at the Shafdan facility.

Ostara’s Pearl process can recover 75 per cent or more of the phosphorus and up to 15 per cent of the ammonia-nitrogen from wastewater streams before they accumulate as struvite in pipes and equipment or recycle within the facility for re-treatment. Struvite is a cement-like scale in pipes caused by an excess of nutrients and is common in facilities performing biological nutrient removal. Ostara’s nutrient recovery system at the Shafdan Wastewater Treatment Plant will feature two Pearl 10K reactors and employ WASSTRIP (Waste Activated Sludge Stripping to Remove Internal Phosphorus), which enhances nutrient removal and recovery.

The new facility will have an installed production capacity of approximately 2000 tonnes of fertiliser per year and Igudan will receive revenue for every tonne of fertiliser produced, which is marketed and sold to an established network of blenders and distributors globally as Crystal Green.

Attachment 20-47.2


Water reclamation for irrigation, potable water conservation and aquatic ecosystem protection

La Salaisi`ere, Noirmoutier, France

Noirmoutier is a French island in the Bay of Biscay, connected to the mainland by the Passage du Gois causeway. The island is approximately 20 kilometres long and its width varies from 1000 metres to 7 kilometres with a total area of 45,000 hectares (45 km2). Two thirds of the island is below sea level, and there are some 50 kilometres of beaches. Politically, Noirmoutier comprises ten localities and four distinct communes (districts).

Noirmoutier is referred to as the ‘Island of Mimosas’, due to the temperateness of its climate which allows for the flowering of Acacia dealbata (mimosa) year-round. The landscape of the island is one of low-lying fields, salt pans and marshes, protected by sand dunes, dikes, and forests of pine and holm oak trees. The island has a history dating back to prehistoric times, and a current resident population of 9,590 that can increase eightfold during the summer tourist season. While tourism provides for 70% of the island’s economy, L’ilse de Noirmoutier is also home to thriving agriculture, fishing and sea salt production industries.

Next to tourism, fishing is the island’s next major employer. The industry is divided roughly between open sea fishing for bass, conger eels, sea bream, sardines, crabs and lobsters and the farming of mussels and oysters. There are about 80 establishments still producing around 800 tonnes of salt annually on the island, guiding the sea water into shallow reservoirs where it is left to evaporate and the salt crystallize.

The island’s Mediterranean climate has also enabled farmers to become renowned for producing early crops, the most famous of which are Bonnotte potatoes. These are sold in markets throughout France where, renowned for their salty, nutty flavour, they fetch the highest prices of any potato variety, and are served in some of the world’s most famous restaurants. Other potato varieties follow, altogether some 12,000 tonnes being produced annually. Flowers and other vegetables are also produced for France’s markets.

Noirmoutier, however, has no freshwater reserves, and the majority of the island’s potable water is pumped there from the mainland. With an economy dependent on reliable water supplies, increasing pressure on the availability and cost of potable water, coupled with impacts from the discharge of wastewater into the sensitive coastal marine environment, the people of Noirmoutier turned their attention to the potential reuse of treated wastewater. This approach had strong support from both farmers local politicians who together founded the Trade Union Association of Drainage & Irrigation.

The subsequent process to achieve reclaimed water involved raw wastewater being run through a conventional activated sludge process providing a secondary treatment efluent. Tertiary treatment is then performed in polishing maturations ponds (which are also used as storage reservoirs). The pond/lagoon system comprises 4 ponds: the secondary treated effluent fed into first basin (1.4m depth), then gravity fed from one pond to the next (maximum pond depth 2.8m) with aeration occurring within the ponds. The reclaimed water is finally channelled to potato plantations and other cultivations via an underground distribution network.

Attachment 20-47.2


http://www.vendee-guide.co.uk/beaches-noirmoutier.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acacia_dealbata

Up to 1,400,000m³/yr of wastewater is treated through the wastewater treatment plant and maturation ponds at La Salaisi`ere7, 300,000m³/yr of which is utilised for irrigation. This system is shown to remove sufficient organic matter, nutrients and pathogens to provide consistent water quality that is acceptable for both agricultural irrigation and for discharge into the marine environment used for shellfish production. The agricultural irrigation recycled water now provides for 90-95% of annual potato production water demand, at approx 50% of cost of potable supply, and has extended the summer potato growing season increasing yield by nearly 40% and enabling a €10M per annum industry8 (2013).

The treatment plant, lagoons and storage ponds are managed by Community of Municipalities (the overarching local authority). The Community covered the €1.8M capital cost assisted by the public water board and a water company. Their operating and maintenance (O&M) costs are €10,000 per annum. The pumping stations and irrigation network is owned by an Irrigators Association. The €3.8M capital cost of this infrastructure was covered by the Association with help from Departmental grants. Their O&M costs are €200,000 per annum. The Noirmoutier project has attained a high profile nationally, within the EU, and globally, and the island hosted an international workshop in 2001 on integrated water management and reuse.

Mackay, North Queensland, Australia

Public concern over the environmental impact of treated dishcarges to streams and shallow coastal waters combined with declining regional aquifer levels led to establishment of a series of upgraded wastewater reuse schemes in the Mackay region of mid to north Queensland, Australia. Four individual schemes in Mackay serve populations ranging from 7,000 to 68,000, all involving storage facilities for the reclaimed water. Growers connected to the Mackay South Water Recycling Facility access the water via a number of smaller reuse storage dams built on nearby properties. During dry weather the facilities provide local sugar cane and Eucalyptus growers with quality recycled water for irrigation purposes and during the wet, the treated reclaimed water is discharged to local streams.

The Mackay South Water Recycling Facility operates 4 sequence batch reactors (SBRs) and processing tanks to treat the wastewater. The SBRs are aerated by racks of pipe mounted diffusers as part of the treatment process. Prior to discharge for reuse the final effluent is filtered through sand filters then disinfected using sodium hypochlorite. If the final effluent is being discharged to Bakers Creek or other streams it is disinfected using ultraviolet radiation. Cane farmers utilising the reclaimed water have experienced a 62% increase in cane yield, and a remarkable 80% increase in farm income, due to the higher sugar content in the irrigated vs non irrigated cane.

In terms of biosolids management, the waste activated sludge (WAS) is transferred from the SBRs to aerated digesters during the settling period. Decanting of excess water occurs in the digesters and thickened sludge is delivered to a centrifuge for final dewatering. The centrifuge cake is taken by truck to a dry storage area west of Mackay and this cake is then applied to agricultural land for beneficial reuse.

7 There are two WTPs on Noirmoutier, however the smaller, La Casie, was not discussed in the 2013 publication due to low reuse volume production. 8 Similarly, the use of reclaimed water in Clermont-Ferrand has facilitated the production of high-value seed maize.

Attachment 20-47.2


Bolivar WTP, Adelaide, South Australia

Alongside natural surface waters, as with the Mackay experience, protection of groundwater resources is also frequently a driver for the beneficial use of reclaimed water. In the area north of Adelaide, ground water use was three times the recharge rate causing the aquifer to become seriously depleted with higher pumping costs and an increasing salt water intrusion risk. At the same time, nearby Adelaide’s original Bolivar WTP discharge was seriously impacting Gulf of St Vincent’s shallow water sea grass beds. Recycled water from the new Bolivar Wastewater Treatment Plant now supplies around 360 market gardeners in the region and the aquifer decline has been arrested.

Mangawhai, Kaipara, Aotearoa New Zealand

Mangawhai is a popular beach resort located adjacent to a sensitive estuary and marine environment 1.5 hrs drive north of Auckland. The community identified a growing need to protect the waterways and coastal environment, and provide quality reclaimed water for pastureland. The Mangawhai Community Wastewater Scheme includes the Mangawhai Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and reuse farm. The scheme services 1250 homes in Mangawhai township, with the capacity to service 4500 properties in the future, through 21 kms of sewers, 15 pumping stations, and 6 kms of rising main.

The treatment system utilised is a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) water reclamation plant with a design capacity of 3ML (3000m³)/day. The reclaimed water is pumped 11 km to a 180 ML storage facility, eliminating discharges from the township to the estuary and harbour. The recycled water is used to irrigate pasture land. The Trility Ltd team of operators who manage the Mangawhai scheme are locally based and multi-skilled. They are involved in the operation and maintenance of low-pressure sewer reticulation, wastewater treatment and farm irrigation whilst maintaining a good working relationship with all stakeholders. https://trility.com.au/project/mangawhai-water-reclamation-scheme/)

Taupo, Aotearoa New Zealand

Taupo District Council (TDC) is a small council in New Zealand that has several communities of differing size scattered around the shores of Lake Taupo. The communities’ demographics are primarily Māori and Pakeha, with a strong Māori heritage and culture that underpins much of the decision-making of Taupo District Council.

A frequently expressed Tangata Whenua cultural tenet is that human waste should be treated on land, and not allowed to impact on water, as Wai (water) is life generating and has spiritual significance. This cultural tenet has influenced Council’s decisions to dispose of the city’s wastewater effluent via land. All of TDC’s eleven wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) discharge to land with only one exception. Taupo town WWTP is the largest of these, with a resident population of 22,000 that expands to approximately 50,000 over the summer holiday period.

The Taupo WWTP was constructed and commissioned in 1974. It is a conventional plant with primary sedimentation, trickling filters, secondary sedimentation and anaerobic digestion and dewatering of solids. In 1994, 150 hectares of farmland was purchased just outside of the

Attachment 20-47.2


https://trility.com.au/project/mangawhai-water-reclamation-scheme/

town and an irrigation system established using Hunter Pop Up Sprinklers. A 50m no-irrigation buffer zone was required around the outside of the farm and this reduced the irrigation area to 136 hectares. A new pump station was built at the WWTP and a rising main was laid to the farm. This rising main is about 4km long. TDC sowed the pasture with a rye grass species that was recommended for irrigation by Ag Research & Development. The land disposal system (LDS) farm was commissioned in 1995.

