Oyster farmers' 7-year battle with Watercare
A group of oyster farmers in the north of Auckland have reached breaking point over sewage overflow and want the government to intervene.
The 10 marine farms have been in a seven-year battle with council-controlled organisation Watercare to stop sewage overflowing into the Mahurangi Harbour, which contaminates their oyster crops.
Watercare provides water and wastewater services to the people of Auckland.
At least one farmer is having to close their business, while many fear they will not survive the year, despite a pipe upgrade in September that will provide a short-term fix.
At this stage, a long-term solution to the piping problem in Elizabeth St in Warkworth is not expected until 2028.
Minister for Oceans and Fisheries Shane Jones said Watercare had "failed in their statutory duty of care to the Mahurangi oyster farmers".
"They are solely responsible for the collapse of the infrastructure that has ruined the businesses of the Mahurangi oyster farmers.
"I am astounded that this colossus will not step up to the plate and offer financial compensation to these marine farmers, who through no fault of their own are now penalised because of the failure of water care."
Jones said he was looking into what levers the government had over Watercare.
"There are many areas where the Auckland City Council wants the assistance of central government. The Auckland Council is in control of Watercare, and it seems extraordinary that we're expected as central government to deliver positive outcomes for the Auckland City Council, yet one of their organisations is driving local marine farmers to penury and offering no assistance, no relief whatsoever.
"Watercare is a well-heeled organisation, they're not short of capital. What they're short of, though, is corporate responsibility and obviously, don't place any importance on the maintenance of a social licence to continue to operate.
"Their organisation should be renamed Zero Care. But more importantly, this is a comment on their culture," the minister said.
"They know and they've known for a long time about how weak the piping system is around Mahurangi. They've chosen to find every excuse in the world to delay fixing it up and now the oyster farmers are the casualties of this corporate delinquency."
According to the farmers, the pipe network was originally scheduled to be upgraded in 2021 but never was.
Watercare says it had expedited repairs to the wastewater overflow.
Chief executive Jamie Sinclair told RNZ's Morning Report programme today it had to build a new wastewater treatment plant and pump station, but will make a short-term fix by September.
"The first part is expediting what I'd call an interim solution, which is an over-pumping solution, which will be in place by the end of August, which will reduce those overflows by about 50 percent.
"That's not the end solution, there will still be overflows. For the final outcome, we have reorganised our programme - the previous timeline was 2028 - we are now looking to have the outcome, an almost full reduction in overflows by the end of 2026.
"So I know that that that's still time. There's still pressure today on on the oyster farmers and their businesses, but that is that is our priority is to fix this issue as quickly as possible."
Sinclair said he felt for the affected farmers, their families and livelihoods, but would not comment on whether they could sue Watercare for lost business.
"We've been investing for the last six years in this community. We'll be spending about $450 million. And it's really this final piece of the puzzle which will alleviate the overflows at that particular location."
The issue of wastewater overflowing into the Mahurangi Harbour has been ongoing since 2018, when farmers first raised it with Watercare.
Because oysters are filter feeders, they help remove the pollution in the harbour but by doing so, there was a high risk of food poisoning if they were eaten.
Mahurangi Oysters farmer Jim Aitken said his own health working the oyster farms was also at risk.
"Yeah, we're cleaning up their mess and we're not receiving any support for literally working in human waste.
"This farm is the exception, but most of these farms, you are in knee-deep in mud, waist-deep in water, getting cut on sharp oysters, nails, all kinds of things, and now we have to worry about potentially getting quite serious infections from sewage.
"When we get 9mm of rain - which is happening almost weekly - that should not be triggering a spill so easily, and consistently too. Like it's not a random thing, and we're told that the pipes that are connecting storm to wastewater have been disconnected, which should never have been connected in the first place.
"But the increase has tripled, so far it's on track to quadruple the number of spills because we've already doubled what we did last year, what they did last year for spills, it's pretty astounding that there isn't even an increase in rainfall compared to last year."
"We're wondering what's going on here, why has it suddenly increased so dramatically, is another question too, what we're trying to figure out," Aitken said.
Lynette Dunn from Orata Marine Oysters said she had not been able to sell any locally grown produce since Christmas and had to approach Work and Income for financial support.
She said MPs needed to take action to save the estimated $8 million oyster industry in Mahurangi Harbour.
