GLENORCHY WASTEWATER SCHEME VIEWPOINT

Jun 13, 2016

The following are two opinions on the Wastewater Scheme - from Tony Pink, a Glenorchy land owner and an engineer with extensive overseas experience at very senior levels, and Vince Jones, the first chairman of the Wastewater Committee and a long time Glenorchy resident.

Click on the document below to open/download.

wastewater

Related documents:

Leave a comment

Please tick the box to prove you're a human and help us stop spam.

Comments

Trish Fraser

Jun 19, 2016 @ 09:05

I believe the key issues for ratepayers are that any scheme/partial scheme is affordable and equitable. We know these schemes can blow out, there are plenty of examples around NZ. A key question for Council is what is the minimum we need to do to rectify existing sewerage problems and prevent potential problems. It may be that there is only a problem with the Commercial sector and Humboldt subdivision. These could be solved with partial schemes not a whole town scheme.

Many people in this town have already spent a lot of money on onsite wastewater systems, now they will be asked to pay another $19,000 + gst +/- 20% and who knows this could be more. If it blows out, it's our problem not Council's. Council is being very quiet on annual operation costs which could be $800 +/- 20% + interest on top of our already exorbitant rates and water charges. Glenorchy could well be one of the most expensive places in NZ to live.

Niki Gladding

Jun 13, 2016 @ 23:02

Forget STEP vs Gravity - given the current cost estimates we should now be debating partial vs whole township reticulation.

The fact is that ALL of the current options will require onsite infrastructure that needs to be maintained. Council's preferred hybrid gravity option requires a pressure sewer in the flood zone; that's 60 tanks and 60 grinder pumps to macerate solids and pump the slurry out of the flood zone. It also requires 4 very large pumps that will run all day pumping raw sewerage (including all solids flushed down the loo) through town, under the Bucklerburn and up to the reserve. Onsite STEP pumps run once a day for a few minutes and only pump primary-treated liquids.
Logical arguments can be made in favour of all the options but any decisions must be based on the numbers - reliable numbers (for costs and discharge quality).

QLDC believe that both options will be costly ($18000 - $19 000 +-20% plus GST plus interest costs over 15 years plus an unspecified targeted rate to cover operating costs). That could easily amount to $2500 - $3000 per year - more if it 'blows out'. We are asking that of people with complying discharges many of whom have recently paid $20 000 for modern systems discharging very high quality treated effluent.

So what we need to be discussing (because Council haven't) is whether reticulation of the entire township is any cheaper or better for the environment than high quality onsite discharge.

Reticulation of the commercial properties and public toilets would allow GY businesses to grow without ever passing the costs of that growth on to residential ratepayers. It would also allow residential property owners to adopt the wastewater solution that best suits their circumstances and values: that could be a holding tank or it could be a secondary or tertiary treatment tank or a compost toilet with urine and greywater separation.

This solution would be more resistant to and resilient in an earthquake scenario. It would also allow for the adoption of sustainable technologies. There will be compliance costs in the future but we need to understand what those costs are likely to be, because they may well be less than the cost of pumping our poo to the reserve!

I'm not pushing for a particular option (yet). I'm pushing for reliable cost estimates and risk assessments for all practicable options including partial reticulation options.

Let's make sure the numbers can do the talking!