The Taupo reclaimed water irrigated farm is a ‘cut and carry’ operation. The grass thus takes up the applied nutrients and is harvested into silage bales and sold outside the Lake Taupo catchment to farmers for stock feed. This effectively removes the nutrients from the catchment. This currently works well, however it took some time for the bales to be accepted by farmers, and the bales were sold well below the market value to attract people to try them. Now TDC have a demand for this product that is greater than their ability to supply.

Due to the strong cultural influences on TDC and the direction previously set by council, when expansion of the Taupo population began to occur, and the possibility of establishing upgraded treatment options and discharge to the Lake was raised, it became evident relatively quickly that expansion of the irrigation farm in its current form was the preferred response to the increasing population. Hence, the decision was made in 2007 to continue with Councils philosophy of disposal to land, albeit in an extended form.

Further, while the district was experiencing rapid growth, a new road was being planned whose path went through the original LDS site meaning the effective irrigation area was reduced to 120 hectares, compounding the potential LDS over loading. With a desire to secure a long term (50 years) land disposal option for TDC a second farm was purchased at a cost of $8.6 million. This farm was 350 hectares in total and from this a further 120 hectares of land was prepared for irrigation. Due to the difficulty and expense in maintaining the pop-up sprinklers at the original farm, TDC decided to use Centre Pivot Irrigators. This adapted LDS system was commissioned late 2008, and has a consent limit for nitrogen of 550kg/ha/yr and a hydraulic loading limit of 45mm per week or 15mm per day. The cost to establish the Centre Pivot Irrigation on 120 hectares was $7million.

The quality of effluent from the Taupo WWTP is typical for the type of treatment it employs. The plant does not have active nutrient removal processes, nor does it have any form of disinfection or sterilisation. Below are some typical parameters for the effluent quality;

• Total Nitrogen: 40 – 50ppm • NH4-N: 35 – 45ppm • COD: 90 – 130ppm • Ecoli: 350,000 – 480,000

CFU/100ml

TDC currently produces between 17,000 and 18,5000 bales per year off the LDS farms. This includes lucerne that has been planted on non-irrigated buffer zone land and some surplus land that has not been leased out. The income from these bales is $1.2 to $1.4M per annum.

Figure 1. Centre pivot irrigation of selected ryegrass , adjacent to the buffer Lucerne crop.

Attachment 20-47.2


The total Opex costs to run the farms is $1.9M per annum. So the resale of the crop only offsets the cost by about two thirds. However, this is still a favourable outcome, compared to the Opex costs to run a tertiary nutrient removal plant and discharge to the river or Lake.

The irrigated bales are restricted from use for lactating dairy animals (Fonterra) but may be used while these animals are not lactating i.e. in winter. This fits well with when dairy and meat producing farmers need feed, and with TDCs lucerne production being suitable for lactating diary animals this provides a complete, all year round supplementary feed source. TDC has become one of the largest supplies of supplementary feed to farms in the central North Island.

A random selection of bales from each harvesting block and cut are core sampled and this is sent to a certified laboratory for testing for Ecoli, Listeria, Metalisable Energy (ME), Dry Matter (DM), Protein and Digestibility. Based on these results, the bales are graded into 3 different groups per crop species. This is done by averaging the ME and Protein levels and confirming that Dry Matter levels are acceptable. Below is a table showing grade and price (2018). Table 6. Taupo District Council Bale Grading

Crop Type Ave ME &

Protein Dry Matter Grade Price + GST

/ bale Lucerne > 15 > 35% Premium $95 Lucerne 12.5 – 14.99 > 30% A Grade $85 Lucerne < 12.5 > 30% Low Grade $75 Rye Grass > 12 > 35% Premium $70 Rye Grass 9 – 11.99 > 30% A Grade $65 Rye Grass < 9 > 30% Low Grade $60

In February 2017, TDC ventured into vermicomposting (worm farming) for the treatment of its biosolids. The plan was to mix TDC’s biosolids, which are high in arsenic (reflecting the influence of the local geothermal landscape) with waste pulp and paper fibre, which has no arsenic, to make a good food source for worms. As the worms consume the biosolids fibre mix they break it down to an Aa grade biosolid which effectively is a nutrient rich soil conditioning agent and fertiliser.

The biosolids/fibre mixture is laid out in windrows about 20m wide, 0.5m high, and as long as practical. The worms migrate through the windrow over a 12 to 18 month period, breaking it down. Once they have done their job there are no pathogens left in the biosolids and the level of arsenic in the biosolids per se, is reduced to below the Maximum Acceptable Value (MAV) due to effective dilution with the fibre.

When each windrow is completed a small gap is left, and then a new windrow is laid out alongside the old windrow. Worms can migrate up to 100 metres a day and so will migrate from one windrow to the next to get to more food. This can be speeded up by seeding the pile with some Vermicast (the finished product) with worms in it. A healthy food source for the worms will mean they will happily breed in the mixture and future seeding is not required.

The final product is tested by a certified laboratory to ensure it meets the Aa grade standard. It is then screened to remove any plant matter that has grown on the windrow and any foreign

Attachment 20-47.2


matter like wood or plastic that the worms haven’t broken down. The final product is then spread as a fertiliser onto the surplus buffer land planted with the Lucerne crop.

Figure 2. The TDC vermicomposting facility

The land disposal of treated wastewater effluent has been an effective tertiary treatment and disposal method for the Taupo District Council. While early in the process to full land disposal, some thought that it was solely a ‘politically correct’ and ‘culturally friendly’ solution. Today, it has proven itself to be significantly more than this. The baleage product has become a sort after feed source that has gained respect within the farming community as being well produced and weed free.

The addition of the Vermicomposting process to the LDS is expected to also prove itself to be a long-term solution to biosolids disposal through instead beneficial reuse. As such, it involves the sustainable recycling of an organic, nutrient and humus-rich product that would otherwise be dumped as waste in a landfill, and has the potential to reduce significantly TDCs requirements for purchased fertiliser (Sears, 2018) and potentially enhance the carbon sequestering capacity of the soils to which it is applied.

Melbourne Water, Victoria Australia

Melbourne Water (MW) produces the largest amount of high-quality Class A recycled water in Australia at two WWTP, the Eastern and Western Treatment, following strict state and federal regulatory guidelines. The MW advanced treatment technologies remove more than 99.999% of pathogens from the wastewater, and quality control is managed utilising a process common throughout the food industry, called Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP). This highly treated wastewater is recycled for a range of non-drinking uses, helping to protect limited water supplies in a bourgeoning population and uncertain climate.

Attachment 20-47.2


Melbourne Water follows several guidelines for producing recycled water, including those set by:

o EPA Victoria

o Department of Health and Human Services

o National Health and Medical Research Council

Each of these bodies have different approaches to regulating quality. Some, like EPA Victoria’s, specify classes of recycled water based on microbiological quality. Others, like the federal government’s Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling, require the reclaimed water is treated to a standard that makes it safe for its intended use.

MW’s Eastern Plant is one-tenth the size of the Western Treatment Plant, but treats nearly half of Melbourne’s sewage (330 million litres a day or 330,000m³/day) using primary, secondary and tertiary processes. The tertiary process involves:

o Ozone, generated on site, added to disinfect the water and reduce colour and odour; o Biological filters and their bacteria to break down remaining organic matter, oil,

grease, foam, litter and solids; o Ammonia reduction to very low levels to make chlorine disinfection more effective,

and minimise the impact on the environment where the effluent is to be released; o Ultraviolet light for further disinfection; and o Chlorine added for final disinfection.

Some of the treated water is then used on site or provided to nearby customers as recycled water. 10GL (10Mm³) of water suitable for the irrigation of salad and other vegetable and fruit crops is provided annually to local irrigators via the Eastern Irrigation Scheme. The rest is released into the ocean at Boags Rocks under strict conditions set by EPA Victoria to protect this sensitive coastal environment.

The Eastern Plant has been generating electricity from sewage gas since it opened in 1975 and now supplies 40% of its own energy needs. The sludge from earlier treatment stages is dried and stored in large piles, to be reused as biosolids.

The Western Treatment Plant is an area of historic and cultural significance. It treats half of Melbourne’s sewage, and includes an extensive, thriving wetland ecosystem, with an internationally recognised bird habitat, in Melbourne's western suburbs.

The Western WTP was the first in Victoria to produce Class A recycled water. To achieve this, the process made use of use of the existing lagoon system, which produces Class C water. In this lagoon system, the sewage flows slowly through anaerobic and aerobic lagoons, gradually becoming cleaner as diverse bacteria break down the organic material in the water. The whole process uses very little energy and produces Class C water over a period of 30 to 35 days. As a first part of the lagoon treatment process, anaerobic bacteria decompose organic material in the sewage producing odours and methane gas, which is captured under the covers. This reduces odour and greenhouse emissions and allows the gas to be used for powering engines that generate electricity. The production of biogas (or sewage gas) enables the Western Treatment Plant to generate nearly all its required electricity and become close to achieving energy self-sufficiency.

Attachment 20-47.2


http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/our-work/publications/publication/2003/november/464-2

https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/public-health/water/alternative-water-supplies/class-a-recycled-reclaimed-water

https://www.waterquality.gov.au/guidelines/recycled-water

https://www.melbournewater.com.au/community-and-education/about-our-water/recycled-water

https://www.melbournewater.com.au/community-and-education/about-our-water/recycled-water

https://www.melbournewater.com.au/community-and-education/about-our-water/liveability-and-environment/waste-resources

https://www.melbournewater.com.au/community-and-education/about-our-water/liveability-and-environment/energy

Once water reaches the final lagoon it has been thoroughly treated, it can then be released into Port Phillip Bay under strict conditions set by EPA Victoria to protect that environment, or further treated and recycled. To reach Class A standard, ultraviolet light and chlorine are used to further disinfect the water. In total, 40 billion litres (40Mm³) of recycled water is produced at the Western Treatment Plant, which is supplied to customers and used to water crops, parks and gardens, including the plant’s pastures and wetlands. The Werribee Irrigation District is an important vegetable growing area on the western fringe of metropolitan Melbourne. Using a blend of water from the Werribee River, the aquifer below, and the Western reclaimed water scheme, over 400 growers produce lettuces, broccoli, cabbages and many other vegetables for local consumption and export.