"They need to start hammering the Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, telling him we need some action. The government's the only person, or the only identity that's going to take Watercare on."
Dunn's family business has run for 30 years and has overcome many adversities, but she said this has been the toughest period.
"Every day I've been crying, you know? I think to myself, like, I'm not going to cry today... Because it's not our fault, it's their fault - and they're not doing anything about it.
"You wail awake at night time, thinking, 'okay, how much sewage is going to go into the harbour'".
"We used to have, like, 5 or 10 mils of rain, and we'd be closed for fresh water, or 50 to 60 mils of rain, we'll get closed for 10 days for fresh water, but now we're getting closed 28 days constantly on 5 mils of rain.
"In some instances, there's no rain and there's sewage spills, but this last one was 670 cubic metres of sewage pumped into the harbour on Thursday. You know, like, the water in the streets of Warkworth, running down their pipes are overflowing and sewage coming out," she said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
Taxpayer Funded Satellite Likely "Irrecoverable" After Losing Contact With The Ground
, Climate Change Correspondent Space Minister Judith Collins has declined to answer questions about the loss of a taxpayer-funded satellite. The New Zealand government put $29 million towards MethaneSAT, which has been lost in space after going off course. The government invested in MethaneSAT in the hopes of growing the space industry. The mission's goal was to name and shame oil and gas producers that are allowing planet-heating methane to escape into the atmosphere. RNZ has been asking about problems with the satellite since September and was previously told its issues were "teething problems". Asked if the public had been kept adequately informed, Minister Collins said she had nothing to add and questions should go to the New Zealand Space Agency, which is part of the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment. The Space Agency released a statement saying the owners of the MethaneSAT satellite had advised contact with the satellite was lost on 20 June and attempts to restore communication have been unsuccessful. "Clearly this is a disappointing development. As those who work in the space sector know, space is inherently challenging, and every attempt, successful or not, pushes the boundaries of what we know and what we're capable of." "New Zealand has been a partner in the MethaneSAT mission since 2019, which is a collaboration with the US-based Environmental Defense Fund. "While the mission's primary focus has been detecting and measuring global oil and gas emissions, New Zealand's involvement extended the focus to a science programme to investigate the detection of methane emissions from agriculture and other sources." It said New Zealand's involvement had "strengthened our expertise and space capability as a country" and generated 97 measurements over agricultural land including 13 measurements over New Zealand, which scientists at Earth Sciences New Zealand, formerly NIWA, would work with as part of their $6 million project using the satellite. The satellite's owners released a statement overnight saying the taxpayer-funded climate satellite had lost contact with the ground and "is likely not recoverable." "While this is difficult news, it is not the end of the overall MethaneSAT effort, or of our work to slash methane emissions," said a statement released by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the US group behind the satellite. The mission has been plagued by delays, first to its launch date and then to the arrival of its promised data about global methane emissions. The University of Auckland has been waiting to take over the mission control at its new, partly taxpayer-funded Te Pūnaha Ātea Space Institute. The announcement of the satellite's demise came just two days after the latest deadline for handing control over to university staff and students. In May, the mission's chief scientist said more intense solar activity because of a peak in the sun's magnetic cycle had been causing MethaneSAT to go into safe mode. The satellite had to be carefully restarted every time. There had also been a problem with one of the satellite's three thrusters, which maintain its altitude and steer the spacecraft. MethaneSAT had said it could operate fully on two thrusters. The new information helps explain why control of the satellite had to be handed back to its manufacturers in Colorado in March instead of going straight from Rocket Lab to the University of Auckland as planned. The university had said it would still operate the mission control from a delayed start date of June, and staff had been involved in day-to-day tasks ahead of the full hand over. The ability to learn from operating the satellite was a major rationale for the government's investment, after early hopes that it would reveal new information about New Zealand's methane emissions proved incorrect. New Zealand scientists had raised questions about what they saw as a lack of transparency with the New Zealand public about delays to