Some of this reclaimed water is further processed to reduce its salt content before it can be supplied to homes for toilet flushing and landscape watering etc. Treated biosolids are provided free to farmers who just sort their own transport costs.

Figures 3 and 4. The Western Treatment Plant map and lagoons.

https://www.melbournewater.com.au/community-and-education/about-our-water/sewerage/western-treatment-plant/sewage-treatment-process

Aquifer replenishment directly using reclaimed water (Managed Aquifer Recharge MAR)

Torreele, Belgium

There are three unconfined, sand dune aquifer water catchments that provide all of the potable water for the residents and visitors to Torreele, Belgium (resident population 60,000). These groundwater resources could not meet the 6-fold demand increase from 1950 to 1990, nor the ongoing pressure of resident population increase and summer tourism, increasing potable consumption at Torreele of up to 2.5 times of that during the winter season. Such

Attachment 20-47.2




levels of demand and subsequent extraction also meant that salt water intrusion into the aquifers had become a very real threat.

In 2012, the Intermunicipal Water Company of the Furnes Region (IWVA) chose effluent from nearby Mulpen WTP as source for the production of high-quality infiltration water for indirect potable re-use through the artificial recharge (MAR) of the dune aquifer system of of St-Andre. Implementation of this approach has resulted in sustainable groundwater management (reconciling ecology and economics, tourism being an important local inustry) and is recognised internationally

as a proactive measure to help counter the potential effects of climate change.

The Torreele project was proceeded by a 10 year ecological study of the proposed infiltration area, and the development of an infiltration and ecological management plan for the area. The system utilised involves pre treatment of the wastewater with 1mm slotted microscreens, then pre-chlorination to control bio-growth. The secondary wastewater effluent is treated by ultrafiltration (UF), using the submerged ZeeWeed system, prior to reverse osmosis (RO), using brackish water, low energy membranes. The Torreele experience has shown that combining UF and RO enables the treatment of wastewater effluent in an effective and reliable way: RO being the major and ultimate barrier against both microbial and chemical contamination.

The Torreele system details are as follows:

Five UF units, cartridge filter (15 µm pore size). 2 stage RO membranes with injection of scale inhibitor, sulphuric acid, periodical NaHSO3 to neutralise free Chlorine & NaOH dosed to RO filtrate to increase ph to above 6.5. The purified water is then transported by 2.5km of pipeline to the recharge/extraction site.

Perth, Western Australia

In Perth, the Groundwater Replenishment Scheme (GWR) takes secondary treated wastewater (normally suitable for ocean disposal) which is then further treated to drinking water standard and recharged into the aquifer system underlying the district. The treatment process employed by the Advanced Water Recycling Plant for the GWR scheme is ultrafiltration using reverse osmosis and then UV treatment.

Currently, the recharge water is not used directly for potable supply, but instead is injected into the aquifer system where it is not expected to reach a water abstraction bore used for drinking purposes for another 10-20 years. The reclaimed water is tracked by its conductivity, which is significantly less than the groundwater per se. Once this water hits an abstraction bore, it is then extracted along with the natural groundwater and pumped to the groundwater treatment plant for conventional treatment prior to entering the city’s distribution system.

Western Australia currently has only one site which uses reclaimed water for crop irrigation, however, this water being for irrigating Rhodes Grass which is used as a feed for livestock (silage). This project is occurring in Broome in the North West region. The silage process provides pathogen reduction before consumption by stock, so overall the risks from the crop to livestock is fairly low. WA do, however, have a number of recycling schemes around the State which use treated wastewater (70+ schemes). Most of these reuse schemes are doing turf irrigation, tree farms (they did have one that was an apple orchard, but this has ceased) or

Attachment 20-47.2


industrial purposes. The water is of a quality known as ‘C-class’ water which puts it in the simple process of secondary treatment plus chlorination. A document provided by our Department of Health outlines all the information for non-potable reuse schemes: https://ww2.health.wa.gov.au/~/media/Files/Corporate/general%20documents/water/Recycling/Guidelines%20for%20the%20Non-potable%20Uses%20of%20Recycled%20Water%20in%20WA.pdf) .

There is also a Biosolids Guideline in WA: https://www.der.wa.gov.au/images/documents/our-services/approvals-and-licences/western-australian-guidelines-for-biosolids-management-dec-2012.pdf

(pers comm Stacey Hamilton, Water Corporation, WA, 2019)

Potable water: direct consumption for potable use blending natural and reclaimed waters

Windhoek, Republic of Namibia

The state of Namibia is comprised primarily of a large desert and semi-desert plateau. The climate here is hot and dry, with erratic rainfall during two rainy seasons in summer. Within the African continent, its climate is second in aridity only to the Sahara. Namibia shares several large rivers with South Africa, as well as the Zambezi and Okavango Rivers in the north, shared with Angola, Zambia and Botswana. Most of these rivers, however, are far away from the population centres and the cost of tapping into them for drinking water supply is prohibitive. Similarly, groundwater is unevenly distributed over the territory of Namibia, thus making the construction of pipelines generally necessary to tap their potential. In particular, the coastal area is nearly devoid of groundwater. Recharge in these areas is low and unreliable, groundwater lies at great depths and is sometimes of poor quality, and desalination and transportation of water from distant sources are deemed too expensive to be sustainable freshwater sources.

In such an environment of scarcity, potable water reclamation was the only viable option for the urban settlement of Windhoek, which in 1968 became the first city in the world to produce drinking water directly from its municipal wastewater. The reclaimed water is treated to drinking water standards, blending a maximum 35% reclaimed water with other water sources including groundwater. The reclaimed water in Windhoek is also used for urban landscape irrigation, golf courses and sportsfields.

The total treated wastewater volume is 6.4Mm³/pa, while the total recycled water is 5.8Mm³/pa. Reclaimed water pricing is progressive and consumption related i.e. from 0.75€/m³ to 2.3€/m³ (2013). Overall wastewater treatment capacity is 21,000m³/day. The Windhoek treatment system includes: Gammans Water Care Works Biological nutrient removal plant: primary treatment (fine screen, course screen, grit and grease removal, primary sedimentation) and secondary treatment (nitrogen and biological phosphorous removal) with an activated sludge process and trickling filters in parallel operation. The wastewater is than polished in maturation ponds, with a 3 day retention time, the ponds also providing habitat for indigenous fauna. Pond outlets have quality parameters relevant to being inlet water for the New Goreangab Water Reclamation Plant (NGWRP) built in 2001. Windhoek’s industrial

Attachment 20-47.2


https://ww2.health.wa.gov.au/%7E/media/Files/Corporate/general%20documents/water/Recycling/Guidelines%20for%20the%20Non-potable%20Uses%20of%20Recycled%20Water%20in%20WA.pdf



https://www.der.wa.gov.au/images/documents/our-services/approvals-and-licences/western-australian-guidelines-for-biosolids-management-dec-2012.pdf



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zambezi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okavango_River

wastewater is treated separately in sequentially operated anaerobic and aerobic ponds in another location.

The New Goreangab Water Reclamation Plant (NGWRP) includes the following treatment barriers: powdered activated carbon dosing (optional), pre-ozonation , enhanced coagulation and flocculation, dissolved air flotation, dual media filtration, main ozonation, biological activated carbon filtration, granular activated carbon adsorption, ultrafiltration, disinfection with chlorine and stabilisation with caustic soda. The final reclaimed water is blended with other potable sources (groundwater).

The investment cost of the Windhoek plant was €12.5 million (including electrical and mechanical equipment of 8.3€ million and civil works of €4.2 million). Total annualised costs are c.0.95€/m³ (this includes 0.75€/m³ operating and maintenance costs).

In most other localities in Namibia water is also reused for irrigation. There is a pilot project for small-scale reuse of treated wastewater in rural areas in Outapi in Northern Namibia as part of the CuveWaters research project. The wastewater of 1,500 people is collected in vacuum sewers and treated in such a way that pathogens are removed, but nutrients remain to a large extent in the water. The technology is relatively sophisticated for a rural area in a developing country, using upflow anaerobic sludge blanket digestion followed by aerobic treatment using a rotating biological contactor, a microsieve and ultraviolet disinfection. The water is then used to irrigate vegetables for the local market. Community members have been trained in how to operate the facilities and a tariff and billing system has been introduced to recover the operating costs of the plant from users.

Costs and benefits summary

BENEFITS SYSTEMS, COSTS and JURISDICTION Tasmania Water charges between $20-70 per ML (1000m³) of recycled water. Some smaller schemes are not charged due to it being our only real option other than discharge to environment.

There is also ongoing cost of annual compliance reporting, soil and groundwater sampling etc. (Tasmania Water)

Victoria Melbourne Eastern Irrigation Scheme 10GL (1,000000m³) Class A reclaimed water annually available to local irrigators. Reduce environmental impact from wastewater being discharged to the marine environment.

Capex $25m Ultrafiltration Norit and Pall membranes

South Australia Willunga Scheme, Virginia Pipeline Scheme, Bolivar WWTP Restoration of seriously overallocated aquifer. Avoiding extra pumping costs and increasing salt intrusion risk. Removal of nearby Adelaide’s original Bolivar WTP dischrge seriously impacting Gulf of St Vincent’s shallow water sea grass beds. 20GL (2000000m³) Class A reclaimed water annually available to local irrigators.

Dissolved Air Flotation and filtration plant, SA Water Operated.

Attachment 20-47.2


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outapi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_sewer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upflow_anaerobic_sludge_blanket_digestion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_biological_contactor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_germicidal_irradiation

Biosolids provided free to farmers who just sort transport costs. South Australia Willunga Scheme Adelaide Park Lands kept green all year round. Reclaimed water is part of a dual water supply at the new Bowden housing development. Christies Beach-produced recycled water goes to more than 8000 homes in Adelaide’s south for garden watering and toilet flushing, as well as agricultural areas in McLaren Vale and Willunga for irrigation.

Queensland Mackay Mirani Water Recycling Sarina Sewarage Treatment Plant Public concern over environmental impact of treated discharges to shallow coastal waters off Hervey Bay led to establishment of reuse scheme. Sugarcane peak water demand in hot dry periods, eucalypt plantations hardy enough to handle reduced irrigation, advantageous crop combination. 62% increase in sugar cane yield, farm income up by 80% due to higher sugar content vs non irrigated cane.

Hawaii, Oahu Recycled water is available year round, even in times of drought. It is good for the environment (removes discharges to the ocean) and it costs less than other new water sources. Used in Oahu for oil refineries, energy production facilities and a synthetic natural gas facility. Total annual volume treated wastewater: 12.6Mm3/yr. Total volume recycled water: 11Mm3/yr.

R-1: Secondary effluent from the (WTP) enters rapid mix tanks, treated chemically and flocculated. Sand filtration utiilised to meet max NTU turbidity standards, followed by UV disinifection. RO: High quality utra pure process water, Reverse Osmosis demineralised water. Secondary effluent treated via continuous microfiltration process using a membrane filter to remove particles >0.2µm. Water then run through 6 parallel RO skids, with high pressure feed pump and cartridge filter with 5-µm cartridges. Capital and operational costs approximately $3.3 million/yr.

Milan, Italy (Treatment Plants Milan: San Rocco; Milano Nosedo; Peschiera Borromeo) Enhancement in water quality of surface water bodies (rivers and the Adriatic Sea) and restoration of their biodiversity. Incentivise farmers to maintain & diversify production, the reclaimed water distributed free or at minimal cost to via existing network of open

Pretreatment of degritting (3mm screening), sand & oil removal. Biological treatment using activated sludge process with Nitrification & denitrification. Tertiary rapid sand filtration to remove Phosphorous and suspended solids. Disinfection. Nosedo by Peracetic acid for reuse. San Rocco by UV (low dose for

Attachment 20-47.2


canals and ditches (only pumping costs borne by consortiums). Private/public partnership hold contracts, one of whom is Degremont (Suez) who also in charge of plant operation. Public-private partnership ensures project funding and economical viability.

river discharge, high dose for agricultural reuse). (Fig 15.5, p 183) Capital Cost: Nosedo BOT project (build, operate & transfer) 150 M€ 40% from town administration, balance by private funders. San Rocco, DBO project (design, build & operate) 132.6M€ 100% from Milan administration.

Noirmoutier, France Water quality acceptable to discharge into marine environment used for shellfish production. Agricultural Irrigation Reuse water provides for 90-95% of annual potato production water demand. (at approx 50% of cost of potable supply). Reuse allowed extension of summer potato season increasing yield by nearly 40%. Potable water preservation. Reduced pollution to marine environment & risk to associated industries. Reuse essential for preservation of tourism which is 70% of district’s income (population increasing 8 fold increase in summer) & other economic activities (shellfish, fish, salt production) which operate in fragile & sensitive environments.

Lagoons & storage ponds managed by Community of Municipalities. They covered €1.8M capital cost assisted by public water board & a water company. O&M costs of €10,000. Pumping station & irrigation network owned by Irrigators Association. €3.8M capital cost covered by Association with help from Departmental grants. O&M costs of €200,000/yr.

San Luis Potosi, Mexico Aquifier recharge and improvement of aquifier water quality (as reuse replaced raw sewerage on crops / infiltration, flow on health benefits). Wetland flora & fauna, ie biodiversity. Recycled water produced with a “Fit to Purpose” quality for agriculture & industry. Consistent water quality, adaptation to meet customer needs (monitoring & fine tuning), high reliability. Industry recyled water rate: USD $0.76/m³, 67% of the groundwater charge. Power plant cost savings in 6 years: USD $18 million. Treatment capacity: 90,720 m³/d Recycled volumes: Up to 23.9Mm3/pa for irrigation and 9.9Mm3/pa for industry $0.76/m³, 67% of the groundwater charge. Power plant cost savings in 6 years: USD $18 million.

Irrigation (57%) Controlled/artificial wetland to polish & disinfect water. Pathogen removal without complete elimination of nutrients ie fertilising benefits. Industrial (43%) Secondary treatment by activated sludge with Nitrogen removal, followed by tertiary treatment with lime softening, sand filtration, ion exchange softening and chlorine disinfection. Capital cost USD $67.4 million. 40% Govt non-refundable subsidy.

Torreele, Belgium Indirect potable re-use through artificial recharge of the dune aquifer of St-Andre. Resulted in sustainable groundwater management (reconciling ecology & economy, tourism being an important local inustry).

Secondary wastewater effluent treated by ultrafiltration (UF), using the submerged ZeeWeed system, prior to reverse osmosis (RO), using brackish water low energy membranes. The Torreele experience showed that

Attachment 20-47.2


Operation & investment cost 2011 cost of €0.64/m3 substantially lower than average cost of potable water purchase from neighbouring areas (€0.79). Recycled water cost recovered as portion of potable water cost. Majority of stakeholders & the public accepted project as offered solution to environmental sensitivities & potable water shortage. Additionally is a proactive measure to help counter potential effects of climate change.

combining UF & RO enables treatment of wastewater effluent in an effective & reliable way; RO being the major and ultimate barrier against both microbial & chemical contamination. 2 stage RO membranes with injection of scale inhibitor, sulphuric acid, periodical NaHSO3 to neutralise free Chlorine & NaOH dosed to RO filtrate to increase pH to above 6.5. Total Investment: €7 million.

Windhoek, Republic of Namibia Windhoek became the first city in the world to produce drinking water directly from the municipal wastewater. Desalination and transportation of water from distant sources too expensive. Potable reclamation the only viable option (to drinking water standards, blending with maximum 35% reclaimed water). Potable water supply (blended with other potable water such as borewater). Also, urban landscape irrigation, golf courses, sportsfields. Maturation ponds provide habitat for fauna. Total treated wastewater volume: 6.4Mm3/pa; Total Recycled water: 5.8Mm3/pa. Recycled water pricing is progressive & consumption related: 0.75€m3 to 2.3€m3. Treatment capacity: 21,000m3/d.

Gammans Water Care Works Biological nutrient removal plant: primary treatment (fine screen, course screen, grit & grease removal, primary sedimentation) & secondary treatment (nitrogen & biological phosphorous removal) with an activated sludge process & trickling filters in parallel operation. Then polished in maturation ponds, 3 day retention time. Pond outlets have quality parameters being raw inlet water for the New Goreangab Water Reclamation Plant (NGWRP). Industrial wastewater treated separately in sequentially operated anaerobic & aerobic ponds in another location. New Goreangab Water Reclamation Plant (NGWRP) includes the following treatment barriers: powdered activated carbon dosing (optional), pre-ozonation , enhanced coagulation & flocculation, dissolve air flotation, dual media filtration main ozonation, biological activated carbon filtration, granular activated carbon adsorption, ultrafiltration, disinfection with chlorine & stabilisation with caustic soda (end recycled water blended with other potable sources eg bores). Investment cost €12.5 million (including electrical & mechanical equipment of 8.3€ million & civil works of €4.2 million. Total annualised costs: 0.95€/m3 (includes 0.75€/m3 operating & maintenance costs).

Israel

Attachment 20-47.2


Israel recycles 87% of its wastewater for agriculture. 31% of irrigation water originates from wastewater treated at 150 plants. Biosolids seen as a resource not waste, used at Shafdan to generated biogas onsite, meeting 90% of plants energy requirements. They will install a Nutrient Recovery Facility in partnership with Ostara at their Shafdan Wastewater Treatment Plant, located in the heart of Israel, serving a population equivalent of more than 2.5 million people in the greater Tel Aviv metropolitan area. Slow release fertiliser product. Biosolids a resource that can be used for energy, bioplastics and fertiliser. Ostara is working with Shafdan wastewater treatment plant to utilise biosolids and produce fertiliser commercially. Treats 470,000m3/day. 140 million cubic metres recycled water (close to potable quality) is pumped to farms for irrigation. San Diego, California USA Reclaimed Water Distributed throughout the northern region of San Diego via an extensive reclaimed water pipeline. More than 79 miles of distribution pipelines are installed in Mira Mesa, Miramar Ranch North, Scripps Ranch, University City, Torrey Pines, Santaluz and Black Mountain Ranch to provide reclaimed water to customers.

Wastewater entering the plant undergoes a series of treatment and purifying steps using the latest technologies to supplement the water supply of the region.

California, USA California wastewater agencies use several processes to remove contaminants from wastewater and make it suitable for people to use and drink (known as potable uses), or other beneficial uses (known as non-potable) such as landscape irrigation. California’s long-term water goals, which are: Increasing recycled water use over 2002 levels by a million acre-feet (1,233Mm³) annually by 2020, and by at least 2 million acre-feet (2,466 Mm³) a year by 2030.