the satellite's data. EDF, the environmental non-profit behind the satellite mission, told RNZ in October that the spacecraft was performing as expected and there were no "notable or particular complications outside the realm of what would be anticipated". But just a few months later, after more questions from RNZ, MethaneSAT announced that control of the satellite had been transferred back to its maker Blue Canyon Technologies so it could fix "challenges." When RNZ previously asked EDF if its response in October had been true it said the issues were "teething problems" and nothing beyond what was expected. "MethaneSAT experienced the sort of teething problems that one would encounter with any new mission using a new platform (bus), but nothing outside the bounds of what was to be expected. The expectation was that developing an efficient, well-honed set of operating procedures takes time," it said. MethaneSAT acknowledged in October the process was taking longer than expected, particularly commissioning the thrusters. However it did not disclose the issue with the satellite having to be brought out of safe mode until RNZ asked a list of specific questions. In March, Collins was asked about the mission's problems - but told Parliament she could not say because of confidentiality. In February, the government's Space Agency also cited the need for confidentiality when it declined to answer questions from RNZ about what was wrong. University of Auckland astrophysicist Richard Easther was among the critics of the mission's lack of communication about its problems. On Wednesday, he said New Zealand needed a "no blame" review to understand "how New Zealand blew past so many red flags about MethaneSAT's operation." "This is a tragedy for the people here who worked hard on it, and for New Zealand science." He said the mission "kept pumping out upbeat comms even after it became apparent that the spacecraft had major problems which in many cases appear to have been present since launch." Full statement from EDF: "On Friday, June 20, the MethaneSAT mission operations lost contact with MethaneSAT. "After pursuing all options to restore communications, we learned this morning that the satellite has lost power, and that it is likely not recoverable. "While this is difficult news, it is not the end of the overall MethaneSAT effort, or of our work to slash methane emissions. "Launched in March 2024, MethaneSAT had been collecting methane emissions data over the past year. It was one of the most advanced methane tracking satellites in space, measuring methane emissions in oil and gas producing regions across the world. "The mission has been a remarkable success in terms of scientific and technological accomplishment, and for its lasting influence on both industry and regulators worldwide. "The engineering team is conducting a thorough investigation into the loss of communication. This is expected to take time. We will share what we learn. "Thanks to MethaneSAT, we have gained critical insight about the distribution and volume of methane being released from oil and gas production areas. "We have also developed an unprecedented capability to interpret the measurements from space and translate them into volumes of methane released. "This capacity will be valuable to other missions. "EDF and MethaneSAT remain firmly committed to our core purpose of turning data into action to protect the climate including reducing methane emissions from the global oil and gas industry. "The advanced spectrometers developed specifically for MethaneSAT met or exceeded all expectations throughout the mission. In combination with the mission algorithms and software, we showed that the highly sensitive instrument could see total methane emissions, even at low levels, over wide areas, including both large sources (super emitters) and the smaller ones that account for a large share of total methane emissions, which were not visible from space until MethaneSAT. "EDF and MethaneSAT remain firmly committed to our core purpose of turning data into action to protect the climate, including reducing methane emissions from the global oil and gas industry. "We will be working with partners around the world to leverage the algorithms and associated software as well as the now-proven high precision technology that was developed as part of the MethaneSAT mission so the world has access to high quality actionable greenhouse gas emissions data on a global basis. "We will continue to process data that we have retrieved from the satellite and will be releasing additional scenes of global oil and gas production region-scale emissions over the coming months. "To solve the climate challenge requires bold action and risk-taking and this satellite was at the leading edge of science, technology and advocacy. "We also will continue to work closely with our partners to reduce methane emissions and implement the goals of the Global Methane Pledge, The Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter, Oil and Gas Methane Partnership 2.0, the United Nations Environment Programme's International Emissions Observatory and Climate and Clean Air Coalition, and so many other efforts this mission was designed to support."