Notes to be incorporated: Charging for reclaimed water:

o Operation & investment cost 2011 cost of €0.64/m3 substantially lower than average cost of potable water purchase from neighbouring areas (€0.79). Recycled water cost recovered as portion of potable water cost. (Torreele)

o Treatment capacity: 90,720 m3/d Recycled volumes: Up to 23.9Mm3/pa for irrigation and 9.9Mm3/pa for industry $0.76/m3, 67% of the groundwater charge. Power plant cost savings in 6 years: USD $18 million. (Mexico)

Attachment 20-47.2


o Agricultural Irrigation Reuse water provides for 90-95% of annual potato production water demand (at approx 50% of cost of potable supply). Reuse allowed extension of summer potato season increasing yield by nearly 40%. Potable water preservation. Reduced pollution to marine environment & risk to associated industries. Reuse essential for preservation of tourism which is 70% of district’s income (population increasing 8 fold increase in summer) & other economic activities (shellfish, fish, salt production) which operate in fragile & sensitive environments (Noirmoutier).

o Recycled water is not for drinking, but is safe to handle and for other non-drinking uses. Recycled water is available year round, even in times of drought. It is good for the environment and it costs less than other new water sources. Oil Refineries, Power production facilities and a synthetic natural gas facility. Total annual voume treated wastewater: 12.6Mm3/yr. Total volume recycled water: 11Mm3/yr. Capital and operational costs approximately $3.3 million/yr. (Oahu, Hawaii) [check sales value of water]

o 62% increase in sugar cane yield, farm income by 80% due to higher sugar content vs non irrigated cane (Mackay, Queensland). [check for value of reclaimed water]

o Christies Beach-produced recycled water goes to more than 8000 homes in Adelaide’s south for garden watering and toilet flushing, as well as agricultural areas in McLaren Vale and Willunga for irrigation (South Australia Willunga Scheme). [check for value of water]

o The Glenelg facility helps to keep the Adelaide Park Lands green all year round and provides dual-supply at the new Bowden development (iid). [check for value of reclaimed water]

o 20GL/year of recycled water (Class A). Biosolids provided free to farmers who just sort transport costs (ibid). [check for value of reclaimed water]

o Provide irrigated water to the local irrigators (10GL Class A/annually) (Victoria Melbourne Eastern Irrigation Scheme) [check for value of reclaimed water]

o (Israel) Recycles 87% of its wastewater for agriculture. 31% of irrigation water originates from wastewater treated at 150 plants Slow release fertiliser product Biosolids a resource that can be used for energy, bioplastics and fertiliser. Ostara is working with Shafdan wastewater treatment plant to utilise biosolids and produce fertiliser commercially. Treats 470,000m3/day. 140 million cubic metres recycled water (close to potable quality) is pumped to farms for irrigation. [check for value of reclaimed water]

o Reclaimed Water Distributed throughout the northern region of San Diego via an extensive reclaimed water pipeline. More than 79 miles of distribution pipelines are installed in Mira Mesa, Miramar Ranch North, Scripps Ranch, University City, Torrey Pines, Santaluz and Black Mountain Ranch to provide reclaimed water to our customers (San Diego) [check for value of reclaimed water]

o California wastewater agencies use several processes to remove contaminants from wastewater and make it suitable for people to use and drink (known as potable uses), or other beneficial uses (known as nonpotable) such as landscape irrigation. California’s long-term water goals, which are: Increasing recycled water use over 2002 levels by a million acre-feet annually by 2020,

Attachment 20-47.2


and by at least 2 million acre-feet a year by 2030. [check for value of reclaimed water]

• Taupo organisation and returns

Potential governance and management models

Our surveys of both national and international wastewater and biosolids reclamation projects have yielded a range of funding and management scenarios that have the potential to inform a reclaimed water project in Tūranga. These are outlined below.

• Local authorty owned, controlled and managed A wholly local authority-owned wastewater treatment system and reclaimed water reticulation system. In AotearoaNZ this is the model that Taupo District Council has utilised successfully, right through to marketing the products of reclaimed water and biosolids reuse (for stock feed and fertiliser/soil conditioner respectively). The resident population the plant services is approximately 2/3rds that of Tūranga, however it experiences similar increases of visitors in summer.

• A dedicated corporation or commercial body established specifically to manage local/regional water – and governed by local or state authority statute Where populations increase above a small city scale, the establishment of dedicated corporations or commercial bodies to manage often the ‘three (or) four waters’ (domestic and commercial freshwater, wastewater and biosolids, reclaimed water and storm and drainage water) is a common onership and/or management mechanism. WaterCare is a water utility totally owned by the Auckland Council (AotearoaNZ) that collects, treats and disposes around 396 million litres (396,000m³) of water daily, including trade waste from industry. WaterCare does not receive any funding from Auckland Council or the government, nor do they pay a dividend to Auckland Council. Rather, the money received from customers goes into operating, maintaining and expanding the networks of pipes, treatment plants, pump stations and other infrastructure. https://www.watercare.co.nz/About-us/Who-we-are South Australia Water are owned by the South Australian State Government. Similarly to WaterCare, SAWater operates water supply, wastewater treatment and discharge facilities, and also supplies significant volumes of reclaimed water to irrigators and for other beneficial uses. SAWater was established in 1994 by an Act of Parliament and is independently regulated. https://www.sawater.com.au/about-us/about-sa-water

• Local authority owned infrastructure; independent organisation builds and manages the system Trility plays a significant role in Australasia providing water, wastewater and environmental solutions, and is currently involved in the delivery of 100s of water infrastructure projects, and the servicing of over 600 facilities. https://trility.com.au/our-business/

Attachment 20-47.2


https://www.watercare.co.nz/About-us/Who-we-are

https://www.sawater.com.au/about-us/about-sa-water

https://trility.com.au/our-business/

An hour and a half’s drive north of Auckland, Aotearoa NZ, the Mangawhai Community Wastewater Scheme includes the Mangawhai Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and reuse farm. The reclaimed water is pumped 11 km to a 180 ML storage facility, eliminating discharges from the township to the estuary and harbour. By treating the effluent the scheme has significantly reduced pollution nuisance in the surrounding farming and estuary areas. The recycled water is used to irrigate pasture land. Mangawhai WWTP is the first completed Trility facility in Aotearoa.

• Local authority/ies owned wastewater treatment infrastructure; independent body (corporate or collective) controls distribution to irrigators and other users Melbourne Water has been producing Class A reclaimed water since the early 1990’s. With the signing of the Bulk Recycled Water Agreement in 2017, Melbourne Water and Southern Rural Water (SRW) have provided security to irrigators in the Werribee South farming corridor. The agreement guarantees Melbourne Water will supply up to 11,000 megalitres of recycled water from its Western Treatment Plant to Southern Rural Water each financial year up to June 30, 2031. Southern Rural Water then supplies the water to agricultural irrigators in Werribee South via its supply network. Melbourne Water (MW) via its two wastewater treatment and recycling plants, also supplies reclaimed water to City West Water and South East Water. According to SRW pricing principles, recycled water prices should:

o Consider the price of any substitutes and customers’ willingness to pay; o Cover the full cost of providing the service (with the exception of services

related to specified obligations or maintaining balance of supply and demand); o Include a variable component.

Where it is not proposed to fully recover the costs associated with recycled water, SRW must demonstrate to the Essential Services Commission that:

o The costs and benefits of pursuing the recycled water project have been assessed;

o The basis on which any revenue shortfall is to be recovered is clearly identified.

If the revenue shortfall is to be recovered from non-recycled water customers, SRW must demonstrate that either:

o The project is required under the Statement of Obligations which applies to Melbourne Water, or pursuant to other Government policies that apply to Melbourne Water;

o There has been consultation with the affected customers about their willingness to pay for the benefits of increased recycling.

http://www.srw.com.au/

In L’ilse de Noirmoutier, a governance and management structure similar to that of Melbourne Water and its distribution arms, albeit at a greatly reduced scale, has been established. Here, the capital and operating costs for the WTP and its ownership, ongoing governance, and management is the role of the Community of Municipalities (the overarching local authority). The Trade Union Association of Drainage and Irrigation (farmers and community psarticipants) own, funds and manage the pumping stations and irrigation network.

Attachment 20-47.2


http://www.srw.com.au/

(Asano et al., 2013) https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=gqUth3vNbFgC&pg=RA1-PA92&lpg=RA1-PA92&dq=L%27ile+de+Noirmoutier+wastewater+recycling&source=bl&ots=voZQBl3wrp&sig=ACfU3U1IgikErAazBfAkfskzsvK-22hjoA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwidpK-p09bnAhUk7XMBHe3qCbMQ6AEwAXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=L'ile%20de%20Noirmoutier%20wastewater%20recycling&f=false

• Local authority - infrastructure control/independent body - irrigation contro;, variants: Public/private partnership; and central government/local government partnership Another form of a public/private partnership involves simply corporate investment alongside the local authority in the overall establishment and running of the WWTP and irrigation services. In Italy, where reclaimed water is often utilised for replenishing aquifers that are used for irrigation purposes, some projects are funded 100% from local authority coffers. In others, however, 40% of the capital and operating costs derive from the local authority, and the balance from private (corporate) funders. It is often stated that such public-private partnership ensures both project funding and economical viability. In Tūranga, it might be considered that Eastland Group, the overarching corporate arm of the Eastland Community Trust which in turn is wholly owned by the people of Tūranga Gisborne and the trust board elected by Gisborne District Council (GDC), the regional local authority, could become involved in such a venture. If this was to be the case, however, it might be hoped that the business model adopted between Eastland Group and GDC would be more akin to a socially beneficent relationship rather than a simply straightforward investment.

• A further variant of the public/private model is one where central government provides a portion of the funding required. In the case of San Luis Potosi, Mexico, where raw sewage had previously been utilised to irrigate fields and crops, the Mexican government provided a 40% non-refundable subsidy to facilitate the new WWTP at a capital cost of USD $67.4M. In Aotearoa NZ, it might be anticipated that central government funding support would also be predicated on local authorities achieving a certain environmental standard as to the treatment and discharge, or reuse of the treated effluent. With the proposed National Environmental Standard for Discharges from Municipal Wastewater Networks, such a scenario might not be unrealistic.

Attachment 20-47.2


https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=gqUth3vNbFgC&pg=RA1-PA92&lpg=RA1-PA92&dq=L%27ile+de+Noirmoutier+wastewater+recycling&source=bl&ots=voZQBl3wrp&sig=ACfU3U1IgikErAazBfAkfskzsvK-22hjoA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwidpK-p09bnAhUk7XMBHe3qCbMQ6AEwAXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=L'ile%20de%20Noirmoutier%20wastewater%20recycling&f=false






Māori cultural considerations relating to the beneficial use of reclaimed water and biosolids

Attachment 20-47.2


Options for Tūranganui: some initial discussion and recommendations

A survey of the international context for reclaimed water and biosolids use provides some important learnings for a potential Tūranga project. These include the following.