Otago Daily Times
16 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Oyster farmers' 7-year battle with Watercare
By Victor Waters of RNZ A group of oyster farmers in the north of Auckland have reached breaking point over sewage overflow and want the government to intervene. The 10 marine farms have been in a seven-year battle with council-controlled organisation Watercare to stop sewage overflowing into the Mahurangi Harbour, which contaminates their oyster crops. Watercare provides water and wastewater services to the people of Auckland. At least one farmer is having to close their business, while many fear they will not survive the year, despite a pipe upgrade in September that will provide a short-term fix. At this stage, a long-term solution to the piping problem in Elizabeth St in Warkworth is not expected until 2028. Minister for Oceans and Fisheries Shane Jones said Watercare had "failed in their statutory duty of care to the Mahurangi oyster farmers". "They are solely responsible for the collapse of the infrastructure that has ruined the businesses of the Mahurangi oyster farmers. "I am astounded that this colossus will not step up to the plate and offer financial compensation to these marine farmers, who through no fault of their own are now penalised because of the failure of water care." Jones said he was looking into what levers the government had over Watercare. "There are many areas where the Auckland City Council wants the assistance of central government. The Auckland Council is in control of Watercare, and it seems extraordinary that we're expected as central government to deliver positive outcomes for the Auckland City Council, yet one of their organisations is driving local marine farmers to penury and offering no assistance, no relief whatsoever. "Watercare is a well-heeled organisation, they're not short of capital. What they're short of, though, is corporate responsibility and obviously, don't place any importance on the maintenance of a social licence to continue to operate. "Their organisation should be renamed Zero Care. But more importantly, this is a comment on their culture," the minister said. "They know and they've known for a long time about how weak the piping system is around Mahurangi. They've chosen to find every excuse in the world to delay fixing it up and now the oyster farmers are the casualties of this corporate delinquency." According to the farmers, the pipe network was originally scheduled to be upgraded in 2021 but never was. Watercare says it had expedited repairs to the wastewater overflow. Chief executive Jamie Sinclair told RNZ's Morning Report programme today it had to build a new wastewater treatment plant and pump station, but will make a short-term fix by September. "The first part is expediting what I'd call an interim solution, which is an over-pumping solution, which will be in place by the end of August, which will reduce those overflows by about 50 percent. "That's not the end solution, there will still be overflows. For the final outcome, we have reorganised our programme - the previous timeline was 2028 - we are now looking to have the outcome, an almost full reduction in overflows by the end of 2026. "So I know that that that's still time. There's still pressure today on on the oyster farmers and their businesses, but that is that is our priority is to fix this issue as quickly as possible." Sinclair said he felt for the affected farmers, their families and livelihoods, but would not comment on whether they could sue Watercare for lost business. "We've been investing for the last six years in this community. We'll be spending about $450 million. And it's really this final piece of the puzzle which will alleviate the overflows at that particular location." The issue of wastewater overflowing into the Mahurangi Harbour has been ongoing since 2018, when farmers first raised it with Watercare. Because oysters are filter feeders, they help remove the pollution in the harbour but by doing so, there was a high risk of food poisoning if they were eaten. Mahurangi Oysters farmer Jim Aitken said his own health working the oyster farms was also at risk. "Yeah, we're cleaning up their mess and we're not receiving any support for literally working in human waste. "This farm is the exception, but most of these farms, you are in knee-deep in mud, waist-deep in water, getting cut on sharp oysters, nails, all kinds of things, and now we have to worry about potentially getting quite serious infections from sewage. "When we get 9mm of rain - which is happening almost weekly - that should not be triggering a spill so easily, and consistently too. Like it's not a random thing, and we're told that the pipes that are connecting storm to wastewater have been disconnected, which should never have been connected in the first place. "But the increase has tripled, so far it's on track to quadruple the number of spills because we've already doubled what we did last year, what they did last year for spills, it's pretty astounding that there isn't even an increase in rainfall compared to last year." "We're wondering what's going on here, why has it suddenly increased so dramatically, is another question too, what we're trying to figure out," Aitken said. Lynette Dunn from Orata Marine Oysters said she had not been able to sell any locally grown produce since Christmas and had to approach Work and Income for financial support. She said MPs needed to take action to save the estimated $8 million oyster industry in Mahurangi Harbour. "They need to start hammering the Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, telling him we need some action. The government's the only person, or the only identity that's going to take Watercare on." Dunn's family business has run for 30 years and has overcome many adversities, but she said this has been the toughest period. "Every day I've been crying, you know? I think to myself, like, I'm not going to cry today... Because it's not our fault, it's their fault - and they're not doing anything about it. "You wail awake at night time, thinking, 'okay, how much sewage is going to go into the harbour'". "We used to have, like, 5 or 10 mils of rain, and we'd be closed for fresh water, or 50 to 60 mils of rain, we'll get closed for 10 days for fresh water, but now we're getting closed 28 days constantly on 5 mils of rain. "In some instances, there's no rain and there's sewage spills, but this last one was 670 cubic metres of sewage pumped into the harbour on Thursday. You know, like, the water in the streets of Warkworth, running down their pipes are overflowing and sewage coming out," she said.