• Reasons for establishing a reclaimed water and biosolids project A recurrent theme across the literature is the multi-faceted reasoning underpinning the development of reclaimed water and biosolids projects.9 Typically, these reasons or key drivers for such projects include:

o The protection of aquatic ecosystems from the adverse effects of discharges of nutrients, organic matter and pathogens entrained in untreated or partially treated wastewater;

o Potential water shortages for existing and proposed uses including potable, irrigation, industrial, recreational and biodiversity purposes;

o The reclamation of nutrients necessary for agriculture, and potentially other products from the reclaimed water and biosolids, enhancing soil and plant health and potential carbon sequestration, while helping to reduce the reliance on extractive industries for these nutrients and materials;

o A level of economic sustainability and self-funding such projects can provide, while simultaneously enhancing economic outcomes.

In several if not most of the jurisdictions and projects we considered, all of the above drivers were present, albeit in varying proportions. It may be that the potential success of a particular project is enhanced where such multiplicity is present, and the value of achieving each potential outcome is factored in to the overall cost/benefit assessment of varying treatment and reuse systems available. This may be an important consideration e.g. where desalination may appear a marginally cheaper option than the development of a reclaimed water project.

• Sysytems specific: energy, technology, land area and cost One notable characteristic of the international reclaimed water systems that we surveyed was the level of divergence, or conversely integration between extensive, low energy, low cost and low maintenance biological systems such as multiple lagoons and ponds or engineered treatment wetlands; and other intensive, high energy, high cost and high maintenance technologically engineered solutions such as activated sludge, reverse osmosis, micro-filtration and UV disinfection. Usually, the two systems have some point of integration, e.g. ‘conventional’ secondary treatment followed by tertiary treatment through a diverse lagoon system. In Tūranga, as is currently planned, the wastewater will be treated by milliscrenning and grit removal, then by a biological trickloing filter, followed by clarification and ultimately UV disinfection. This should provide a high quality treated wastewater, suitable for use ‘as is’ in certain circumstances (Victoria EPA, 2003) or available for further biological processing and storage for irrigation for a wide range of crops and commercial/industrial uses.

9 When we refer to ‘reclaimed water’ projects, the assumption is that this will generally include the beneficial use of biosloids also.

Attachment 20-47.2


• Ownership, governance and management structures There are several potential options for the successful ownership, governance and management of reclaimed water and biosolids projects, some of which appear to be scaleable across significantly different populations and jurisdictions. It would appear to be worthwhile considering the range of options, and their relevance to our district and wider region, taking into account especially:

o Levels of capacity and enthusiasm as to developing and managing a long term reclaimed water project;

o Ensuring the best ‘fit’ for the district overal, socially, economically and culturally;

o The critical role iwi, hapū and whanau have in any such project, and the potential for diverse levels of participation and acceptability amongst these tribal groups.

• Water storage Water storage is a key component in a large percentage of reclaimed water projects internationally, providing for enhanced availability of the resource and buffering against extended seasonal drought. These storage facilities are, however, often an integral component of the overall treatment system, providing ‘polishing’ or contaminant reduction and water quality stabilising functions. These ponds and wetlands are also, in many instances, considered and managed as habitat for indigenous biodiversity. The Melbourne lagoon complex, for instance, is considered a wetland of international significance. Further, such facilities can provide a source of emergency water for firefighting or enhancing community resilience during serious adverse events. Provision for multi-purpose storage facilities might be expected to include such beneficial factors at the planning, design and build stages. One of the key issues facing the use of reclaimed water in Tūranga is water storage. If irrigation is to be a dominant use of this water, most will be required during the summer months and little during spring, autumn and winter. The Tasmania Coal Valley reclaimed water project found requests for the water soon exceeded the available supply in summer, and storage had to be constructed to carry winter flows through to the the summer irrigation season. Land in Tūranga particularly in or near to the main horticultural areas is at a premium. Nevertheless, some lands may be available if an appropriate site can be identified and landowner agreement achieved. Ideally, it could be that aiming to store as much reclaimed water as possible would be of value, and if this was combined with an ambitious biodiversity habitat focus, provide a multi-faceted resource. Although we are unsure if this has been considered previously, utilising part of the storage facility to develop a wet kahikatea forest could be worthy of consideration. If transportation of the (tertiary) treated wastewater from the Tūranga WWTP was by way of a ‘natural’ watercourse, there may be further opportunities for effluent ‘polishing’ and enhanced biodiversity values.

• Aquifer replenishment We considered three projects in different jurisdictions (Torreele, Belgium; Windhoek, Namibia; and Perth, Western Australia) where aquifer replenishment with reclaimed

Attachment 20-47.2


water for domestic (potable) and commercial use is undertaken to provide a significant component (≥35%) of these citys’ water consumption. While not considering specifically such for Tūranga, the potential for using reclaimed water treated to an acceptable standard to provide a ‘buffer’ against salt water intrusion into some of our potentially at-risk aquifer systems may be worthy of further research. Potentially, such a project may help maintain these aquifers’ ability to provide for irrigation and other consumptive uses. In this context, it may be possible to design a water storage facility (or indeed facilities) that also provide for indirect aquifer recharge through existing or engineered substrates or conduit channels, thus allowing for further in-situ treatment of the reclaimed water.

• Market resistance Despite reference to market resistance in our survey of Aotearoa NZ individual perspectives around the use of reclaimed water for irrigation of food crops (including for secondary crops i.e. those used for stock feed) and to a far lesser extent from those involved in actual water reclamation projects, although there were generic comments around adverse market perspectives, we could find no actual statement deriving from a given market in relation to the use of reclaimed water and biosolids, except from Fonterra’s edict to not use reclaimed water for lactating animals. Rather, where the appropriateness of the use of such recycled materials was discussed, refererence was to the standards and guidelines from the relevant authorities, such as public health or environmental protection, in relation to the use of reclaimed water and biosolids. Indeed, if we look directly at some of our main market, we can see the following factors present:

o In the USA, California is a major source of a wide range of fresh and processed vegetable and fruit crops, including for export to Aotearoa and elsewhere, and they rely extensively on the use of reclaimed water;

o In Europe, as we have seen in the examples provided throughout this report, reclaimed water is used for directly enhancing potable water supplies and for irrigation of a range of vegetable and fruit crops, including those highly valued. Similarly, processed biosolids are also widely used as a farm soil conditioner and fertilising agent (Palmer, 2014);

o Australia, like California, also utilises reclaimed water widely for growing fresh and processed vegetable and fruit crops and stock feed, and now for indirect aquifer replenishment for potable purposes; and

o China, reflecting an age-old systems of traditional agricultural practice, still utilises sewage waste in approximately 85% of its agricultural production (although such use appears to be gradually reducing, at least in some areas).

In our survey of international reclamation water projects, we found no specific reference to market objections to the use of such in food production. Some individuals who participated in discussion with us, however, did make the following comments relating to a level of antipathy to such use. These included the following.

o The reclaimed water was considered by some as being too expensive, and that recycled water schemes often do not get over the line because they are too

Attachment 20-47.2


expensive (pers comm Dr Anne-Maree Boland, an agricultural and environmental consultant).

o Further, even where the reclimed water is less expensive, some farmers appear to still prefer conventional water, even if it is more expensive (Ben Brahim-Neji et al. 2014).

o Dr Boland also pointed out that ‘One of the problems is you need to move it [reclaimed water] from where its produced which is often in major cities, to where the agriculture is. So peri-urban agriculture is a really good use of recycled water but it needs to be moved to those areas.’ Funding for pipelines is needed to transport this water, but it comes at a high price, including the cost of electricity used to move it. Thus the closer farmland is to a city, the cheaper it will be.

o Where in our survey we consistently considered the range of benefits that reclaimed water projects can bring to communities and the environment, feasibility studies currently underway in Sydney and on the Darling Downs in Queensland have not taken into account less tangible benefits in the development of their business plans. ‘We don't consider some of the other benefits such as environmental benefits and the fact we're freeing up another water source,’ Dr Boland said.

• Tūranga sustainable product standard

There may be value in considering the development of a brand or more likely series of brands that could include reporting on key performance indicators for sustainable development and management that specifically reflect the Tūranganui and Te Tairāwhiti context. In some ways, through the trial work undertaken with the Centre for Integrated Biowaste Research and NIWA looking at low energy, wetland solutions for biological wastewater treatment and the innovative work identifying emerging contaminants (EOC’s) in our municipal wastewater, along with other research into groundwater quality and interconnectedness in Tūranga, the district may be well placed to start such a process. Similarly, satisfactorily addressing the particular social and cultural requirements that exist here would be expected to provide further platforms for assessment. In such a context, the integration of reclaimed water and biosolids into our farming regimes could provide a point of positive difference, compared with the current image of ‘second class’ produce browning Aotearoa’s shiny green image. As a corollary to such a concept, we note that all of the successful reclaimed water projects we considered embodies a blending of waters from differing sources (e.g. reclaimed water with ground water). It would seem that if Tūranga was to enthusiastically adopt a reclaimed water project, that this might be incorporated into an allocation model that incentivised uptake of this water. As a precursor to further development of the overall concept of utilising recycled treated wastewater, howere, we believe that GDC, in partnership with iwi and hapū and the wider community, should explore the potential for establishing some trials, possibly using different crops and reclaimed/’natural’ water blends, both to gauge the opportunity for a successful major project, and to socialise the experience of utilising reclaimed water for irrigation and commercial use amongst the wider community.

Attachment 20-47.2


Appendix 1

Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Irrigation water quality and wastewater re-use

7. IRRIGATION WATER QUALITY AND WASTEWATER RE-USE

Large-scale irrigation projects can bring prosperity to an area but less desirable changes can also occur as a result of increased intensity of land and water use. One important change in the hydrological regime is that of an alteration or degradation in quality that takes place as water is used and re-used within the hydrological basin. In addition, wastewater generated by agricultural and urban sources can degrade water quality and must be considered when developing a river basin management plan.

Agricultural subsurface drainage water presents the single greatest threat to water quality. The need for drainage is often quoted as a mechanism to eliminate the hazards from waterlogging and salinity in irrigated land. A drainage scheme can be implemented for engineering or economic reasons, but in either case the drainage water created by the scheme will contain a high concentration of salts. Careful consideration must be given to its disposal so that the water supplies downstream are not polluted.

The disposal of highly saline drainage water into river courses may need to be controlled in order to meet certain minimum standards of water quality for irrigated agriculture in downstream areas. Changes in downstream agricultural practices may be necessary to adapt to the inferior water quality, or alternative schemes may need to be implemented where the drainage or other wastewater is isolated form the main water supply. Due to the high cost of transporting wastewater to a disposal site (ocean, salt-sink or river discharge), the maximum number of uses of that water should be made before discharge. At that time, disposal must be in such a way that the river-basin water quality is protected and agricultural development is not jeopardized. All waste-water should be used and re-used until no longer fit for use.

Of equal importance when protecting the quality of water supplies that are to be used as a source of irrigation water is the utilization of effluent water from domestic sources or from an agricultural processing activity. Re-using wastewater can remove a potential cause of ground or surface water pollution and, at the same time, release higher quality water for other uses. Rising demands for good quality water for domestic and industrial uses in countries with highly developed economies have already created the necessity to re-use wastewater. Many developing countries are now facing a similar situation, especially in arid and semi-arid regions where limited water availability is already a severe constraint on development.

Agriculture is the major user of water and can accept lower quality water than domestic and industrial users. It is therefore inevitable that there will be a growing tendency to look toward irrigated agriculture for solutions to the overall effluent disposal problem. Because wastewater contains impurities, careful consideration must be given to the possible long-term effects on soils and plants from salinity, sodicity, nutrients and trace elements that occur normally manageable if associated problems with these impurities are understood and allowances made for them.

The guidelines presented in Table 1 and crop salinity tolerance values in Table 4 are sufficient to make reliable estimates of soil and crop responses to the use of wastewater where the primary limitation is the chemical constituent, such as the total dissolved salts, relative sodium content and

Attachment 20-47.2


1

toxic ions. On the other hand, municipal wastewater and some agro-industrial effluents which may be re-used for irrigation require guidelines to estimate public health hazards. The degree of risk associated with such effluents is related to the microbial characteristics.

Table 31 EXISTING STANDARDS GOVERNING THE USE OF RENOVATED WATER IN AGRICULTURE

California Israel South Africa FR Germany

Orchards and vineyards

Primary1 effluent; no spray irrigation; no use of dropped fruit

Secondary2 effluent Tertiary3 effluent, heavily chlorinated where possible. No spray irrigation

No spray irrigation in the vicinity

Fodder fibre crops and seed crops

Primary effluent; surface or spray irrigation

Secondary effluent, but irrigation of seed crops for producing edible vegetables not permitted

Tertiary effluent Pretreatment with screening and settling tanks. For spray irrigation, biological treatment and chlorination

Crops for human consumption that will be processed to kill pathogens

For surface irrigation, primary effluent. For spray irrigation, disinfected secondary effluent (no more than 23 coliform organisms per 100 ml)

Vegetables for human consumption not to be irrigated with renovated wastewater unless it has been properly disinfected (1000 coliform organisms per 100 ml in 80% of samples)

Tertiary effluent Irrigation up to 4 weeks before harvesting only

Crops for human consumption in a raw state

For surface irrigation, no more than 2.2 coliform organisms per 100 ml. For spray irrigation, disinfected, filtered wastewater with turbidity of 10 units permitted, providing it has been treated by coagulation

Not to be irrigated with renovated wastewater unless they consist of fruits that are peeled before eating

Potatoes and cereals - irrigation through flowering stage only

Source: WHO (1973).

1 Primary treatment of wastewater refers to the settling and removal of a portion of the suspended organic and inorganic solids.

Attachment 20-47.2


http://www.fao.org/3/t0234e/T0234E08.htm#29note1



2

2 Secondary treatment refers to the activated sludge process and biological filtration(trickling filtration). It may also include retention.

3 Tertiary or Advanced Treatment includes several processes depending on the use of the final product but usually includes clarification, activated carbon treatment, denitrification and ion exchange.

The re-use of sewage effluent for agricultural practices is not an entirely new concept. Law (1968) cites 99 references on the use of sewage as an agricultural water resource. Some countries have developed standards for the use of effluents in terms of the treatment required and bacteriological characteristics, as presented in Table 31. A meeting of experts convened by WHO (1973) concluded that primary treatment would be sufficient to permit re-use for the irrigation of crops that are not for direct human consumption.

Secondary treatment and most probably disinfection and filtration are considered necessary if the effluent is to be used for irrigation of crops for direct human consumption. Table 32 presents the WHO suggested treatment processes to meet the given health criteria for wastewater re-use.

Table 32 TREATMENT PROCESSES SUGGESTED BY THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION FOR WASTEWATER RE-USE

IRRIGATION RECREATION

Crops not for direct human consumption

Crops eaten cooked; fish culture

Crops eaten raw

No Contact

Contact

Health criteria (see below for explanation of symbols)

1 + 4 2 + 4 or 3 + 4

3 + 4 2 3 + 5

Primary treatment X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Secondary treatment X X X X X X X X X X X X

Sand filtration or equivalent polishing methods

X X X X X

Disinfection X X X X X X X X

Source: WHO (1973).

Health criteria:

1. Freedom from gross solids; significant removal of parasite eggs.

2. As 1, plus significant removal of bacteria.

3. Not more than 100 coliform organisms per 100 ml in 80% of samples.

4. No chemicals that lead to undesirable residues in crops or fish.

5. No chemicals that lead to irrigation of mucous membranes and skin.

Attachment 20-47.2


3

In order to meet the given health criteria, processes marked X X X will be essential. In addition, one or more processes marked X X will also be essential, and further processes marked X may sometimes be required.

The criteria recommended under recreation by WHO are equally applicable to irrigators who are likely to have physical contact with the effluent during irrigation.

Effluent irrigation may also lead to microbial contamination of air, soils and plants in the vicinity of the irrigation site. The extent of such contamination depends upon the degree of treatment provided, the prevailing climatic conditions, nature of the crop being irrigated and the design of the irrigation system. Where the terrain and the crop type are suitable, effluents may be applied through ‘ridge and furrow’ systems. These contaminate neither the air nor the upper parts of plants. Subsurface tile or trickle irrigation systems create the fewest hazards of any kind. However, the expense of utilizing such systems on a large scale severely limits their feasibility. An additional problem is the clogging of dripper nozzles and subsurface pipelines due to suspended sediments and microbial growth. Sprinklers create the greatest potential for microbial contamination of the vegetation and air.

When considering the use of effluents for irrigation, their microbial and biochemical properties will have to be evaluated. These values should then be compared with the public health standards, taking into consideration the crop, soil and irrigation system and consumption of the produce, and only when the effluent meets these standards should it be evaluated in terms of chemical criteria such as dissolved salts, relative sodium content and specific toxic ions.

In quantitative terms, the volume of wastewater available for re-use by irrigated agriculture is negligible when compared with the overall volume of water used for irrigation. However, the potential impacts associated with water quality and agricultural re-use of wastewater are so important, economically, environmentally and socially, that the need for sound planning far exceeds the relatively small quantities and areas involved. Several examples of wastewater reuse are given in Section 8.

The following list of references contains research as well as practical information on various aspects of the re-use of effluents for crop production: Eckenfelder (1980); Loehr (1977); National Research Council of Canada (1974); Sopper and Kardos (1973); and Wilson and Beckett (1968).

http://www.fao.org/3/t0234e/T0234E08.htm#ch7

Attachment 20-47.2


http://www.fao.org/3/t0234e/T0234E08.htm#ch7

Tangata Whenua of Tairawhiti have petitioned forthe removal of mortuary wastewater from thepublic wastewater system for more than 20 years,with recent submissions provided through the workof the Wastewater Technical Advisory Group, KIWAGroup, Wastewater Management Committee, andthe Consent Review Group.

BACKGROUND

Significant work was completed in 2014 and 2015,which revisited the reasons for requiring separationof this wastewater, but also investigated thetechnical and regulatory mechanisms to achievethis. The issues were again raised through theoptions assessments and consent deliberations forthe WWTP upgrade, input from the KIWA Group,and Councillors directed GDC staff to proceed withfurther work to achieve this outcome.

The purpose of this project is to address socialand cultural concerns over the treatment anddischarge of mortuary wastewater within theconventional wastewater treatment system,by providing for the treatment and disposal ofmortuary wastewater within an alternativetreatment system that is acceptable to thecommunity.

PURPOSE

The project plan provides the background /context to this issue, outlines the process todate, and describes the scope of work,engagement, resources, and timeframesrequired to fulfil the decision taken by Council.

OBJECT IVES

To deliver a culturally sensitive, economicallyviable, socially acceptable, andenvironmentally sustainable treatmentprocess and service solution.

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Technical, cultural, social, and environmentalissues related to the purpose-built treatmentsystem at the Taruheru Cemetery are consideredlow risk on account of the investigations alreadycompleted, the simple nature of the treatmentand disposal system, and the outcomes of iwiconsultation to date. However, technical, financialand cultural aspects of collection, storage,transport, and interment of mortuary wastewaterwill be more challenging and add complexity tothe process.

KEY RISKS AND I SSUES

The bylaw will affect businesses such as funeralhomes and the hospital, with these requiringchanges to their processes and additionalinfrastructure. An amendment to a bylaw requires arobust consultation process. This process may raiseconcerns over increased costs.

Separation of mortuary wastewater has thepotential to increase the cost of mortuary,funeral and burial processes, which will be anadded cost to the community.

Iwi consider it abhorrent that any mortuarywastewater enters the public wastewaternetwork and ends up in the rivers or the sea.The separation is therefore likely to affect allresidents of Tairawhiti, as additionalwastewater costs may then apply to all usersof funeral homes. This will have to form partof the engagement and consultationprocess.

Any potential financial cost on thecommunity and business will need to bedetermined, differentiating between costsapplied to rates and user-pays.

TECHNICAL

CULTURAL

FINANCIAL

To undertake the technical, legal andconsultation tasks required deliver asuitable alternative method of treatmentand disposal of mortuary wastewater. Funding will need to be secured- staff will provide a

report to Council for budget approval.Once implemented, there would be ongoing costsassociated with operation and maintenance of thefacilities and processes.