RNZ News
21 hours ago
- RNZ News
Memo to Shane Jones: What if NZ needs more regional government, not less?
By Jeffrey McNeill of Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Analysis - If the headlines are anything to go by, New Zealand's regional councils are on life support. Regional Development Minister Shane Jones recently wondered whether "there's going to be a compelling case for regional government to continue to exist". And Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is open to exploring the possibility of scrapping the councils. This has all been driven by the realisation that the government's proposed resource management reforms would essentially gut local authorities of their basic planning and environmental management functions. Various mayors and other interested parties have agreed. While some are circumspect, there's broad agreement a review is needed. At present, each territorial council writes its own city or district plan. Regional councils write a series of thematic plans addressing different environmental issues. All the plans contain the councils' regulatory "rules" that determine what people can or cannot do. Under the coming reforms, the territorial and regional councils of each region would have only a single chapter each within a broader regional spatial plan. Their function would, for the main part, involve tweaking all-embracing national policies and standards. Further, all compliance and monitoring - now a predominantly regional council activity - is to be taken over by a national agency (possibly the Environment Protection Authority). This won't leave much for regional councils to do, compared with their broad remits now. In truth, regional councils have been targets since they were created as part of the Labour government's 1989 local government reform. Carried out in lockstep with the drafting of the Resource Management Act (passed in 1991), this established two levels of local government. City and district councils were to be responsible for infrastructure and the built environment. The new regional councils were more opaque, essentially multi-function, special-purpose authorities, recognising that some government actions are bigger than local but smaller than national. In the event, they became what in many countries would be thought of as environmental protection agencies. Their boundaries were drawn to capture river catchments, reflecting their catchment board antecedents, which looked after soil erosion and flood management. Other functions were drawn from other government departments. Air-quality management came from the old Department of Health. Coastal management was partly inherited from the Ministry of Transport, shared with the Department of Conservation. Public transport and civil defence were tacked on, given their cross-territorial scale and lack of anywhere else to put them. All their various functions have meant regional councils determine who gets to use the region's resources - and who misses out. And political decisions are a surefire way to make enemies. For example, the Resource Management Act applied the presumption that no one could discharge any contaminant into water unless expressly allowed by a rule or a resource consent. Regional councils therefore required their territorial councils to upgrade their rubbish dumps and sewage treatment systems. Similarly, farmers could no longer simply take water to irrigate or empty cowshed effluent straight into the nearest stream as of right. The necessary infrastructure upgrades were expensive. Ironically, these attempts to minimise the immediate impacts of such demands on water users saw urban voters and environmental groups criticise the councils and the government for being too soft on "dirty dairying" and other polluters. Parochialism also plays a part, as does the feeling in some rural communities that they're forgotten by their regions' cities, where most voters live. The perceived poor handling of events such as last year's Hawke's Bay flooding and the 2018 Wellington bus network failure have not helped. The government even replaced Environment Canterbury's elected council with appointed commissioners in 2010 over performance concerns, particularly in water management. Yet the regional council model has largely survived intact - with two exceptions. The Nelson-Marlborough Regional Council was replaced by the Nelson City and Marlborough and Tasman District unitary councils in 1992, as a token sacrifice to the conservative wing of the National government, which vehemently opposed the new regions. The genesis of the Auckland Council super-region can be traced to the 1999-2008 Labour government's frustration at getting a unified position from the city's seven councils on where to build a stadium for the 2011 Rugby World Cup. Not everyone is happy with the resulting metro-regional solution. If regional government is indeed put to rest, it will be another phase in this piecemeal evolutionary process. But the new model will still require central government to have a significant regional presence - and commensurate central government funding. But central government has had a regional-scale presence for a long time. Police, the fire service, economic development and social welfare agencies all have their own regional boundaries. Public health and tertiary training and education are also essentially regional. All these functions are inherently political. And in many other countries, they are are delivered by regional governments. Maybe, once the implications are looked at more closely, leaving regional councils intact will seem the easier and cheaper option. Indeed, there is a counter argument that we need more regional government, not less. The current impulse for local government change - including district council amalgamation - continues an ad hoc process going back more than 30 years. As I have argued previously, the form, function and funding of local government need to be considered together. The regional level of administration will not go away. But the overriding question remains: who should speak for and be accountable to their communities for what are ultimately still political decisions, whoever makes them?