FUNDING THE PROJECT

The project will require a mix of operational andcapital budgets, including consultant and expert fees,engagement costs, and infrastructure costs. Counciloperational and capital costs in the project phase areestimated at less than $50k and $100k, respectively.

21 NOV 2019

19 DEC 2019

MARCH 2020

MARCH 2020

MARCH 2020

MARCH 2020

SEPTEMBER 2020

DECEMBER 2020

MARCH 2021

FINAL PROJECT PLAN

FUNDING REQUEST

ENGINEERED DESIGN

CULTURAL INPUT

FINANCE OPTIONS

EARLY ENGAGEMENT

OVERALL ENGAGEMENT

BYLAW APPROVED

SEPARATION OPERATIONAL

OVERAL AUD PROJECT PLAN

PAPER TO COUNCIL

SEPTIC TANK AND MOUND

DESIGN & PROCESS

IMPACT ON RATES / COMMUNITY

KEY STAKEHOLDERS & COMMUNITY

KIWA, KEY STAKEHOLDERS

END OF PROCESS

CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE

ACTIVITY COMPLETION COMMENTS

A detailed design of the treatment system isrequired, looking at its size, dimensions,planting, amenity, and siting within theTaruheru Cemetery. This will requireengineering design, landscape designexpertise, engagement and consultationinto design, and cultural advice (includingTikanga and Kawa practices).

Technical, financial, and cultural aspects ofcollection, storage, transport, and intermentof mortuary wastewater will also need to beframed, scoped, defined, and designed /provided for. This will require MataurangaMaori advice and support, including inputfrom the KIWA Group.

We will need to investigate cost-effectiveand practical financial models. In a parallel process, Council staff willreview the Tradewaste Bylaw(https://www.gdc.govt.nz/trade-waste/),as an instrument for enacting theseparation process. The technical andcultural aspects described above wouldprovide context for the bylaw changes.

Technical solutions to treatment anddisposal of mortuary wastewater havealready been scoped. The provision of aSeptic Tank plus Wisconsin Mound is thepreferred wastewater system. The SepticTank is the treatment system, and theWisconsin Mound is the disposal system(although further treatment is alsoachieved through the Wisconsin Mound).

WHAT 'S OUR APPROACH ?

While this treatment system achieveswestern science wastewater qualityoutcomes and is environmentallyacceptable, it also has the support of iwibecause of the through-earth processesoffered by the Wisconsin Mound. TheTaruheru Cemetery has been identified assuitable site for this infrastructure.

WHAT MAHI WILL WE UNDERTAKE ?

Hauora TairawhitiFuneral homesGDC committees and assetmanagersTangata whenua

KEY STAKEHOLDERS

HOW DO WE MAKE

THIS HAPPEN ?

Earlyengagementwith keystakeholders.

We secureengineering inputto ensure a fit-for-purpose functionaldesign isproduced.

We assessoperationalmatters, ensuringprocesses are cost-effective and fit-for-purpose.

Iwi would input on technicaland cultural aspects of theproject, including integrationof Matauranga Maori andTikanga into processes anddesign.

We scope prospectivefinancial models, identifyinga preferred model to fundthe project. This will includean assessment of potentialuser and rates costs.

On amendment of the bylaw,any infrastructure would haveto be constructed andoperational processes put inplace to complete capitalworks.

This would lead into afurther robust engagementprocess, ensuring that thecommunity and keystakeholders are consultedand have opportunities toinput into the process.

WHEN WILL WE MAKE

THIS HAPPEN ?

SEPARATION OF MORTUARY WASTE FROM THE PUBLICWASTEWATER SYSTEM

This would include outcomeson technical, financial andcultural aspects of collection,storage, transport, interment,treatment and disposal ofmortuary wastewater.

Proposed draftamendments to theexisting Tradewaste Bylawwould be presented toCouncil in a report.

Should Council approvethe proposedamendments, GDC staffwould manage the processto amend the bylaw.

PROJECT CONTRIBUTORS

GDC Maori Engagement and Policy AdvisorsGDC technical, financial and engineering staffKIWA GroupWastewater Technical Advisory GroupWastewater Management CommitteeExternal specialists

Attachment 20-47.3


The Wastewater Technical Advisory Group (WTAG), WastewaterManagement Committee (WMC), and the Turanganui a KiwaWater Quality Enhancement project team considered the issueof mortuary waste as part of the wastewater consent. Reports on mortuary waste were subsequently provided to theEnvironmental Planning & Regulations Committee (EPR) (15-357Land Based Discharge of Mortuary Wastewater, 21 October 2015)and the WMC (15-463 Land Based Discharge of MortuaryWastewater, 26 November 2015). Through these reports it wasproposed to solve the issue of mortuary waste by separatelyregulating and managing mortuary wastewater. Mortuary waste was to be investigated by:

Completing a feasibility assessment of the potential optionsfor removal of mortuary wastewater from the wastewatertreatment network to a land-based septic system on Councilland.Investigating the regulation of the disposal of mortuary wastethrough a mortuary wastewater bylaw.Development of a bylaw including ensuring the bylaw is themost appropriate way of managing mortuary wastewater, itis in the most appropriate form, and it is not inconsistent withthe New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. In addition, it is builton a strong evidence-based policy position.

APPENDIX 1 SEPARAT ION OF MORTUARY WASTEWATER – WHAT HAS LED TO TH IS POINT ?

Consequently a feasibility report was produced (as part of 16-128 Land Based Discharge of Mortuary Wastewater:Feasibility Report) and provided to the EPR Committee. Thereport comprised the following:

An outline of a proposed separation and treatmentsystem for mortuary and funeral related liquid wastes.The statutory and planning context.An assessment of the socio-cultural, economic andenvironmental effects anticipated. Recommendations relating to the implementation of thisproposal.

Based on this report officers suggested that there was afeasible solution, and subject to costs, impacts and a projectbusiness case, it was also noted that this would be asignificant step toward the exclusion of sensitive wastes fromconventional wastewater. This was considered by the WTAG, iwi, KIWA, and Councilproject team as an important component for achieving thecultural outcomes intended in the wastewater consent. However, the recommendations by Council staff to proceedwith further work on mortuary waste were not carried by theEPR Committee with key issues debated including culturalaspects such as biotransformation, costs, consultation, andprecedent.

An Independent Review Panel (IRP) was also created mid-2018 as required by the wastewater consent (CD-1208-02ex CP-1208-01). Background on the IRP is provided inReports 18-241, 18-353 and 18-424. Regarding mortuarywaste, the IRP concluded the following: The IRP recommends that the Permit Holder prioritisesthe separation of wastewater derived from mortuary andfuneral home activities from domestic wastewater andfinds an alternative for disposal of this waste stream thatdoes not involve the mixing of this waste with domestichuman waste or the discharge of this waste to PovertyBay. Based on the information provided to the IRP itappears that an environmentally sustainable, affordableand culturally sensitive alternative disposal arrangementhas previously been identified for this sensitive wastestream via land disposal by Wisconsin Mound at theTaruheru Cemetery. The CRG also strongly recommended that the separationof mortuary waste from the domestic wastewater systemis progressed. The separation of mortuary waste from the domesticwastewater system has been considered over a significantperiod of time.

The need for this work to be progressed has beensupported by the Wastewater Technical Advisory Group(WTAG), WMC, the Turanganui a Kiwa Water QualityEnhancement project team, iwi groups, and the CRG. Of significance, the IRP (an independent bodyestablished through the conditions in the existingwastewater consent) has recommended to Council thatthe separation of mortuary wastes from the domesticwastewater system is prioritised. The WMC consequently recommended to Council at its18 October 2018 meeting that this work is progressed. Council staff at the 28 February 2019 Council meetingrequested direction from Council on whether toprogress this work, including further work on thepractical aspects of separate treatment of mortuarywaste, regulatory aspects, and financial considerations. At the 28 February 2019 meeting Councillors adoptedthe recommendation of the WMC that Mortuary wastebe removed from the domestic wastewater system.Council staff are now progressing this direction.

Attachment 20-47.3


Attachment 20-47.3


Item / Activity - Capital 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30Engineering & specialist input (design) 15,000$ 15,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Integrating Te Ao Māori / Mātauranga Māori (incl. KIWA Group) 20,000$ 15,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Infrastructure (incl. access, septic tanks, pumps, Wisconsin Mound, planting, signage, etc.) -$ 120,000$ 10,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Establishment period for vegetation etc. -$ 5,000$ 2,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Building Consent -$ 5,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Resource / Land Use Consents -$ 20,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Consultation 5,000$ 5,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Project Management, Quality Assurance 5,000$ 10,000$ 5,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Total 45,000$ 195,000$ 17,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Item / Activity - Operational Costs 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30Cemetery maintenance - infrastructure -$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$ Cemetery maintenance - vegetation -$ -$ 2,500$ 5,000$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$ 2,500$ Collection and transport (incl. Collection, transport, disposal, operational contract), incl. KIWA Group input -$ -$ 95,800$ 95,800$ 95,800$ 95,800$ 95,800$ 95,800$ 95,800$ 95,800$ 95,800$ Bylaw process 10,000$ 15,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Total 10,000$ 17,500$ 100,800$ 103,300$ 100,800$ 100,800$ 100,800$ 100,800$ 100,800$ 100,800$ 100,800$

Item / Activity - Operational Costs 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30KIWA Group annual budget 15,000$ 35,000$ 35,000$ 35,000$ 35,000$ 35,000$ 35,000$ 35,000$ 35,000$ 35,000$ 35,000$ Technical & engagement work related to progressing AUD -$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ 65,000$ LTP Budget - Already committed 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Total 65,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$

Approved AUD Budgets LTP 2018-28 50,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 75,000$ 100,000$

Mortuary Wastewater

Other Alternate Use and Disposal Activities / Work

Attachment 20-47.4


Documents

WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT Committee for decision Low · Wastewater Management Committee 5 March 2020 1 of 82 10.2. Alternate Use and Disposal Update {report–number} Title: Alternate